Prisons and Courts Bill (First sitting)

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Gyimah]

Q I guess the question I was driving at is, if you were able to get to the situation where you had the 1:6, could you improve safety? You are saying that, yes, that could help improve safety.

In terms of the other point that you made about remuneration, of course I agree that remuneration is important in this context. Do you see that what the Ministry of Justice is doing about additional allowances—there are obviously ongoing negotiations with the POA on pay and so on—could also help with recruitment and retention?

Joe Simpson: Yes. If we get the right deal, yes, of course that will always help. I hope we do.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Q Thank you very much for coming to the session. Good morning. Can I ask you about what measures are not in the Bill? I want to explore that with you. In the nine months since this Bill was promised, we have seen major riots in prisons, an increase in violence and a continued fall in staff numbers. Do you think this Bill in any way addresses those issues?

Joe Simpson: In the long term, it will; in the short term, no, because we are not seeing any difference. To get the 2,500 prison officers in post, you are going to have to recruit 8,000. As quickly as the Prison Service is bringing them in, they are leaving. It is not just new starters—you are losing experienced staff as well. They no longer want to work for the Prison Service because of the violence, because of what is happening in our prisons and because of the lack of support.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Q Does anybody else want to add any comments?

Rachel O'Brien: For a long time, there has been a discussion about steady state being needed before you can look at rehabilitation seriously. My view is that you have to do both. I think the Bill does not say that much, but what it does say is potentially profound. I agree that it is not just about recruiting people and remuneration. It is about saying, “What kind of people do we need now in this new world?” The duty implies significant differences, and I think there is a race going on between trying to get to that point of steady state and looking at the longer-term picture. I agree with much of what is in the Bill.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Q Mr Lomas?

Martin Lomas: The Bill addresses a number of operational matters—certainly relating to telephones and drugs—that we think are very important, but its main emphasis is on the purpose of imprisonment and scrutiny, so obviously that will be a medium to long-term improvement. We welcome that. Some of the issues you raised are about practical management and operational matters, which can be dealt with under current arrangements and structures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

I have met a number of our new recruits at Newbold Revel. I think they are going into it with their eyes wide open and a lot of them are proud to be working in a uniformed service with the opportunity to turn lives around. In terms of retention, I think it is down to everyone in the Prison Service to make sure that new recruits settle in well—the governor, prison officers on the wing—so that they can actually contribute productively.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Q Ms O’Brien, you have said that to have proper rehabilitation we need to return frontline staffing to 2010 levels.

Rachel O'Brien: We have not done that. I welcome the measures that have been taken, but we have not done that and I do not think for one minute that we do not have an existing staff problem. Even with what we have, it is going to take a long time for those people to come through. I have also met fantastic new officers who want to make a difference and are struggling to do so. One thing we have to bear in mind is that the new way of working means stopping doing some other stuff, and that is going to take time to flow through.

I also think, though, that there is a deeper need to look at the workforce capabilities. For example, we know that mental health is a major issue within prisons, and most officers do not feel prepared to give that kind of support; I am not talking about detailed intervention but just being aware of the key issues that they are going to face, day in and day out. The race is between really thinking about what that workforce looks like at a time when most people turn on the telly and see things that may not encourage them to join the service. I have met some fantastic people; the key is to keep them, to develop them and allow them to progress.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Q I do not think I have anything to declare, but for the avoidance of doubt I am a former practising barrister—non-practising at the moment. Joe Simpson, what are your views on the further professionalisation of the Prison Service in general, and then, specifically, what are your views on the new graduate scheme, the Unlocked scheme, that I think is starting this September?

Joe Simpson: I joined the Prison Service in 1987 and I have seen a lot of different things happen within the prison system, such as social work in prisons. We have seen the fast-track scheme before; it has taken prison officers right up to governor level—in fact, right up to second in command of the Prison Service. They are all well and good, but to make prisons safe we have to give prison officers more training than they are being given—mental health training, more suicide awareness, and more intervention with prisoners. Most of all, we need prison officers on the landing for what we call “dynamic security”—that is, they can see us and we can see them. We can keep an eye on them and keep them safe. When they can see us, they feel safe.

So we welcome the professionalisation of the prison officer and we are ready to talk to whoever wants to talk to us about professionalisation of our members and all prison staff. Yes, the graduate scheme will take people from the shop floor into higher management, if they want to go there; sometimes, though, in my experience, some of our managers forget where they have come from and what it is like to work on the shop floor. But we welcome anything that will professionalise our prison staff in making prisons safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Warman]

So the more targeted the technology—that is what the Bill more quickly allows for—the better, ultimately?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Q Whether we are talking about mobile phones, psychoactive drugs, mental health or education, the truth is that you do not have sufficient trained people in the Prison Service, or in the round, to deal with these problems. Unless and until those properly qualified and trained people are there, none of these problems will go away. It does not matter how much legislation we have about phones or drugs or whatever; unless there are people there to deal with it, nothing is really going to shift, is it?

Rachel O'Brien: That is a problematic position, and in a way I think that is where we have been stuck for years. We cannot do this stuff—we all agree with this rehabilitative outcome—until we have that. I agree, and I would love to see more staff investment, but a lot of it is also about culture and leadership. We have talked about rehabilitation, but we have a prison system that is still, in lots of ways, very command-and-control, and of the old military model. In terms of culture and hope, prison officers and prisoners are like us: they have ambition, purpose and activity. That is what is missing. Yes, we need more staff, and we need to use them and the external agencies more wisely, but the key is rethinking the culture and how prisons are run. That is what makes the difference. We know it makes a difference, because we have some fantastic prisons and wings and so on that operate very differently.

Nigel Newcomen: If I may say so, I think it is a counsel of defeat. The prison system has always faced many challenges. I described NPS as a game changer in one of my reports, and it probably has been, but it is not that there is no work going on in either supply reduction or demand reduction. There are even some very good efforts being made at harmonisation by prisoners themselves. There is always scope for improvement, and to assume that there is no answer to the problem is, as I say, a counsel of defeat.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Q I was not saying that there is not an answer to the problem. I was saying that, yes, some good things are happening—I am not saying nothing good is happening—but to achieve a level of productivity, if I may use that expression, you will need back-up resources. That is what I am talking about, in essence. That needs to be addressed fully.

Martin Lomas: There needs to be proper supervision of prisoners to give confidence to staff and prisoners. That might involve a resource solution, but equally, as colleagues have said, there are issues around leadership, accountability, learning the lessons that have just been pointed out to you, and sustaining improvement, rather than this being the rollercoaster that we often see. A variety of resource, cultural, management and leadership issues need to be put right.

Rachel O'Brien: You mentioned prisoners and the role of prisons. That is a huge untapped resource. It is very easy to talk about things like co-design and working with prisoner empowerment, but when you do it, you see the transformative change, not just among the prisoners but in the staff, and if staff are doing it, rather than people like me, that is how you get a completely different kind of response. Prisoners can be your best allies. They do not want to live in unsafe environments where it becomes the norm to be off your head. One of the things that would not be in the Bill but is absolutely about the culture is seeing prisoners and their families as key assets to support outcomes.

[The Chair]

Chris Philp, on this point. I want to exhaust this area before we move on to the next questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

A final brief question, because I want to give time for declarations, and a brief response, please.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Q I have two little questions.

[The Chair]

Just one.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Mr Lomas, in response to a question about the educational aspect of things you said, “Look at the intention of the Bill and the purpose of prisons.” Bearing in mind we have been hearing about issues of self-harm and about suicide rates increasing, what about enshrining prisoners’ mental and physical health in the statute book, in clause 1, giving it parity with the four other things?

Martin Lomas: I have not really anything more to add to what has been said already. Yes, possibly: it is an issue and a priority. Whether that specific issue of detail should be one of the stated purposes of imprisonment is a judgment call. It could be. As an inspectorate we will inspect it whether it is a stated purpose or not. There will be an obligation to meet that need if you are genuinely meeting the purpose of being rehabilitative and reforming. Mental health, for example, is fundamental. It is a priority. It is in a sense a subset of the stated purposes already. As to whether or not it should be elevated into being a stated purpose itself and whether that will impact all the issues that Nigel referred to earlier—of course we would like it to be stated in those terms, but what about other things of importance? Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons has its own criteria. We operate to independent criteria and will look at health outcomes, including mental health.

[The Chair]

Are there any hon. Members who want to declare an interest before the end of the sitting?

[Richard Burgon]

I am a former practising solicitor—I am non-practising now. I used to be an employee of Thompsons solicitors who have an interest in matters discussed this afternoon.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I was also a practising barrister. I stopped practising in 2010 but I have recently become a door tenant and I can now practise and may choose to practise.

Prisons and Courts Bill (Third sitting)

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd Sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 29th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

Prisons: purpose, and role of Secretary of State

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out “aim” and insert “adopt procedures and practices designed”.

This amendment strengthens “aims to” in Clause 1.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, after “safe” insert “, decent, fair”.

This amendment requires the purposes of prisons to include decency and fairness.

Amendment 11, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert

“for prisoners and prison staff”.

This amendment requires the purposes of prisons to include prison staff.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. May I inform the Committee that we will be seeking a Division on amendment 10?

When we heard that this Bill was being introduced, everyone got very excited about it because it was advertised as a once-in-a-generation chance to reform prisons. However, when we actually went through the Bill, we found that it has left out many things that it should be dealing with. Although we welcome certain parts of the Bill, it does not deal with many of the things that are at the crux of the problem with our prison system.

I think everybody is aware of the fact that there has been disorder at Lewes, Bedford, Moorland, Birmingham and Swaleside prisons. Yesterday, we heard from the experts that violence against staff and inmates and suicides are at record levels. Hard-pressed prison officers need more numbers and resources to deal with prisoner violence and to make prisons safe. The Bill does not deal with the issues of overcrowding, understaffing and the proper rehabilitation of offenders.

The probation service is not working, and again the Bill does not address its issues. People should leave prison ready to lead productive and law-abiding lives, but that can be achieved only if prisons are safe, decent and fair places in which those being punished can also begin to rebuild their lives. It is with that in mind that we tabled these amendments.

Rather than simply aiming to deliver the purposes of prisons, we want to adopt prison procedures and practices designed to deliver the purpose of prisons. Therefore, we want to add the words “decent” and “fair” to the clause. We think the prison environment should be decent and fair. That was one of the central conclusions of Lord Woolf’s inquiry into the disturbances at Strangeways and other prisons in 1990, which remains the central foundation for everything that a prison might achieve. The link between safety and decency is also recognised by the UN’s Nelson Mandela rules, which require that, in addition to safety, prisons must maintain the dignity of every person in custody. To ensure the Bill is compatible with the United Kingdom’s obligations, that duty should not be assumed or implicit; rather, it should be made explicit in our legislation.

A lack of confidence in the complaints system among prisoners stubbornly persists. Fewer than 30% of prisoners reported to inspectors that they felt their complaints were dealt with fairly. That view was upheld by the prison and probation ombudsman, which has seen the proportion of upheld complaints rise from 26% to 40% in only five years.

Establishing the minimum standards of safety, decency and fairness in prisons should also be a matter for Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons. The Prison Reform Trust has argued that, on the purpose of prisons, we should also enshrine in statute the existing case law about what life in prison should be like, as set out in Raymond v. Honey in 1982, which states that prisoners retain all civil rights not taken away expressly by Parliament or by necessary implication of the fact of imprisonment, such as voting and freedom of movement. An annual reporting duty will be linked to the statutory duty of prisons.

Amendment 11 would insert the words

“for prisoners and prison staff”.

Prison officers work in some of the most challenging conditions, and the Bill needs to focus on protecting them. We must ensure that their safety and working conditions are taken into consideration. In 2016 there were 25,049 assault incidents, which was up by 5,995 or 31%. That included 6,430 assaults on staff, which was up by 1,833 or 40%. No measures in the Bill impact on the likelihood of violence. An official statistics bulletin recognises the role of staffing cuts in the rising violence:

“The rise in assaults since 2012 has coincided with major changes to the regime, operating arrangements and culture in public sector prisons. For example, restructuring of the prison estate including staff reductions, which have reduced overall running costs, and an increasing awareness of gang culture and illicit psychoactive drugs in prisons.”

On 15 November last year, members of the Prison Officers Association took national protest action over the failure of the National Offender Management Service to address concerns about health and safety before a court injunction required them to return to work. The POA said:

“The continued surge in violence and unprecedented levels of suicide and acts of self harm, coupled with the recent murder and escapes demonstrate that the service is in meltdown.”

Staff morale is low and the statistics show that the number of prison officers continues to fall, and the leaving rate is increasing, in particular after one or two years’ service, despite the recruitment efforts. Unless we recognise that prison staff—their rights and working conditions—must be considered within the scope of the legislation, there is little prospect of prisons achieving their statutory purpose.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

Mr Brady, may I say how delighted I am to serve under your chairmanship on this historic day for our country? It is 65 years since the last major prisons Bill.

I am grateful to the Opposition for the points that they have made on the important issues of the debate, in which we are considering the statutory purpose of prison. From the outset, we should remember that prisons are there to deliver the sentences of the courts. As the Criminal Justice Act 2003 makes clear, one of the purposes of sentencing is to punish offenders, and of course this is important; but equally important is what we do with offenders when they are in prison.

The clause will make it clear in statute for the first time that the purpose of prisons should not only be to house prisoners, but include reforming prisoners and preparing them for a return to their community. Given the significance of that, I understand hon. Members’ interest. However, before I respond to the amendments individually, it might be helpful if I touch on four opening points to show how the statutory purpose fits within the broader prison landscape, as this will come up with some of the subsequent amendments that we will be debating.

First, we are enshrining the purpose of prisons in statute, to provide a clear common purpose that everyone working in the prison system, whether prison officers, governors, the independent inspectorates or the Secretary of State, can unite behind. Secondly, we have prison rules set out in secondary legislation, and therefore approved by Parliament. The rules are there to ensure the good regulation and management of prisons, and to make provision for the classification, treatment, employment, discipline and control of prisoners. They are also there to ensure that prisons are run fairly and to provide a clear legal basis for any interferences with prisoner rights. I emphasise the importance of prison rules in ensuring that some of the more detailed arrangements of running our prisons are captured in legislation.

Thirdly, our reforms will sharpen accountability through the system. We are clarifying the distinction between the Secretary of State’s role in managing the prison system as a whole and the operational running of individual prisons, which is for governors and their staff, as part of a new, operationally focused Executive agency, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. As hon. Members will be aware, the Secretary of State made a written ministerial statement on the introduction of the Bill which set out the standards for which governors will be held to account. Of course, they include security, such as the number of escapes or absconds from closed prisons, but they also include progress made on getting offenders off drugs, progress in health and in maintaining or developing family relationships.

To hold governors to account for these new standards, they must be free to manage. We are freeing them up to deliver change and devolving key operational policies to them, a subject I look forward to discussing further in amendments on minimum standards. The new performance management regime works with the purpose and prison rules by ensuring that a clear line of sight exists between the purpose and the standards.

Fourthly, we are enhancing the transparency and scrutiny of our regime. We already publish data on a wide number of different topics, for example, safety and custody statistics but we will go further because we want the public to understand that progress is being made in our prisons, so we will publish data setting out how prisons are performing. Data on some of the new performance measures will be available from October, as data start to be made public on a quarterly basis, and the performance agreements will be published from the summer. We will also publish performance tables to show how individual prisons are performing against key safety and reform standards. The table will present the data in a format that the user can rank by standard. It will be populated as data become available.

Finally, we will discuss later our approach to strengthening the independent scrutiny of our prison system through the prisons and probation ombudsman and Her Majesty’s inspector of prisons. All of that will contribute to assessing how the statutory purpose is being met.

As we consider the proposed additions to the purpose from the hon. Member for Bolton South East, it is important to consider whether they are rightly aims, or better suited to a different part of the new operational framework.  I shall consider each in turn. Amendment 9 would replace “aim” with “adopt procedures and practices designed”. Although I understand that the hon. Lady’s purpose is to strengthen the clause, I am not sure I agree that it would do so. The Government consider that it is implicit in the drafted duty of “must aim to” that prisons must “adopt procedures and practices designed” to achieve those aims. As I have set out, the statutory purpose is designed to provide a common purpose that all parts of the justice system can unite behind. In my view, “aim” is a broader and more inclusive way of ensuring that all the different parts of the system can identify their role in meeting the purpose.

Amendment 10 proposes the inclusion of “decent and fair” in the purpose. I want to stress that of course the Government strongly believe that all prisoners should be treated fairly and with decency. It is absolutely right that decency and fairness are, and continue to be, essential elements of running prisons. That is why there is already a range of legal obligations to ensure that prisons are run in a way that is decent.

First, it is a general principle of public law that the public authority must act fairly with those whom it deals with. Many of the obligations we signed up to under the European convention on human rights, and which were incorporated into domestic law in the Human Rights Act 1998, are relevant to decency in prisons. For example, article 3 of the convention means that prisoners must be detained in conditions that are compatible with respect for their human dignity.

Prisons must, of course, comply with the Equality Act 2010 and ensure that they do not discriminate against a person with a protected characteristic, such as race or disability. That is also an important part of ensuring fairness and decency. Many of the minimum requirements that contribute to ensuring that prisons are run in a decent way are also set out expressly in secondary legislation, in the Prison Act 1952 and principally in the Prison Rules 1999, which are secondary legislation approved by Parliament in the usual way.

The provisions are detailed and extensive and cover a wide range of requirements. For example, they include rules on checking cells and cell conditions; the provision of wholesome, nutritious food; hygiene; beds and bedding; and clothing adequate for warmth and health. In order to ensure that prisons are meeting those minimum standards, all prisons have an independent monitoring board that examines all aspects of prison life in order to ensure that prisoners are treated with fairness and decency. I argue that it is better to focus on ensuring that the aspects of a decent regime are included in the prison rules, rather than in the Bill. Prisons are already bound by legislation that requires them to act with decency and fairness.

Turning to fairness, there are a number of safeguards in place in the day-to-day running of prisons to ensure that the regime is fair. There is, of course, the general public law duty on prisons to act fairly and there are statutory requirements in place too. For instance, should a prisoner be charged with an offence against discipline, prison rule 54 provides that the prisoner

“shall be informed of the charge as soon as possible and…be given a full opportunity of hearing what is alleged against him and of presenting his own case”.

Prison rule 45, on removal from association, requires extended periods to be authorised by someone who is external to the prison who can scrutinise the reasons for the segregation. Where a prisoner has exhausted the internal complaints procedure, he may direct a complaint to the prisons and probation ombudsman. The Bill puts the PPO on a statutory footing to ensure his permanence and give him statutory powers. I look forward to discussing the role of external scrutiny in prisons in more detail later.

It is, of course, vital that we treat prisoners with decency and fairness if we are to expect them to turn their lives around. I completely agree about the importance of ensuring that we do. However, I believe that it is not necessary to include such a provision in the purpose, because a requirement for a fair and decent regime already exists elsewhere in legislation.

Although amendment 11 raises a very important question, I am happy to confirm that we are confident that the clause already covers prisoners and prison staff without an explicit reference to both. There is a risk that including such a reference may inadvertently omit others working within or with prisons, such as charities, inspectors and civil servants, who also need to take account of the purpose while performing their duties. I therefore beg the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

[The Chair]

The shadow Minister has already indicated that she wishes to press amendment 10 to a Division; it would be helpful if she indicated whether or not she wishes to withdraw amendment 9.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I intend to press amendment 10 to a Division, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 9.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 10, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, after “safe” insert “, decent, fair”.—(Yasmin Qureshi.)

This amendment requires the purposes of prisons to include decency and fairness.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor McGinn]

I thank the Minister for his response.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I just want to say that we support the amendments. Religion is important for many people. Safe provision of and access to religious faith leaders, whether a chaplain, an imam or whoever, are also important.

[Conor McGinn]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

In responding to amendment 3, I stress at the outset that the Government attach huge importance to prisoners, in the vast majority of cases, developing and maintaining supportive family relationships, which are critical to rehabilitation and reducing intergenerational crime. Families can play a significant role in supporting an offender. They are the most effective resettlement agency once a prisoner has been released, and research has found that prisoners who report improved family relationships over the course of their sentence are less likely to reoffend after release. Positive family relations have been identified as a protective factor in helping prisoners to turn their backs on crime.

Lord Farmer, working in partnership with Clinks, was commissioned to chair a working group to investigate how supporting men in prison in England and Wales to engage with their families could reduce reoffending and assist in addressing intergenerational crime. The Government will consider his findings and respond in due course. The evidence that his review has gathered will allow governors to deliver a local offer that best meets the needs of their respective prisoner cohort, thereby helping them to improve family ties.

However, the Government’s view is that maintaining and developing family relationships is already covered by paragraphs (b) and (c) of what will be new section A1 of the Prison Act 1952 when the Bill becomes law. Requiring prisons to aim to reform and rehabilitate offenders and to prepare prisoners for life outside prison is intended to capture a wide range of activity that is rehabilitative and helps to reduce reoffending. Maintaining family relationships is critical to both those aims.

I can also confirm that the role of the family is already contained in secondary legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole pointed out. Prison rule 4 already ensures that “special attention” is paid to the maintenance of family relationships, so long as they are in the best interests of both prisoner and family. Furthermore, rule 4 ensures that both encouragement and assistance is provided for prisoners in establishing relationships with those outside prison that will best promote the interests of his family and his own social rehabilitation.

An explicit reference to the maintenance and development of family relationships for that purpose ignores the fact that, for some prisoners, such as violent domestic cases, that would not be appropriate and therefore should not be pursued. Family relationships are already covered in the aims, with important detail contained in prison rules. That strikes the right balance between the overarching aim of the system and the detailed way in which the management of the prison should be carried out.

Let me be clear about the importance of family ties and relationships. Lord Farmer refers to that as a golden thread that runs through prison life, which is why from autumn 2017 governors will control budgets for family services, such as visitors’ centres, family engagement workers and family learning, which includes parenting skills classes. Those reforms will help governors to improve the way in which prisoners can engage with their families. Governors will therefore be able to respond flexibly to the particular needs of their local prison population in order to put in place the programmes and services that will be of most benefit. They will be able to deliver a local family offer that best meets the needs of their prisoners, helping them to develop and maintain positive family ties and reducing the risk of reoffending.

My hon. Friend rightly said that we need consistent practice across the estate. The ideas that Lord Farmer has generated, which we are considering, will help to deliver such consistency. I hope that I have provided my hon. Friend with the necessary reassurance and ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

We support the amendment. I assume that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole tabled it because although everybody says that it is important for offenders to maintain family relationships, in reality that is not happening. We find that many a time the offender is locked away in a prison about 300 miles away from his or her family, and the families are unable to visit either because of the great distances involved or because they cannot afford to travel several hundred miles or find the time to go—they may have young children or be elderly. There are all sorts of issues. Therefore, in reality families are unable to maintain contact with the offender, and the offender is unable to maintain contact with their family.

A number of constituents have come to me about this. A young woman has just had a second child, the husband has gone to prison and he has never seen his baby. She wants the father and the child to know each other, but because the distance to travel is so great and it is often so costly, in reality that is not happening. I ask the Government and the Prison Service to think about that. It is all very well saying, “Let’s maintain family relationships,” but we must ensure that the resources are there so that relationships can be maintained. Retransferring prisoners, perhaps to a location near to their home, if possible, should be considered urgently. I know from trying to get prisoners moved from one prison to another that it is an almost impossible task. It is all very well in theory, but we need something in the prison reforms to take place in practice.

By seeking to enshrine this provision in law, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is flagging up the importance of family relationships and ensuring that everyone is mindful of it. That is why we support the amendment.

[Mr Gyimah]

I want to make a couple of brief points. I acknowledge what the shadow Minister said about prisoners sometimes being located a long way away from their families. One of the facts about prison life is that prisoners often have to be moved. Sometimes prisoners want to be moved of their own volition, for example if they get into debt in prison or they are being bullied, and sometimes they do things that require them to be moved. At other times, for example if there is a major disturbance in a prison, it makes sense to disperse prisoners to deal with it. When that happens, we have the assisted visits scheme for those families who need help.

As we embark on reorganising the prison estate, we will be designing flexible facilities so that families can visit more easily, and the prisoner’s journey throughout their sentence will be organised in such a way that prisoners spend as much time as possible close to where their families are. That said, that is not always possible because prison life is incredibly complex. However, I take on board the points made by the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

As we heard in the evidence session yesterday, all the panellists agreed that having a long list here would defeat the purpose of having a common aim in statute. A prison that aims to be safe will ensure that offenders’ physical and mental health needs are addressed, and a prison that aims at rehabilitation and preparing prisoners for life outside prison will ensure that offenders are given the support they need to address their health, substance abuse or alcohol dependency issues. I hope that hon. Members will be persuaded that the Government are committed to prisoners’ mental and physical health and that they will withdraw the amendment.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Although everyone is aware that, theoretically, prisoners are treated for drug or alcohol misuse, in reality it is not happening. In reality, substance abuse is leading to more disturbances in prison and, of course, causing much reoffending. We are spending something like £16 billion tackling reoffending, so something is not going right. Many people are coming into prison because they are addicted to drugs or alcohol. I remember from my 20 years of prosecuting and defending in the criminal law that many of my clients and some whom I was prosecuting, often involving domestic violence, for example, were there because one partner was normally drunk and, in an argument, would start hitting out at their partner.

Young people I would see, who were often committing what we would call low-level offences—although I do not like to use that term—were often addicted to drugs. So, for example, they might be walking past a car with a door open or a window down, and if they saw a purse, they would take it; or they might break a window, take a purse and run off with it because they needed the money; or a mobile phone, which they could sell to get money to feed their drug addiction. In the same way, if they walked past a house with an open door and nobody seemed to be there, they often thought it was an ideal opportunity to go in and steal. I am not making excuses for anyone, but that is the reality of how things happened.

Why did those people do those things? Because they were addicted and they needed to find money quickly. They needed to sell something and get their next fix, to use a colloquialism. Therefore, as I think everyone knows, a lot of people who come into prison already have substance or alcohol abuse problems, and they still have those problems when they leave prison. It is therefore appropriate for the Committee properly to consider this issue, so we very much support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. It is one thing to say what should happen in theory, but that is not happening in reality. In reality, there is not enough provision in the Prison Service to deal with substance and alcohol abuse, and we know that that causes reoffending and violence. This really important issue needs to be addressed.

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank the shadow Minister for her points; I will make a couple of brief points in response. I agree that the level of violence—particularly violence related to the use of new psychoactive substances such as spice and mamba—is too high. In September, we rolled out a new drug test for psychoactive substances—the first and only such test in the world—so we are aware of the issue and we are dealing with it.

We are all aware that prisons are difficult places with some very difficult people to manage. The question is whether we need provision in the Bill to manage these issues. I contend that we need effective practice. When it comes to mental health, for example, we should ask whether processes work well in every prison and whether our prison officers are properly trained to identify how people present when they have mental health problems. I spoke to one of the people who works in our prisons about these issues, and they said that when a prisoner has a mental health problem or is considering taking their life, they enter a dark place and seek to cover their tracks and not really show what is happening internally. These are issues that we really need to train people on the ground to deal with.

I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn. This is about effective practice on the ground. We are alive to these issues, and we will get to grips with them by empowering governors to work closely with the agencies that matter, rather than by adding another list to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 2

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 7

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

‘1A Cooperation with agencies

(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to co-operate with other agencies and bodies whose functions are relevant to the purpose outlined in section (A1).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), agencies and bodies must include—

(a) local authorities,

(b) the National Probation Service,

(c) Community Rehabilitation Companies, and

(d) any agency which provides to offenders the following—

(i) housing,

(ii) education,

(iii) employment,

(iv) health care,

(v) treatment for addiction,

(vi) mentoring for offenders, or

(vii) support to families of offenders.’

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to co-operate with other agencies to fulfil the purpose of prisons.

It is vital that agencies work together to provide the best context in which to avoid reoffending. Many of the solutions to offending lie outside prison walls, in education and training, health and social care, accommodation and family support. A duty to co-operate introduced under amendment 13 would establish clearly in statute the vital importance of agencies working together to achieve the purposes of prison, and bind them to it.

The newly formed community rehabilitation companies are responsible for “through the gate” provision, but a recent joint inspection by Her Majesty’s inspectorates of probation and of prisons into the through-the-gate resettlement services found that the CRCs

“are not sufficiently incentivised under their contract arrangements to give priority to this work. Payment is triggered by task completion rather than anything more meaningful. Additional financial rewards are far off and dependent on reoffending rates that are not altogether within the CRC’s gift. CRC total workloads (and therefore income) are less than anticipated when contracts were signed. As CRCs continue to develop and adjust their operating models accordingly, CRCs are hard-pressed and are generally giving priority to work that is rewarded with more immediate and more substantial payment.”

Most concerning, the report also found:

“Too many prisoners reached their release date without their immediate resettlement needs having been met, or even recognised.”

The problems associated with CRCs are only exacerbated by the lack of co-ordination between relevant agencies. For example, housing is a crucial issue, with up to two thirds of prisoners requiring support to find housing once released. However, the inspectorates’ report found that prisoners did not know who would help them, what that help would consist of and when they would know what had been done. Many applications for housing made by those responsible were standard applications to local authorities.

At a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness, however, when we were considering prison leavers, all the witnesses agreed that local authorities regard housing former inmates as a low priority. Furthermore, the APPG found:

“Local authorities do not record people who become homeless immediately after leaving prison and we do not know the scale of prison leavers who are hidden homeless.”

The Bill should attempt to overcome such lacuna by mandating closer co-operation between all relevant agencies.

On mental health, it is crucial to consider the effect of leaving prison on former inmates. A report published in 2013 found that

“those leaving prison are almost seven times more likely to commit suicide than the rest of the population”.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Lady mentioned the APPG for ending homelessness. Has she had a chance to consider the Homelessness Reduction Bill, on the Bill Committee for which I had the privilege to serve? It was a private Member’s Bill, and I believe that it has just completed its passage through the Lords as recently as last week.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Any additional legislative reform is welcome, but problems still exist, which I am speaking to. In April 2016, the Centre for Mental Health published a report, “Mental health and criminal justice”, which called for a new concordat between different Government agencies, so that they can join together better to help people leaving prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

I assure my hon. Friend that we work closely with the Home Office, which is ultimately responsible for deportation. The Prison Service has to facilitate its work in prisons. There is a lead Ministers group, including Ministers from the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, which meets regularly to discuss all the issues about moving foreign national offenders under various schemes.

New legislation is not needed to ensure that co-operation between governors and other agencies and bodies continues; governors do that on a daily basis to ensure that different services, from education and employment to healthcare, are carried out. That can be seen in the relationships with employers, such as Timpson and Halfords, which run academies within prison to train offenders for employment on release, and in formal arrangements with NHS England to ensure that prisoners have access to the healthcare they need. We are introducing new performance measures to hold governors to account for their performance in a wide range of areas, including education and housing, and we expect governors to work closely with other agencies and bodies to do that.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East mentioned probation and, in particular, the community rehabilitation companies. I assure her that we are going through a probation system review and will publish the results shortly. That will deal with some of the challenges she outlined. Furthermore, the National Probation Service—as opposed to the community rehabilitation companies—is already covered by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, so the amendment would have the effect of creating a duty for the Secretary of State to co-operate with herself. We already have a formal contract with CRCs, so it would be unnecessary to create an additional duty to co-operate. I therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State must by regulation set minimum standards required to achieve the purpose as detailed in section (A1).

( ) Minimum standards in subsection (3) set under these regulations must in particular include, but shall not be restricted to, the following—

(a) overcrowding of prison cells,

(b) prison staff to prisoner ratio,

(c) access to appropriate and education,

(d) access to health care,

(e) access to time in open air,

(f) weekly time spent in locations other than cells, and

(g) Equality Act 2010 requirements.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to set minimum standards to achieve the purposes of prisons.

The Bill should require minimum standards in relation to the purposes of maintaining safety and decency. According to Silvia Casale’s 1984 publication “Minimum standards for prison establishments: a NACRO report”, the setting of those standards by the Secretary of State should establish

“certain basic conditions of life to which any human being is entitled as of right as bare minima while taking into account that a prisoner has forfeited for a period the right to liberty and that the punishment consists in, and is defined as, that deprivation”.

The two areas of major concern to us are overcrowding and understaffing. At the end of February 2017, 77 of the 116 prisons in England and Wales were overcrowded. Overcrowded prisons currently hold 9,676 more people than they were designed for. People have to double up in cells to accommodate the additional numbers, and that means that almost 20,000 people—nearly one quarter of the prison population—still share cells that are designed for fewer occupants, often eating their meals in the same space as the toilet they share. The prison system as a whole has been overcrowded every year since 1994. That is largely driven by a rising prison population, which has nearly doubled in the past two decades.

It is also concerning to note that in February the Ministry of Justice stopped the publication of the monthly overcrowding figures; for many years it has published monthly figures on individual prisons’ populations. The term “overcrowding” has already been rebranded as “crowding” by the Ministry, and now that vital indicator has been downgraded to an annual publication. The Government’s White Paper on prison safety and reform outlines the ambition for a “less crowded” estate, but contains little by way of concrete proposals to achieve that aim. Giving evidence to the Justice Committee, the chief executive of the National Offender Management Service, Michael Spurr, said that overcrowding would not be resolved in this or the next Parliament.

Analysis conducted by the Prison Reform Trust shows a correlation between levels of overcrowding and prison performance. In the past three years the proportion of prisons rated “of concern” or “of serious concern” by the Prison Service has doubled—the number now stands at 31 establishments. The number of prisons rated “exceptional” has actually plummeted from 43 in 2011-12 to just eight in 2015-16. Overcrowding can affect the performance of prisons in a number of ways, and it can impact on whether activities, staff and other resources are available to reduce the risk of reoffending. Inspections regularly find a third or more of prisoners unoccupied during the working day because prisons hold more people than they should. Overcrowding makes it more likely that basic human needs will be neglected, with key parts of prisons such as showers, kitchens, healthcare centres and gyms facing higher demand than they were designed for.

Overcrowding also has a significant impact on where prisoners are held and their ability to progress in their sentences. Every day, prisoners are bussed around the country to more remote locations just to make sure that every last bed space is filled. Prisoners progressing well are suddenly told that they have to move on, regardless of their sentence plan or where their family and loved ones live. Overcrowding is not just a case of two people being forced to share a space and toilet facilities designed for one; it also affects whether a prison has the appropriate activities, staff numbers and other resources necessary for the size of its population and to reduce the risk of reoffending.

The Government need to deliver a comprehensive strategy on prison reform to reduce overcrowding and the pressures on the system. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to develop one, and to outline the progress in meeting it. If the Secretary of State does not do that, there is little hope of prisons meeting the statutory aims outlined in the Bill. One of our top priorities is that we believe it is absolutely necessary to establish an appropriate ratio of prison officers to inmates.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Has the hon. Lady had the chance to consider the evidence of Martin Lomas, who was specifically asked about that yesterday? He said that a ratio would be “a crude measure” and that instead it is the quality that matters. Has she had a chance to reflect on that evidence?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I sat through the sitting yesterday and heard what he said. With respect to him, I think that is quite a simplistic approach. Of course we recognise the fact that different categories of prisons might require different ratios, but that does not mean we cannot aim for one. Let us face it, it is common sense that if there is one prison officer looking after 12 prisoners, that is not right. Trying to work out a ratio is, in fact, very important.

[Conor McGinn]

I wonder whether the deputy chief inspector of prisons would think differently about the crudeness of the measure if he had to do a shift on a wing, rather than a visit.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

That is absolutely right. The reality is that prisoner ratios can be worked out. Obviously, I accept that the relationship might be different for category A and category C prisons. However, if we think about how many prisoners there are, the kinds of prisoners and the offences they are in for, it is not beyond human imagination to work out realistic figures.

The prison population has been stable, at around 85,000. At the same time, a number of prisons have closed and prison officer numbers have reduced from around 25,000 to less than 18,000. The latest National Offender Management Service workforce statistics, published in February 2017, show that there was a reduction of 6,450 band 3 to 5 officers between 31 March 2010 and 31 December 2016. The White Paper proposes recruiting 2,500 new prison officers. However, the chief executive of the National Offender Management Service, Michael Spurr, confirmed to the Justice Committee in November that the service would need to recruit more than 8,000 officers over two years to achieve a 2,500 increase, due to failure to retain staff.

NOMS statistics show that there has been a fall in officer numbers over the past 12 months. The latest calculation of the leaving rate among band 3 to 5 prison officers is 9%, which is an increase of 1.5 percentage points compared with the year ending March 2016. The shortfall of band 3 to 5 officers in post to the target staffing level at 31 December 2016 was 983, an increase of 1 percentage point from 4.3% in September 2016. Over half of prison establishments had a deficit of 5% or more.

Clearly the Government’s supposed recruitment drive is failing. Statistics show that only 18 establishments employ a full complement of band 3 to 5 officers. Some 89 prisons are operating with frontline staffing below that set through the benchmark process, and the data show that only 14 establishments are operating above their benchmark level for operational support grades, with 93 operating below that. Without a sufficient number of officers, there is no possibility of each prisoner being allocated a designated member of staff who will be responsible for their welfare while in prison.

In his annual report, Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, Peter Clarke, said:

“Some prisons still operated temporarily restricted regimes to cope with chronic staffing shortages”.

Staff reductions mean regular use of restricted regimes, preventing prisoner access to recreational and rehabilitation services, such as physical exercise, education and training. That would lead to a number of prisoners facing depression and mental health issues, exacerbated by the fact that they are being locked up for, say, 23 hours a day. There are no measures in the Bill to deliver better rehabilitation services in prison or to address problems in the probation service. The major point is that without more staff, the statutory purposes of prisons will be unachievable.

Most alarming of all are the increasing levels of violence that have accompanied reductions in staff. Prisons have become dangerous places to work and dangerous for inmates. That is not acceptable. There were 37,784 reported incidents of self-harm to June 2016—up by 6,967, or 23%. We know that more and more assaults are happening in prisons. We need to ensure that the rise in assaults is dealt with. Overcrowding is causing so many problems in the Prison Service. We will revisit that subject when we come to new clause 8.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

Setting a benchmark in relation to prison cell overcrowding is an admirable objective, but will the hon. Lady be so kind as to delve into the policy aspects that would make that benchmark obtainable? We would need to create more prisons, let people out or have some kind of assumption against short sentences, which we think is a good idea.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

How many people we send to prison is clearly an issue. Many argue that there has been sentence inflation in the last number of years. There are two approaches. The Secretary of State could say that she does not want to look at prison sentencing reform in the sense of either reducing prison numbers or sentence inflation. In that case, we need to build a lot of prisons and recruit a lot of people to man them. The other option is to look again at sentences and the question of whether people who are in custody should be. As a senior judge recently said, community service orders, which could be stringent, could be made more widely available. Presumably that would require the Sentencing Council to revisit sentencing issues, which of course is one of the political issues.

It would be good if the Government thought about sentence inflation. We know from the last number of years that more offences now have longer custodial sentences than 20-odd years ago when I started work. As a result, there are more people in prison. If we want to have a policy of incarcerating people, we must ensure that there are enough prison spaces and enough people there to look after them—and to deal with the rehabilitation side, because we spend £16 billion a year on reoffending. Those issues need to be looked at, and there is nothing in the Bill to address them.

I apologise to colleagues for using statistics, because sometimes people can be blinded by them, but I use them to demonstrate a point. The fact is that there has been a large rise in assaults on prison officers and inmates since 2012. There has also been a large rise in self-harm and many incidents of people committing suicide. It is not surprising that every few weeks it seems a prison riot happens in some part of the country. I know from speaking to prison officers, the Prison Governors Association and other people about how they feel really depressed when they go to work in the morning, because they do not know what challenge there might be; who might assault them or what might happen. That must be addressed.

We are asking for the principles to be crystallised in statute. When that is done in statute, rather than put somewhere in prison policies or rules, or some manual tucked away that says, “This is the right way of doing things”, people have to be aware of it. By having that in the Bill, the measures that need to be achieved are there for everyone to look at.

[Mr Gyimah]

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to set a series of minimum standards to achieve the purposes of prisons. As I outlined, we want to put the governor at the heart of reform, ensuring that they have the ability to make decisions, innovate and be more responsive in meeting the needs of their prison. We are moving away from a centralised bureaucracy mandating the processes by which that should be achieved.

We are empowering governors by giving them the levers and controls they need to drive forward reform in their prisons. However, at the same time we are strengthening how we monitor and take leadership into account. That will include a more prominent role for Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons in specifically reporting on the effectiveness of leadership in a prison. We are giving freedom while sharpening accountability. From April, we will give governors greater authority to do their own workforce planning and design their regime to fit the needs of their prison; greater power over service provision in their prison, such as work in partnership with health commissioners to plan health services; and greater authority to decide how to spend their budget to deliver their strategy.

It is important that the Bill should not inadvertently take away control from those who are best placed to run our prisons. However, the amendment raises important issues. I am pleased to confirm that many of them are already addressed by secondary legislation. The Prison Rules 1999 include measures to deal with crowding, or overcrowding, which—to be absolutely clear—means having more prisoners per cell than it was originally designed for: two people in a cell designed for one, or three in a cell designed for two, which is happening in 25% of the prison estate. Section 14 of the Prison Act 1952 provides that every prison will have

“sufficient accommodation…provided for all prisoners.”

It further states:

“No cell shall be used for the confinement of a prisoner unless it is certified by an inspector”—

an officer acting on behalf of the Secretary of State—

“that its size, lighting, heating, ventilation and fittings are adequate for health”.

Rule 26 of the 1999 rules states:

“No room or cell shall be used as sleeping accommodation for a prisoner unless it has been certified in the manner required by section 14 of the Prison Act 1952… A certificate…shall specify the maximum number of prisoners who may sleep or be confined at one time in the room or cell to which it relates”.

Access to appropriate education is governed by rule 32:

“Every prisoner able to profit from the education facilities provided at a prison shall be encouraged to do so.”

Rule 31 provides that a prisoner

“shall be required to do useful work for not more than 10 hours a day, and arrangements shall be made to allow prisoners to work, where possible, outside the cells and in association with one another.”

Access to healthcare is governed by Rule 20, which ensures access to the same quality and range of services that the general public receive from the national health service. Rule 30 governs access to time in the open air:

“If the weather permits and subject to the need to maintain good order and discipline, a prisoner shall be given the opportunity to spend time in the open air at least once every day”.

Rule 29 governs weekly time spent in locations other than cells, allowing one hour of physical activity a week. As part of the privilege systems set out in rule 8, prisoners can also get additional time to associate. Like all public authorities, prisons are legally bound to comply with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, including the public sector equality duty. There is therefore already a statutory framework for the sorts of issues that the amendment covers.

On the ratio of prison staff to prisoners, I agree that we need the right numbers to provide a secure and safe regime, increase staff confidence and have the resilience to deal with unexpected incidents that take staff away from duty, such as hospital escorts. We are therefore investing £100 million to increase staffing by 2,500 officers. However, that is only the start of what is necessary to provide a properly rehabilitative, supportive regime that engages with prisoners properly. We know from many sources of evidence that the relationship between staff and prisoners is fundamental in helping prisoners decide to turn away from crime, and that having the right support and challenges from a trusted prison officer can help them come to that decision.

Having a positive relationship with staff can also help reduce the drivers of self-harm and self-inflicted deaths. We are therefore changing to a key worker model, as mentioned in Lord Harris’s review into self-inflicted deaths on the youth estate. There will be a dedicated prison officer, on the landing, for each prisoner across the closed estate, on the basis of one officer for six prisoners, on average. They will spend 30 to 45 minutes each week with their prisoner to deal with complaints, talk about issues that affect them, encourage them to engage with wider regime activities and challenge offending behaviour. Probation will also be involved for higher risk individuals, case managing the prisoner, including sentence planning. That will be done by other prison staff, not officers. The governor will manage the levels of staff in their own establishment, tailoring the model to the needs of the population and regime availability. They will be empowered to vary the staffing regime as they see fit.

It is deceptively simple to propose a fixed staff-to-prisoner ratio. We will ensure that we have the right staffing levels to run safe regimes, but setting out a ratio in primary legislation would not be meaningful. That is partly because the ratio varies from prison to prison, and also because even within a prison it will vary from day to day. I have been in prisons where more staff were needed because they had prisoners on bed watch, and I have been in prisons that needed more staff on the vulnerable prisoner unit at a particular time because of a problem there. To have a fixed ratio would not exactly fit with a prison’s practical needs, and the prison governor, who understands the needs and is designing the regime, should be the one looking at that.

A future Secretary of State could meet the proposed ratio by, for example, filling prisons with staff acting as turnkeys and guards rather than key workers. That is why I agree with what the deputy chief inspector of prisons that a fixed staff-to-prisoner ratio would be “a crude measure”. The most important thing, as we look at the system that the Bill will set out, is to look at the outcomes from prisons. I hope that explains why we do not believe that it would be appropriate to include this measure in the purpose, and I beg the hon. Member for Bolton South East to withdraw the amendment.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 12, at end insert “and

(b) steps taken in relation to meeting health targets specified by the Secretary of State on—

(i) blood borne viruses, and

(ii) substance abuse,

including the provision of testing and treatment for hepatitis C.”

This amendment ensures that the Secretary of State’s annual report on prisons includes targets on blood borne viruses and substance abuse and analysis of whether they are being met.

This probing amendment seeks to create an obligation on the Secretary of State to include in the annual report on prison governance an analysis of progress in meeting health metrics on blood-borne viruses and substance abuse, including the provision of testing and treatment for hepatitis C.

Hepatitis C is a blood-borne virus affecting the liver that can cause fatal cirrhosis and liver cancer if untreated. Around 214,000 people are chronically infected with hepatitis C in the UK. Around 90% of cases arise through injecting drug use, although there are other potential causes including overseas medical care, tattooing and receipt of a blood transfusion in the UK prior to 1991. People are able to live without symptoms for decades after infection, but untreated cases can lead to severe liver problems. Liver disease is one of the five big killers in the UK, and the only one of those where mortality is rising, and hepatitis C is the third most common cause of it.

Why are prisoners particularly at risk? Hepatitis C disproportionately affects disadvantaged and marginalised communities, and around half of people who inject drugs are estimated to have the virus. With around a third of the people in prison having injected drugs, rates of hepatitis C infection are particularly high among prisoners. A 2012 study from Scotland estimated rates of hepatitis C among prisoners to be almost 20%, and we might expect that rate to be similar in other prisons. Offering testing and treatment for hepatitis C is therefore a highly effective way of contributing to prisoners’ rehabilitation; indeed, by allowing them to focus on improving their health and wellbeing it is often found that they are better placed to address other issues contributing to their offending, such as substance misuse. It is also essential that this is carried out if prison governors are to meet the commitment to improve health outcomes.

In October 2013, the UK Government agreed to implement blood-borne virus opt-out testing in prisons. Testing rates for hepatitis C in prisons have improved as a result, rising from 5.3% in 2010-11 to 11.5% in 2015-16. That figure is still too low, however, and progress needs to be made on fully implementing the opt-out testing policy.

The prison environment is an ideal one in which to test and treat people who lead chaotic lives and may not have previously been in contact with healthcare services. With new oral drug treatments becoming available in recent years, which have considerably shorter treatment durations and markedly fewer side effects than previous treatments, the opportunity to treat people in prison is greater than ever before. Achieving a cure for hepatitis C can be a trigger for long-term addiction recovery and help people to take control of their lives. Offering treatment for hepatitis C can therefore be an important step in helping to prepare prisoners for their release.

I prepared that speech with the help of the Hepatitis C Trust, and I would very much like to hear the Minister’s response.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

We entirely support the amendment and agree with the points that the hon. Lady made.

[Mr Gyimah]

This is a probing amendment concerning a duty on the Secretary of State to include as part of her annual report to Parliament the steps taken to meet targets on blood-borne viruses and substance abuse.

Healthcare in prisons is provided by NHS England, which already uses health and justice indicators of performance and other data to report the performance of substance misuse services and blood-borne viruses. Those data inform NHS practice in commissioning and providing healthcare to prisons. For example, Public Health England, NOMS and NHS England introduced opt-out testing for blood-borne viruses for people in prison in the first national partnership agreement published in 2013. Full implementation across the whole adult prison estate in England is planned by the end of the 2017-18 financial year.

Data on the offer and uptake of testing and referral for treatment are measured through the health and justice indicators, which are based on information provided directly by healthcare teams in prisons to NHS England and shared with Public Health England. Additionally, data on people treated for substance misuse in prison and in the community are collected by Public Health England through the national drug treatment monitoring system.

Using those data, under the programme of co-commissioning that the Government are implementing, prison governors will be able to work with NHS England to commission healthcare services that meet their individual prison’s needs. That, of course, can include elements that provide testing and treatment for blood-borne viruses and substance misuse. I hope I have provided sufficient assurance to the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd that placing this requirement on the face of the Bill is unnecessary, as a programme of work is already under way in this area.

[Mr Gyimah]

We have had a full and detailed debate on clause 1. It will not surprise hon. Members to know that in drafting the clause, the Government thought long and hard about what it should contain in view of the fundamental changes it makes to the current legislative framework.

The clause reforms the framework of the prison system, providing aims for the system as a whole to unite behind, clarifying the role of the Secretary of State and sharpening accountability. It modifies the Secretary of State’s overarching responsibility for prisons, removing the outdated duty to superintend prisons. The clause also reforms and modernises the Secretary of State’s accountability to Parliament for the performance of prisons. It replaces the existing archaic requirements to report on operational detail, such as hours of work completed in each prison and number of punishments, with a requirement to account to Parliament for the extent to which prisons are meeting the statutory purpose created by the clause.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

We have raised our concerns about the issues we think are important and should be covered in the clause. We hope that the Minister will reconsider some of those things on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector and Inspectorate of Prisons

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out “a” and insert “an independent”.

This amendment ensures the person appointed as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons has the necessary independence from Government and associated bodies.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

At the moment, there is no statutory obligation for the person appointed as Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons to be independent of Government and associated bodies, and I think we would all agree that it is essential that the chief inspector of prisons is independent. There are provisions in the Bill to empower prison governors to deliver on extra responsibilities, so it is more important than ever that independent chief inspectors of prisons are able to scrutinise and hold prison governors, as well as the Ministry of Justice, to account in a way that is beyond any question of bias.

We already have the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which in legislation is clearly stated to be just that—independent. In the Police Reform Act 2002, through which the IPCC was created, there are stringent tests precluding candidates with particular backgrounds, which might bring into question their independence, from becoming a chairman or member of the commission. The Government must recognise that that imposed, and legislated for, distance between any appointee to the IPCC and a body that that person might investigate is required also for senior prison inspectors. The inspectorate is already advertising itself as an independent body. Surely now is the time to enshrine this common-sense policy in law, both transparently and explicitly.

I will not press the amendment to a vote at this stage, but I hope that the Government will give a detailed answer explaining why they have not chosen to include this wording in the legislation and whether on reflection they might be amenable to a more specific and stringent statement.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

We support any attempt to ensure the independence of the inspectorate from the Government, so we support this amendment.

[Mr Gyimah]

These amendments concern the role of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons. Increasing the inspectorate’s impact is one part of our plan to have in place effective mechanisms to monitor and improve performance. There will be new performance measures, on the outcomes of which governors will be held to account. We will create new three-year performance agreements, which will be phased in over the next two years.

If we are to hold governors to account for meeting the new standards, they must be given the power to deliver change. We are devolving key operational policies to give governors greater flexibility, and have already cancelled 101 policies to help to reduce bureaucracy for prisons.

We are empowering our leaders, but at the same time strengthening our monitoring of leadership. That includes a more prominent role for HMIP: for the first time in legislation, the chief inspector will be required to report on the effectiveness of leadership in a prison. We will set up a new quarterly performance committee, chaired by the permanent secretary. The committee will reach evidenced assessments of performance, both at individual prison level and across the system. We will also make data available so that the public and governors can see how prisons are performing across different measures. This monitoring is supported by other assurance activities, such as internal audit, providing a complete view of prison performance. It is clear that we will not be waiting around for the inspectorate to signal problems, but within this framework, external scrutiny is vital, too. We need independent, objective assessments of our prisons to hold the governors to account.

We are seeking in the Bill, and specifically in clause 2, to achieve a number of aims for HMIP. I will set those out before turning to the amendments. First, we are making changes to what the inspectorate is required to report on. Importantly, the chief inspector will continue to set his own inspection criteria and report to the Secretary of State on the treatment of prisoners and the conditions in prison, but in addition, when preparing inspection reports, the inspectorate must have regard to the statutory purpose of prison. That will align inspections with the new statutory purpose of prison. As I have set out, inspections will also be required to consider the effectiveness of the leadership in a prison.

Secondly, we are seeking to increase the inspectorate’s impact: we want inspection reports to lead to improvements. There is a requirement for the Secretary of State to respond to the findings of an inspection within 90 days. Where the chief inspector has significant and urgent concerns about a prison, he can trigger an urgent response from the Secretary of State, but as I have outlined, the system will not be waiting for an inspection in order to ensure that proper oversight takes place in our prisons.

Thirdly, we wish to enhance the statutory footing for the inspectorate to conduct inspections. For the first time, it is established in legislation that there is an inspectorate of prisons supporting the chief inspector. The clause also gives the inspectorate new powers to enter prisons and to request information so that they have the right tools to do their job.

Finally, clause 2 provides statutory recognition of the inspectorate’s role in meeting the objectives of the optional protocol to the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment, or OPCAT.

The final point is relevant to amendments 6 and 15 and is about independence. We have above all in the Bill sought to maintain the independence of HMIP. I hope the chief inspector would agree with me that his role includes being able to report freely on what he sees. We believe the Bill reinforces such independence.

Amendment 6 seeks to make it explicit that “an independent” person is appointed as chief inspector. The independence of the chief inspector derives from how the inspectorate is set up and how it operates. The chief inspector sets his own inspection criteria, so he decides what matters he wishes to look at and report on. He decides where and how inspections will be conducted. That includes, for example, whether inspections are announced or unannounced and the frequency of visits. The chief inspector publishes his own inspection reports, so the findings are not restricted in any way.

Following interest from the Justice Select Committee, we have just finalised a protocol between the Ministry of Justice and HMIP setting out the terms of engagement between the two organisations. Taken together, we consider the chief inspector’s independence is clear, and I am therefore not persuaded that amendment 6 is necessary.

Amendment 15 concerns the appointment of the chief inspector. Like other chief inspector posts, this role is subject to the Cabinet Office’s governance code on public appointments, which is overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Commissioner regulates the processes by which Ministers make appointments to public bodies. The appointment therefore follows an established transparent process for public appointments. We agree that Parliament should play a role in such an important appointment. The Justice Select Committee is consulted on the job description and criteria prior to a recruitment being launched. The chief inspector appointment is subject to pre-appointment hearing by the Justice Select Committee. This allows the Committee to assess the preferred candidate and provide its views to the Secretary of State before any appointment. The Cabinet Office guidance on pre-appointment scrutiny states:

“In relation to the findings of the Committee, Ministers should weigh the views of the committee carefully against the evidence from the appointments procedure to reach a final view to ensure that the decision is made fairly and taking all relevant considerations into account.”

There is, therefore, an important role for the Committee, but, overall, I consider that the choice for this critical role should rest with the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for prison performance.

I hope that I have been able to set out our plans for strong, external scrutiny of the prison system, with an empowered, independent inspectorate at its heart. The Bill strengthens the independence of the inspectorate, and on that basis I hope that the hon. Lady is able to withdraw the amendment.

[The Chair]

I call the shadow Minister to speak to amendment 15.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

We are asking for this provision because we think it is important that the chief inspector of prisons is independent from the Government and other associated bodies. I will therefore press the amendment to a Division in a few moments.

The Justice Select Committee looked at this issue and recommended that the Committee should be able to move the name of the person from the Floor of the House. This corresponds with many other independent bodies who have also expressed concern about the apparent lack of independence of the chief inspector of prisons. One of the former chief inspectors, Nick Hardwick, has publicly said that the question of independence is affected when the person somebody is reporting on is the person who will extend their contract, so there is a question about whether they carry on being employed by that person. We therefore say the independence aspect in this particular appointment is very important.

The Prison Reform Trust has said that the independence of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons should be bolstered by having the chief inspector appointed by the Justice Select Committee. The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce has stated:

“If the Secretary of State now has a statutory duty to support rehabilitation, with the prisons inspectorate charged with assessing this, then surely there is a logical and ethical argument for Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons to be appointed independently?”

The Prison Governors Association has also said that giving new powers to the chief inspector of prisons is welcome provided he is able to hold the Ministry of Justice to account. So we welcome the changes in the legislation which bolster the powers of the chief inspector of prisons, but we think that going one step further and making him completely independent would make the system even better.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 3

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 7

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 2, page 2, line 30, leave out “The provisions in this Act about” and insert “The operation of”.

This amendment requires the work of HMIP to be compliant with OPCAT.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 17, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out “are in accordance” and insert “must comply”.

This amendment requires the work of HMIP to be compliant with OPCAT.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The purpose of amendments 16 and 17 is to say that the work of Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons should be compliant with OPCAT, the optional protocol to the convention against torture, a treaty that supplements the 1984 United Nations convention against torture. It establishes an international inspection system for places of detention and requires “national preventive mechanisms” to be independent. Her Majesty’s inspector of prisons is one of 21 statutory bodies that together make up the UK’s national preventive mechanism. We know that the Government consider that the UK’s national preventive mechanism is already OPCAT compliant, but the previous chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick, voiced concerns, as I mentioned earlier, that having to apply to the Government for reappointment compromised his independence. Amendments 16 and 17 would make this commitment to OPCAT explicit and have been welcomed by John Wadham, chair of the UK’s national preventive mechanism. To assume OPCAT compliance is not sufficient.

[Mr Gyimah]

Clause 2 provides statutory recognition of the chief inspector’s role in meeting the objectives of OPCAT. In the context of making changes to the provisions in the Prison Act 1952 on the chief inspector, we consider it helpful for the statute expressly to recognise the role of the chief inspector in relation to OPCAT. The UK is, and has always been, a strong supporter of OPCAT and we consider that we are fully complying with the international obligations contained in the protocol. OPCAT requires states parties to establish a national preventive mechanism to ensure regular, independent inspection of places of detention to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Clause 2 captures the role of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons in relation to OPCAT. However, the obligations contained in the protocol are aimed at the states parties to the protocol—thus, the UK—not the organisations that are designated by those states to be members of the national preventive mechanism. It would therefore be inappropriate to place upon the inspectorate international obligations aimed at the UK, as amendments 16 and 17 seek to do. In addition, the inspectorate alone would be unable to fulfil all the OPCAT obligations. The UK national preventive mechanism is in fact composed of 21 members from across the UK.

The statutory recognition of the inspectorate’s OPCAT role is an important change that I know is strongly welcomed by the chief inspector. Given the difficulties that I have highlighted, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 2, page 4, line 19, at end insert—

‘(3A) In preparing a section 5A(2) report, the Chief Inspector must also consider the effectiveness of practices and procedures in the prison in relation to the protection of the rights of prisoners.”

This amendment requires the Chief Inspector to report on the rights of prisoners.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 19, in clause 2, page 4, line 22, leave out “90 days” and insert “60 days”

This amendment requires a response from the Secretary of State within a set timeframe when a HMIP report makes recommendations.

Amendment 20, in clause 2, page 4, line 23, at end insert—

‘(5A) The response must set out the actions that the Secretary of State has taken, or proposes to take, in response to the concerns described in the report.”

This amendment requires the response from the Secretary of State to set out actions.

Amendment 21, in clause 2, page 5, line 2, leave out “28 days” and insert “14 days”

This amendment requires a response from the Secretary of State within a set timeframe when a HMIP report giving rise to significant concerns makes recommendations.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Amendment 18 would require the chief inspector to report on the rights of prisoners. That is really important, because it would ensure that prisons are safe and decent places to be, based on the set of minimum standards in prisons that we have proposed are set by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 19 would require a response from the Secretary of State within a set timeframe when Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons makes recommendations. We believe that 60 days is a more appropriate timeframe and allows any problems to be dealt with a lot more quickly.

Amendment 20 would require the Secretary of State to set out what actions they will take to deal with issues raised by the inspectorate. It is not clear in the current legislation what should happen as a result of an adverse report from the inspectorate. Although there are protocols on what prisons and other inspected institutions should do, there is no requirement at the moment to accept the inspectorate’s recommendations. In line with agreed protocols, inspected bodies should produce an initial action plan, approved by the Secretary of State, in response to inspectorate recommendations. The action plan should set out the consequent action taken or planned, approved by the Secretary of State.

Amendment 21 would require a response from the Secretary of State within a set timeframe when an inspectorate’s report gives rise to significant concerns. That is really important, and the response should be given within a shorter period—14 days, instead of 28.

The idea behind the amendments is to ensure that when the inspectorate’s report is produced, the turnaround period is shorter, there is a shorter time limit on action being taken and an action plan is put in place to deal with the problems in a prison quickly and effectively. That would avoid further deterioration in the prison or institution and ensure that prisoner and prison staff safety is taken much more seriously. There should be a much quicker response.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Guy Opperman.)

Prisons and Courts Bill (Fourth sitting)

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th Sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 29th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

Welcome to the Chair, Mr Stringer. I explained earlier that we are making changes to what Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons is required to report on. The chief inspector will continue to set his own inspection criteria, but in addition the inspectorate, when preparing inspection reports, must have regard to the statutory purpose of prison, which is set out in the Bill. It must also report on leadership.

Amendment 18 would require the chief inspector to report on procedures relating to prisoners’ rights. We have discussed how the Bill gives statutory recognition of the inspectorate’s role in relation to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. OPCAT is about preventing ill treatment of prisoners and HMIP draws on OPCAT in setting out its inspection criteria.

Furthermore, section 5A of the Prison Act 1952 already requires the chief inspector to report on the treatment of prisoners and conditions in prisons. The current inspection framework focuses heavily on prisoner rights. One of the four HMIP “healthy prison tests” is “Respect”, which assesses how far prisoners are treated with respect for their human dignity. Prisoners’ rights are therefore already central to the work of the chief inspector.

Amendments 19, 20 and 21 relate to responses provided by the Secretary of State to inspection reports. We want to increase the impact of the inspectorate and we want inspection reports to lead to improvements. Amendment 19 seeks to shorten the time taken by the Secretary of State to respond to an inspection report, from 90 days to 60 days. Although I am sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure a timely response to inspection reports, I would not want that to compromise action needed to implement recommendations.

Some inspection reports have around 80 recommendations, which involve contributions from prisons, policy leads and other providers, such as NHS England. It can take time to evaluate inspection reports and then to put in place meaningful responses to them, particularly if recommendations relate to services that are not directly provided by the Prison Service, such as health.

Of course, that does not mean that action is not taken before 90 days. Where a report highlights matters of concern, those matters will start to be addressed immediately. The 90-day limit to respond to inspection reports is informed by current practice. It enables thorough responses to be given to what are serious and detailed reports.

Amendment 20 seeks to shorten the time for the Secretary of State to respond to an urgent notification from 28 days to 14 days. I must stress that of course action will be taken from day one of an urgent notification by the chief inspector, but immediate energy should be focused on securing improvements rather than drafting a report. We consider that 28 days is an appropriate period, first to take action and then to present the steps that were taken through a report.

Finally, amendment 21 would require responses to inspection reports by the Secretary of State to set out actions that have been taken or that will be taken to address concerns. We consider that that is already covered by subsection 2(6), which requires the Secretary of State to provide a response to recommendations made by the inspectorate. It will be clear from such a response what actions are planned.

Having given these assurances that prisoners’ rights will be central to inspections and that we will act immediately when significant concerns are highlighted, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 2, page 5, line 12, after “prison” insert “at any time”.

This amendment enables the Inspectorate to enter prisons at any time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 7, in clause 2, page 5, line 20, at end insert—

‘(2A) The Chief Inspector may require any person to provide information on—

(a) the adequacy of staffing levels,

(b) the nature of education and literacy programmes, and

(c) the effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes and re-conviction rates.”

This amendment ensures the Chief Inspector has the necessary powers to obtain information relating to staffing levels, education programmes, rehabilitation programmes and re-conviction rates.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

I will speak to amendment 22 as well as speaking on behalf of the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, who tabled amendment 7. The amendments would enable the inspectorate to enter prisons at any time. At the moment there is no guarantee that it has access to an establishment at the time of its choosing. Clearly that is unacceptable, and it must change. Different duties are performed in prisons at various times of the day and night, and it is important that the inspectors be allowed in to observe the policies and procedures of the prison regime at all times. It is important for that to be codified in law.

Amendment 7 would ensure that the chief inspector had the necessary powers to obtain information about staffing levels, education programmes, rehabilitation programmes and reconviction rates. Again, that is important because those are crucial markers showing whether a prison fulfils its statutory purposes. They are rightly of concern to the inspectorate, which should be able to get the information.

[Mr Gyimah]

The Bill gives the inspectorate new powers to enter prisons and to request information so that they have the right tools to do their job. That brings it into line with other inspection bodies that already have such powers. Although the inspectorate currently enjoys good co-operation with prisons, the powers put it beyond doubt that it can request information to complete its inspections.

Amendment 22 is intended to make it clear that the chief inspector may enter a prison at any time. We agree that that is an important requirement for an independent inspectorate. We consider that access to be implicit in the clause, which reflects the fact that inspections can be conducted unannounced.

The purpose of amendment 7 is to make it explicit that the chief inspector can request information on specific areas such as staffing levels and literacy programmes. Paragraph 2 of new schedule A2 to the Prison Act 1952 requires any person who holds relevant information to provide it to the chief inspector. “Relevant information” is defined in paragraph 4 of new schedule A2 as information needed for the inspection that

“relates to the running of a prison, or to prisoners detained in a prison”.

The definition is therefore sufficiently broad to capture the information described in amendment 7.

We agree that the inspectorate should be able to get the information and access that it needs. Given those assurances, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 2, page 7, line 29, at end insert—

“(8) Before this section comes into force the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report describing progress made towards the implementation of recommendations of the Chair of the Parole Board concerning the treatment of prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection and detention for public protection and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”

This amendment enables issues relating to IPPs to be debated within the long title.

The purpose of the amendment is to deal with the issue of prisoners who have effectively served their custodial sentence but who are still waiting to be released because they have been detained for public protection. It is important because there are currently thousands of people in that category still in the prison system. We ask that the matter be specifically addressed in the Bill.

The amendment would enable issues relating to sentences of imprisonment for public protection to be debated within the long title of the Bill. It would also allow the Government to outline the steps taken to implement the recommendation of the chair of the Parole Board, Nick Hardwick, on the treatment of people currently imprisoned and serving an IPP sentence. If the sentencing issue is not dealt with in the long title of the Bill, it will not be possible to address the injustice faced by thousands of people serving indeterminate sentences for public protection years beyond the expiry of their original tariff date.

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 abolished the IPP sentence and introduced powers to change the release test for IPP prisoners. However, although the IPP sentence is no longer an option for the courts, the powers to change the release test have not been enacted, and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons has called on the Justice Secretary to take decisive action to reduce the number of people serving IPPs who have been held beyond the tariff.

Although the rate of release of IPP prisoners has increased in recent years, the effect of Parole Board delays, limited resources, poor procedures for amending risk and the lack of available places on offending behaviour programmes is that a large number of IPP prisoners continue to face significant obstacles to working towards their legitimate release. According to the Ministry of Justice, of the 3,683 people in prison currently serving an IPP sentence, 3,081 have passed their tariff expiry, and 603 remain in prison despite having been given an original tariff of less than two years. I must declare an interest: I have a client who has served his tariff and is still in prison because he is waiting for the IPP procedures to be carried out. That group would not have been able to receive an IPP sentence following the reforms to the legislation introduced in 2009. Instead, it is likely that they would have been given relatively short determinate sentences.

Statistics released by the Prison Reform Trust in June 2016 showed that IPP prisoners have one of the highest rates of self-harm in the prison system, and highlighted the impact of ongoing incarceration on the mental health and wellbeing of IPP prisoners. A thematic review of IPP prisoners published by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons in November 2016 found that the cost to the public purse of continuing to hold high numbers of IPP prisoners and the pressure that they exert on the system in terms of risk management activity and demand for offending behaviour programmes and parole processes are significant. It stated that

“resources are being stretched increasingly thinly.”

It concluded that

“for many IPP prisoners, it is not clear that holding them well beyond their end-of-tariff date is in the interests of public protection and therefore there are issues of fairness and justice”.

Without a legislative change, the Parole Board has confirmed that it will not be possible to reduce the IPP prisoner population below 1,000. It will also be impossible to address the particular injustice faced by IPP prisoners with an original tariff of less than two years or tackle the growing problems of IPP recalls and the disproportionate licence period attached to the IPP sentence.

In my excitement, I might have slightly misled the Committee when I said that one of my clients is still waiting to come out. What I was trying to say is that, in my practice in the past, I have had clients who were detained under the IPP and whose sentence expired, but years later they were still in the system. One of the main problems was that many of those people had to attend a number of different types of courses before they were released, some of which were very expensive and quite lengthy, and the system—the prison, the probation service and the Parole Board—did not allow them to attend them in time to be ticked off as having done them. They therefore ended up spending more time in prison than they had been sentenced for. That is a very relevant issue. There are more than 6,000 people—that is a big figure—who really should be out but are not, and only because the Parole Board was slow in signing them up to those courses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

Yes, I am always open to representations on specific cases, although decisions are made by the independent Parole Board. Where there are challenges in the system that hon. Members become aware of, I am open to receiving representations and will look into them. Obviously, in order to speed up the process, the board has increased its capacity and is successfully tackling delays in the listing of cases. We are making sure that IPP prisoners have access to accredited offending behaviour programmes where appropriate and ensuring that such programmes can be delivered more flexibly, so that prisoners with particular complex needs, such as those with learning difficulties, can have greater access. I should mention, in particular, the progression regime at HMP Warren Hill, which has proved very successful, with 77% of IPPs who have had an oral hearing under the regime achieving release. The potential for additional places within the progression regime is currently being explored, with the aim of improving the geographical spread of places, including in the north of England.

All these measures are already having a significant beneficial impact on the IPP prison population and are facilitating the release of prisoners where the Parole Board is satisfied that their detention is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. These diverse measures, and the evidence that they are working, shown by the current highest-ever release rate, demonstrates that a report of the sort proposed by the hon. Member for Bolton South East is simply not necessary, and I therefore ask her to withdraw the amendment.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 4, page 9, line 6, at end insert—

“(d) Investigating cases where a person is detained in immigration detention facilities for longer than 28 days.”.

This amendment includes as a function of the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman to investigate where a person has been held in immigration detention for more than 28 days.

[Richard Arkless]

I am sure it is not lost on hon. Members that it is almost exactly the hour that those awful events happened in Westminster last Wednesday. There are various memorials going on around us. I am sure all colleagues would back me in saying that we would much rather be at those memorials than here, but business goes on, life goes on, laws continue to be made and we have to continue to do our job.

The Bill applies only in part to Scotland; specifically, it applies primarily to immigration detention and its processes. Amendments 30 and 31 would ensure independent oversight of detention periods in immigration cases, and that detention happens with due regard to Home Office rules and the facts of the individual case. Amendment 30 would add to the ombudsman’s powers the function of investigating where a person is held in detention for more than 28 days. Amendment 31 would compel the ombudsman to investigate such cases where detention exceeds 28 days.

The Government know this debate well. During the passage of the Immigration Act 2016, an amendment tabled by honourable colleagues went further than the amendment I have moved today. It would have limited detention for immigration cases outright to 28 days. The Government were defeated in the Lords and the amendment attracted cross-party support in the House of Commons, but was ultimately unsuccessful. I hope that closer consideration will be given to this amendment than was given to the last.

The all-party groups on refugees and on migration have concluded very clearly that there should be a 28-day limit. People held in immigration detention have committed no crime, yet their detention is open-ended, without limit, and could last for years. In no other sphere of our jurisdiction would we allow that to happen. It simply would not happen in the rest of the prison estate—no one would be held for more than 28 days without being placed before a judge—but it happens in our immigration system. The UK is the only EU country not to have a time limit on immigration detention. The current position is inhumane, ineffective and hugely expensive. Personally, I would say that indefinite detention without trial is an affront to the rule of law, which I hold so very dear, having studied law on both sides of our border.

Let us consider some statistics. Some 7% of detained immigrants were detained for longer than six months. Only 23% of those detained leaving Dungavel in Scotland were deported, so by inference 77% were deemed safe. In that circumstance, is it proportionate to not have a 28-day limit? It is in the interests of both sides of the Committee that following detention or following anybody coming to this country to settle and make their life, integration is of paramount importance. Having this draconian measure and not having safeguards to limit the amount of time that immigrants may be detained will not get them off on the best foot in terms of integrating them into our society. That is in no one’s interests. I respectfully suggest that the Government act and impose a limit to the time that people can be detained in immigration centres.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The Committee will be relieved to hear that I am not going to comment on amendments 30 and 31, as the hon. Gentleman has made an eloquent case for them, but I promised the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd that I would speak to amendment 8 on her behalf.

Amendment 8 would give the ombudsman the functions of

“investigating…attempted suicides…the number and nature of assaults on staff or prisoners …the adequacy of staffing levels to prevent such behaviour…investigating the content and effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes and liaison arrangements with the probation and other relevant agencies to ensure that such rehabilitation continues after a prisoner’s release from custody.”

Those are perfectly proper things for the ombudsman to look at, so we ask the Government to consider accepting the amendment. We also support amendments 30 and 31.

[Mr Gyimah]

Before dealing with amendments 30, 8 and 31, I will speak about some of the broader policy objectives of clause 4. The prisons and probation ombudsman was established in 1994 as the prisons ombudsman, following Lord Woolf’s public inquiry into the Strangeways prison riots. Over the years, its role and remit have expanded, but despite many calls for it to be put on a statutory footing that has yet to happen.

The ombudsman plays an essential role, not only by providing an independent avenue for complaints, which can be a source of great tension for prisoners, but by investigating deaths in custody, the numbers of which are worryingly high, as all hon. Members will be aware. There have been long-standing commitments from successive Governments to put the ombudsman into legislation, and statutory status has been widely supported by stakeholders, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Harris review. I am pleased that we can finally establish the office in legislation.

I should say that the ombudsman is part of a much broader response to the record high levels of self-inflicted deaths and self-harm. We are redoubling our efforts to make prisons places of safety and reform for those at risk. The actions that we are taking include rolling out new training across the estate to support our staff in identifying the risks and triggers of suicide and self-harm and understanding what they can do to support prisoners at risk; putting in place specialist roles—regional safer custody leads—in every region to provide advice to prisons and to spread good practice on identifying and supporting prisoners at risk; and developing our partnerships with experts, including by providing extra funding for the Samaritans to provide targeted support to prison staff and to prisoners directly. All that is in the context of an extra 2,500 staff and the roll-out of new ways of working that I have already set out, which will enable individual prison officers to manage a caseload of about six prisoners each. That extra capability will enable staff to support at-risk prisoners more effectively and will enable prisons to run more predictable regimes, improving safety.

That is all happening without legislation; however, when a death occurs, it is right that it is investigated with the utmost seriousness. Having a statutory office will give the prisons and probation ombudsman more visible independence, permanency and stronger powers of investigation.

Amendments 8, 30 and 31 relate to the ombudsman’s remit. Amendment 8 would widen the remit of the ombudsman to include investigating

“attempted suicides…assaults…staffing levels…and effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes”.

There are already other routes of investigation or scrutiny for these matters. At present, there is no set category to capture data on attempted suicides because it is not possible to determine intent when someone resorts to self-harm. NOMS records all self-harm incidents in prison custody. A self-harm incident is defined as

“any act where a prisoner deliberately harms themselves, irrespective of the method, intent or severity of any injury”.

Nearly 38,000 self-harm incidents were reported last year, so it would be neither practical nor desirable for the ombudsman to investigate them all; however, they are taken very seriously. There are existing systems for treating the prisoner and for providing support through assessment, care in custody and teamwork. Where appropriate, prisons investigate internally and take relevant action.

Investigating assaults is done through adjudications or by the police, so it should not be a function of the ombudsman. In the safety and order section of prison performance standards, we have included a measure of the rate of assaults on prison staff, which we will supplement with an additional measure of staff perception of safety within the prison. Governors will be held accountable for the results that they achieve in reducing assaults on staff; the inclusion of this measure is designed to drive positive change and improve staff safety. Requiring the ombudsman to investigate the effectiveness of post-release arrangements would be a significant departure from its current remit and would overlap with the work of the probation inspectorate.

Clause 11 enables the Secretary of State to request the ombudsman to investigate other matters that may be relevant to the ombudsman’s remit. In the past, that has included the investigation of an attempted suicide and rioting at an immigration detention centre. The ombudsman therefore has flexibility to investigate wider matters, but that is intended for exceptional cases and not to duplicate other established routes for investigation. In conclusion, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary, as other provisions are already in place to cover the functions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Arkless]

I thank the Minister for those words. I will pick up on a couple of points and then make clear whether we will press the amendment to a vote. He mentioned that the amendments would compel the ombudsman to investigate 35% of more than 28,000 cases. My hope is that if there were a limit, there would not be as many cases to investigate, so I do not think he was making a fair point.

I appreciate what the Minister said about automatic referrals to the first-tier tribunal, but that only triggers after four months. Frankly, holding someone in detention for four months without placing them in front of a judge is just as much of an affront to the rule of law as it would be open-ended. I cannot agree that automatic referrals are a suitable mitigating measure, but we will not press the amendment to a vote this afternoon. We anticipate that it commands cross-party support, and we think there is a good chance we can make the Government see sense. We reserve the right to bring back the amendment in full force at a later stage of the Bill’s passage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to move amendment 24,  page 68, line 5, in schedule 1, at end insert

“, with the consent of the Justice Committee of the House of Commons.”

This amendment requires the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman to be appointed with the consent of the Justice Select Committee.

Establishing the ombudsman’s independence, similar to that of the chief inspector of prisons, is a priority for a range of stakeholders. The amendment would ensure that independence.

[Mr Gyimah]

Amendment 24 relates to the appointment of the ombudsman. We have already debated the appointment of the chief inspector, and as the arguments are similar I will keep my comments brief.

Like that of the chief inspector, the appointment of prisons and probation ombudsman is subject to the Cabinet Office’s governance code for public appointments, which is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It therefore follows an established transparent process for public appointments. We consider that the appointment of this critical role should rest with the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for prison and probation performance.

Like the appointment of the chief inspector, that of the prisons and probation ombudsman is subject to a pre-appointment hearing by the Justice Committee. The Justice Committee therefore already has a role in assessing its preferred candidate and providing its views to the Secretary of State. I hope Committee members agree that Parliament has an appropriate role in the public appointment process of the ombudsman, and I hope the hon. Member for Bolton South East is therefore content to withdraw the amendment.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 5

Investigations of deaths within the Ombudsman’s remit

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 6 and 7 stand part.

[Mr Gyimah]

Clauses 5 and 6 set out which deaths fall within the ombudsman’s remit for investigation. They should be read in conjunction with clause 20, which sets out which institutions are in scope. Clause 5 also requires the ombudsman to investigate any death of a person who at the time of their death was detained or resident in an institution within its remit. Clause 6 provides the ombudsman with a discretion to investigate deaths that occur when the person is no longer detained or resident in a relevant institution or immigration detention facility, or subject to immigration escort arrangements.

If the ombudsman is aware of the death of a person who has recently ceased to be detained in a place that is within his remit and has a reason to believe the person’s death may be connected with their detention, clause 6 allows him to investigate the death. The ombudsman will determine the extent of the investigation required according to the circumstances of the death. For example, a death that is clearly the result of natural causes may require less investigation than an apparently self-inflicted death.

Clause 7 refers to the position of the Lord Advocate, who leads the system of criminal prosecutions and the investigation of deaths in Scotland. It states that the Lord Advocate’s role as head of the system of investigation of deaths in Scotland is not affected by putting the ombudsman into legislation. That is relevant, because the ombudsman has a duty to investigate the deaths of those detained in immigration detention facilities or under immigration escort arrangements in Scotland. It is intended that the ombudsman will enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Lord Advocate to provide a clear framework for both officers to discharge their independent functions effectively.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Reports on deaths investigated by the Ombudsman

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 8, page 10, line 36, after “recommendations” insert “within 60 days”.

This amendment requires a response from the Secretary of State within a set timeframe when a Prisons and Probation Ombudsman report on a death makes recommendations.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 26, in clause 8, page 10, line 38, at end insert—

“(c) the response must set out the actions that the Secretary of State has taken, or proposes to take, in response to the recommendations described in the report.”

This amendment requires the response from the Secretary of State to set out actions.

Amendment 27, in clause 10, page 12, line 16, after “recommendations” insert “within 60 days”.

This amendment requires a response from the Secretary of State within a set timeframe when a Prisons and Probation Ombudsman report on a complaint makes recommendations.

Amendment 28, in clause 10, page 12, line 16, at end insert—

‘(5A) The response in subsection (5) must set out the actions that the Secretary of State has taken, or proposes to take, in response to the recommendations described in the report.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 27. It requires the response from the Secretary of State to set out actions.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Amendment 25 would require the Secretary of State to respond within a set timeframe—we think 60 days is reasonable—after a prisons and probation ombudsman report on a death makes recommendations. Amendment 26 is also designed to elicit a fast response from the Secretary of State. Just as with Her Majesty’s inspectorate, the Secretary of State should be required to set out how he or she will respond to the recommendation of the ombudsman.

Amendment 27 is similar, requiring a response from the Secretary of State within a set timeframe when the prison and probation ombudsman reports on a complaint and makes a recommendation. We think that 60 days is a reasonable time for the Secretary of State to respond to that complaint. Amendment 28 is sequential to amendment 27 and requires a response from the Secretary of State to set out actions, because in reality there is no point in having a report if there is no response to set out actions that the Secretary of State will take. We believe that a response should be statutorily encompassed in the legislation and that it should be done within the relevant statutory framework.

[Mr Gyimah]

These amendments concern the Secretary of State’s responses to the ombudsman’s reports. Clauses 8 and 10 currently provide that a response must be provided within a period specified by the ombudsman. Currently, the ombudsman’s terms of reference establish a 28-day time limit for responses to the ombudsman’s recommendations to set out whether or not a recommendation has been accepted. In practice, the majority of the ombudsman’s recommendations are accepted and responses provided to this effect. We consider it preferable to retain flexibility for the ombudsman to set the time limit for responding by not providing a statutory timeframe for responses.

Finally, amendments 26 and 28 would require that responses to ombudsman reports by the Secretary of State must set out actions that have been or will be taken to address concerns. We consider this already covered by clauses 8(5) and 10(5), which require that the Secretary of State must provide a response to recommendations made by the ombudsman. It will be clear from such a response what actions are planned. I hope that hon. Members will agree that provisions are already in place for the ombudsman to require a response within a timescale that he thinks appropriate and for the Secretary of State to respond on actions to be taken. I therefore suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Investigation of complaints by the Ombudsman

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 10 to 20 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, clause 20 provides definitions that are relevant to the Bill clauses related to the ombudsman, including setting out the relevant institutions that are covered by the ombudsman’s remit of investigating deaths and complaints and defining the person in charge of those institutions, which is relevant where the ombudsman must be notified of the deaths. I suggest that clauses 9 to 20 stand part of the Bill.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I want to make a couple of observations. We welcome the provisions, which are absolutely right and needed in the 21st century. I specifically want to thank the Government for putting the ombudsman on a statutory basis and giving him to the power to investigate deaths in immigrations centres, as well as those agencies that escort prisoners from immigration centres to other places, so that they are also covered. If somebody tries to obstruct the ombudsman, he can go to the High Court and the person causing the obstruction can be done for contempt of court. Those are really welcome provisions that we wholeheartedly support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Interference with wireless telegraphy in prisons etc

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 21, page 19, line 34, at end insert—

‘(8) Before this section comes into force the Secretary of State shall—

(a) carry out a review of arrangements for prisoners to make telephone calls, the cost of such arrangements, the benefits of such arrangements, the level of charges to prisoners and options for providing an improved and more affordable service, and

(b) lay a report before Parliament containing the Secretary of State’s conclusions as a result of the review.”

This amendment requires a review of prison phone arrangements.

The reason for the amendment is that everybody accepts that when somebody is in prison they need to be able to communicate with their families. We recognise that mobile phones have also caused problems. In 2015, nearly 17,000 mobile phones and SIM cards were found in prisons in England and Wales. That was an increase from around 10,000 in 2014 and 7,500 in 2013. Since October 2015, data have been collated differently, so that direct comparisons cannot be made.

In 2016, there was a total of 8,813 reported incidents of mobile phone finds and 4,067 reported incidents of SIM card finds. Section 1 of the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2012 already allows the Secretary of State to authorise governors to interfere with wireless telegraphy to disrupt unlawful mobile phone use. Clause 21 would allow the Secretary of State to authorise PCPs—for example, telecoms and internet service providers—to interfere with wireless telegraphy in prisons.

The Serious Crime Act 2015 makes provision for prison staff or the police to apply to the courts for a telecommunications restriction order, to require a mobile phone network to stop the use of a phone remotely. Regulations under the Act came into force on 3 August 2016.

Fundamentally, the clause seeks to provide PCPs with greater independence to conduct interference. Limiting access to mobile phones is necessary. However, a central plank of rehabilitation is ensuring prisoners have sufficient controlled contact with the outside world. In discussion with former prisoner officers, we were told that a lack of access to telephones was a major cause of disturbances in prisons.

The Prison Reform Trust has stated that access to telephones is limited and relatively expensive, hindering rehabilitation. It has suggested establishing a mandatory minimum level of access to telephones. The health charity, Change Grow Live, said:

“We recognise that the use of mobile phones within the prison estate can have negative security implications, but we do believe this could be better managed by ensuring there is wider access to telephones within prisons, to enable prisoners to maintain contact with friends and families.”

The Royal College of Psychiatrists states:

“The Joint Commissioning Panel guidance for forensic mental health services in the NHS…recommends that family support and maintenance and re-establishment of family relationships should occur where possible.”

The Howard League states:

“Steps to increase access to legal methods of communication in prisons would have a much greater impact. Ensuring that prisoners can frequently access affordable payphones with a reasonable amount of privacy to make calls to their families would reduce the demand for mobile phones in prison.”

The Public and Commercial Services Union states:

“It is worth noting that these reforms are long overdue and unions have been arguing for this issue to be addressed for many years.”

We are asking for improved, controlled access to telephones, which will have the benefit of helping the prisoners and, we hope, lead to fewer mobile phones being found illegally in prisons.

[Mr Gyimah]

As hon. Members will know, technology—particularly mobile technology—is constantly evolving. The Government are determined that legislation should keep pace with developments to combat the serious problem posed by the use of illegal mobile phones in prison.

Illicit mobile phone use is linked to the supply of drugs and other contraband, serious organised crime and the evasion of public protection monitoring, bringing further harm to the victims of crime. The scale of the issue is stark. In 2016, nearly 20,000 mobile phones and SIM cards—that is 54 a day—were found in prisons in England and Wales.

Although this is not a new problem, the scale has increased steadily. In 2013, only about 7,000 mobile phones and SIM cards were found. To help combat that challenge, clause 21 and the associated schedule 2, will make a number of changes to the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2012. In its briefing on the Bill, the Prison Reform Trust stated:

“We welcome the introduction of sensible and proportionate measures to prevent the damaging and illicit trade in mobile phones in prisons.”

The Government welcome the trust’s support for measures to tackle the many serious problems caused by illicit mobiles in prison. They are used, as I have said, as a link to the supply of drugs and contraband and serious and organised crime. The trust noted that, as well as targeting the supply side, attention should also focus on limiting demand by improving the availability of, and prisoners’ access to, lawful telephones in prison. Once again, we agree with the trust.

As part of our digital prison programme, we have made changes to make it easier for prisoners to use telephones in HMP Wayland. Secure telephone handsets are now available in cells. The deployment started in September 2016 and was completed in December 2016. This has been repeated at HMP Berwyn, and we are in the process of extending it across the estate as part of the programme. We are then able to reduce the phone tariff in these institutions to make calls more affordable and accessible, and the result has been excellent. Notably, call minutes used in Wayland are up 114% from our baseline week in September. Anecdotal evidence also indicates noticeable improvement in behaviour.

As a result of these encouraging developments, we are now looking at further ways to accelerate the improved accessibility and affordability of telephony across the whole estate. We are steadily building a body of evidence that shows the benefits which arise from a nudge that simultaneously discourages the illegal use of mobile phones, while encouraging legitimate calls to families, friends and supporters, by making handsets more accessible and affordable. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these measures over the coming months. We intend to retender the national telephony contract this calendar year to reduce call charges to prisoners, while introducing technologies that block and disrupt illicit mobile phones.

We have given detailed consideration to the need to assist prisoners in maintaining relationships with family members while they are in prison, as we develop policy on prisoner access to telephone services. I do not believe that it would be right to accept the amendment, because the work to be covered by the review is already under way and will continue.

Further, placing a requirement to conduct a review in primary legislation would delay commencement of provisions in the Bill designed to improve our ability to combat the use of illicit mobile phones in prisons until such time as a review is carried out. Our work to improve prisoner access to telephone services will continue, irrespective of a review. I hope therefore that the hon. Lady is persuaded to withdraw the amendment.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 22

Testing prisoners for psychoactive substances

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6—Testing prisoners blood following assault—

“Testing prisoners blood following assault

‘(1) The Prison Act 1952 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 16B insert—

0 “Power to test prisoners blood

‘(1) If an authorisation is in force for the prison, any prison officer may, at the prison, in accordance with prison rules, require any prisoner who is confined in the prison to provide a sample of blood for the purpose of investigating assaults including spitting and biting, carried out by the prisoner.

(2) If the authorisation so provides, the power conferred by subsection (1) above shall include power—

(a) to require a prisoner to provide a sample of urine, whether instead of or in addition to a sample of blood, and

(b) to require a prisoner to provide a sample of any other description specified in the authorisation, not being an intimate sample, whether instead of or in addition to a sample of blood, a sample of urine or both.

(3) In this section—

“authorisation” means an authorisation by the governor;

“intimate sample” has the same meaning as in Part V of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;

“prison officer” includes a prisoner custody officer within the meaning of Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1991;

“prison rules” means rules under section 47 of this Act”

(4) A person commits an offence if that person fails to comply with requests to provide samples under subsection (2).

(5) A person guilty of an offence falling within subsection (4) shall be liable on summary conviction to—

(a) imprisonment for a period not exceeding 51 weeks,

(b) a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or

(c) both.””

This new clause to the Prison Act 1952 gives prison officers the power to require a blood sample where the prisoner is accused of certain assaults.

--- Later in debate ---

I heard the words of the Minister this morning and I am satisfied that he accepts that retention of prison officers is a problem. However, while the Bill goes a long way towards giving governors more responsibility and increases the scrutiny upon them, I do not believe that it goes far enough in addressing the pressures that governors face in prisons. There is a real danger that the Bill will shift responsibility away from the Government and on to the governor, without giving them the resources to bring about the improvements that they want to deliver. This clause would be a cost-effective way of making prison officers that much safer, and I believe that that focus is missing from the Bill. It is intended to serve as a deterrent and would have a positive impact on safety, and therefore on the retention of prison officers and staff. I hope that Members will support this new clause.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The Opposition support my hon. Friend’s new clause. It is important that prison officers should be able to work in a safe environment and have the right to know if they are being exposed to any infectious diseases.

Before I sit down for the last time today, I want to make a brief observation about clause 22 and the proposal to simplify the legislation so that testing can be done for all drugs. Testing alone is not an adequate response to the problem of drugs and psychoactive substances in prisons. Although it is important, it can only be of limited value because not all prisoners can be tested regularly; far greater resources would have to be provided.

The Prison Reform Trust has said that testing can be partial, but must be intelligence-led. The Howard League states that,

“drug testing alone does little to reduce drug use in prisons. Recent HMIP reports have found that overcrowding and a shortage of officers mean that intelligence-led drug tests often do not take place.”

Testing must therefore be intelligence-led. Again, that requires greater resources than are available at present.

[Mr Gyimah]

I want to pay tribute to the incredible work that our prison officers and support staff do every day. They work in an incredibly challenging environment and do a very brave job indeed. The new clause highlights some of the more challenging circumstances that they face when an offender spits or bites a prison officer. I also want to put on the record now that I recognise the additional worry and stress that prison officers can face waiting, as the hon. Member for Halifax has mentioned, often for several months to discover whether, in addition to the assault they have suffered, they have contracted a transferable medical condition. I therefore welcome the debate that that raises. I know that the hon. Lady has raised this issue before in relation to assaults on emergency workers. The only concern, and why we will resist the new clause, is that, as currently drafted, I can see some legal and practical difficulties, which I will outline.

A detailed regime applicable to securing samples from prisoners already exists under the powers set out in a Prison Service instruction in the Prison Act 1952. The powers enable testing for illegal activity and testing for drugs either by randomised samples or where there is a suspicion of drug use. Section 16B of that Act provides a power to test for alcohol. Changes in clause 22 of the Bill extend testing powers to psychoactive substances. Testing can be voluntary or mandatory and is normally conducted by urine testing and other non-invasive testing methods.

It is not clear to me, however, where the main focus of the power in the new clause lies. Is it for the detection of crime—proving the assault—or is it to provide information quickly to the prison officer involved about the risk of a communicable disease? A testing power without specific safeguards does not serve to understand what the purpose of a test is.

Also, significant practical issues have to be considered. Under PACE, other than urine tests, all intimate samples, including blood samples, can be taken only by a registered medical practitioner or registered healthcare professional. A blood sample cannot be taken by a police officer under the PACE regime in a similar situation. Prison officers are simply not trained to take blood samples. They are not medical professionals, and the sterile medical conditions required are not always available in prisons.

I would also be concerned to avoid situations in which prison officers, owing to a lack of medical training and the absence of a provision requiring prisoner consent in taking blood samples, found themselves accused of assault.

We need to consider what impact the use of the power would have on the relationship between prisoners and prison officers, which is crucial to successful offender management. The safeguards on consent, testing processes and data protection are needed for practical and legal reasons. Without sufficiently circumscribed criteria giving rise to the power to take samples; without suitably qualified staff to take the samples; and without proper training of staff and fair and proportionate penalties for non-compliance, the power is unlikely to be compatible with article 8 rights, and the Government cannot support it.

Having said that, I want to make some additional points about what can be done now. As we set out in our “Prison Safety and Reform” White Paper, we are committed to improving the safety of prisons for all who live and work there. We do not tolerate any behaviour against staff that undermines their essential work. Staff must have the confidence that assaults against them will be met with a robust and swift response.

To that end, we are taking an evidence-led approach to improving prison safety. I have already mentioned the 2,500 staff in the new key worker regime that we are rolling out. I believe that increased numbers will also enable more staff to be available on wings, to increase staff confidence in the support that they have available from colleagues, and that they will also act as a deterrent to assaults by prisoners on staff.

Additional staff will also mean more predictable regimes, reducing prisoner frustrations and providing opportunities for purposeful engagement. We already have a well established process for sanctioning violence in prisons. A range of sanctions is available, from downgrading privileges, segregation and adjudications. Cases that are serious enough are heard by an independent adjudicator, who has the power to add up to another 42 days to a prisoner’s sentence.

Governors are also required by the published adjudications policy to refer more serious assaults to the police for investigation. It is worth stressing that an assault that involves biting may be charged as a more serious offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, rather than the lower level common assault, depending on the nature of the injuries sustained. Spitting and biting can also be considered as aggravating factors within the offence, meriting a more severe sentence. Any sentence imposed should also, in accordance with sentencing guidelines, be served consecutively to the existing sentence.

Finally, there are also some technical issues relating to the penalties for failing to comply with a test. I do not want to labour the points, but I think that the hon. Member for Halifax has raised some important matters in the debate and, as I said at the outset, I completely understand the thinking behind the new clause. I sympathise with the intention, but given the legal and practical difficulties in the drafting, we cannot support it at this point. I therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.