Prepared: 18:33 on 9 February 2010
House of Commons
Tuesday 9 February 2010
The House met at half-past Two o’clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
JUSTICE
The Secretary of State was asked—
Youth Reoffending Rates
1. Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): What recent steps his Department has taken to reduce reoffending rates for young offenders. [316129]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Maria Eagle): Since 2000, the frequency of juvenile reoffending has dropped by more than 20 per cent.—the trend is significantly downwards. The number of first-time offenders coming into the criminal justice system is also down.Our approach to reducing reoffending still further is detailed in the youth crime action plan, which is backed by £100 million of funding. The plan focuses on a triple-track approach of tough enforcement, non-negotiable support and prevention.
Andrew Selous: Given that many hundreds of young people who commit crime have previously been behind bars on three or more occasions, why are there no major incentives for young offender institutions to be rewarded for cutting reoffending rates?
Maria Eagle: I am interested in incentives throughout the system, but it is difficult to attribute a particular cut in reoffending to the actions of one particular institution, course or individual. So although incentives are a good and fine thing, designing what they are and how they work is slightly more difficult.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): I thank the Minister for giving evidence this morning to the Select Committee on Home Affairs inquiry into crime prevention, when I mentioned to her a group that we had met called User Voice. It is a group of ex-offenders who wish to help to prevent young offenders from following the path into crime. Will she meet the group and thus recognise the importance of young ex-offenders who are trying to be a model to prevent others from getting involved in crime?
Maria Eagle: It was of course a great pleasure for me to give evidence to the Committee this morning—the time passed very swiftly. I am more than happy to meet the group to which my right hon. Friend refers. I meet groups of ex-offenders in my constituency who believe that mentoring can be an excellent way of trying to turn those who are on the path into custody away from crime.
Mr. David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): In 2007, the Government talked about
“delivering improved outcomes for young black people in the criminal justice system”.
However, the latest published figures show that among 15 to 17-year-old prisoners, 17 per cent. of those on remand and 13 per cent. of those sentenced are black. Given the year-on-year increase in the over-representation of young black people in custody, how does the Minister rate the performance of the designated ministerial champion tasked with reducing those numbers? I refer of course to the Justice Secretary.
Maria Eagle: I rate my right hon. Friend extremely highly; he is very good at everything he does as far as I am concerned. The particular issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is very difficult, and we must recognise that black and minority ethnic people are still over-represented in our criminal justice. The reasons for that over-representation are complex. Work is going on to try to tackle it but, as he rightly says, there is still a lot to do.
Education and Training
2. Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): What education and training opportunities are available to offenders (a) on remand and (b) serving short-term custodial sentences to help them find employment following release. [316130]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Maria Eagle): We have increased spending on education and training threefold in the past few years. In prisons we provide a curriculum with a broad focus on employability, ranging from preparatory employment skills, literacy and numeracy, to higher level qualifications and skills training. A new unit-based qualifications and credit system will be particularly valuable for those serving short sentences, as it will allow learning to take place in short modules, which can be continued out in the community.
Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend would be very welcome to come before my Select Committee, which is currently examining the not in education, employment or training—NEET—population. We are finding that a large number of young people who begin short custodial sentences or spend a long time on remand break their education and find it very difficult to get back, so can we have more of these short courses and can they be well funded?
Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend rightly says that there is an issue to address in respect of ensuring that people who have not engaged in education and training at the earliest possible opportunity in their lives get a chance to do so and are helped to stick at it, in whatever setting. I have been collecting Select Committees lately. If that was an invitation, I might just come along to his Select Committee to tell him what I think about this and his fellow members of the Committee—[Laughter.]—I said “if” that was an invitation. I am happy to say that the number of 16 and 17-year-old NEETs in the system has been falling and now stands at 5.2 per cent., but there is clearly more to do in that respect.
Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking) (Con): Education and training opportunities, especially for young offenders, are still very poor. At Reading young offenders institution, for example, there are only five hours a week of education and training, and at Rochester only three and a half hours. Why are those figures—they are Government figures—so bad?
Maria Eagle: In the YOI estate, we aim for 25 to 30 hours of education and purposeful activity. I realise that outcomes vary across the estate, and we strive to improve that because it is something that can make a difference to the lives of these young people.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): Visiting prisons and young offenders institutions in my area, one notes how variable the facilities are. Younger people often need hands-on experience with equipment to gain technical expertise. Is that something that the Government are making efforts to improve?
Maria Eagle: Yes. We have a corporate alliance of 100 employers across various sectors, many of which actually provide work-based training in prisons and young offenders institutions, which give those who take the courses not only employment while in prison but qualifications and, sometimes, the promise of a job when they leave prison. That has to be the way forward. Some 38 per cent. of those released from custody are released into education and training, and 26 per cent. into employment.
Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con): Is not the greatest impediment to training and getting a job the simple fact that all the efforts to help an offender upon release from prison are fragmented, and the first person they are likely to meet when they step through the prison gate with £40 in their pocket is the local drug dealer? What plans do the Government have to ensure that national offender management becomes genuinely local offender management, and that the ex-offender is met at the gate by someone responsible for their rehabilitation, so that over time reoffending is dramatically reduced?
Maria Eagle: While the Conservatives talk about a rehabilitation revolution, the Government have been providing it and we already have such schemes. Because of the creation of the National Offender Management Service and closer working together at a local level in education, health and local authority services such as housing, this is already happening. I am not saying that we cannot do more—we can, and we must—but the Conservatives should recognise the significant impact that has already been made on reducing reoffending.
Civil Litigation Costs
3. Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): What assessment he has made of the recommendations in Lord Jackson’s review of civil litigation costs; and if he will make a statement. [316131]
The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw): Lord Justice Jackson’s review was published on 14 January. Anybody who has read its 550 pages—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has done—will note that it is remarkable for its thoroughness and imagination. It makes recommendations for fundamental reforms to reduce costs in the civil justice system. We are now actively assessing the implications of Sir Rupert’s proposals, including—crucially—their economic impact.
Paul Rowen: Does the Secretary of State accept that if the proposals are implemented, especially those on litigation costs for industrial personal injuries, it will be ordinary men and women with, say, asbestosis or byssinosis who will lose out? That will be in direct opposition to the commitment made on behalf of the Government by the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) on 14 April 1999, when he said that the costs of litigation should lie, in the first place, with those who have actually caused the damage.
Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s opinion about the impact of Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals, which are designed to reduce the costs of civil litigation overall. Those costs have risen too high, and that is a bar to proper access to justice. Of course, he makes scores of interlinked recommendations, and they have to be examined with great care, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will do Lord Justice Jackson justice—no pun intended—given the thoroughness of his report, and recognise that his whole aim was to reduce costs and improve practical access to justice.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): I am a non-practising solicitor because I do not believe in moonlighting. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that when considering implementation of the Jackson review he will seek to avoid lessening access to justice, with fewer so-called no-win, no-fee agreements or a greater burden on the already stretched legal aid system?
Mr. Straw: I know that legal aid is understandably a matter of concern, but it must be said that the legal aid system in England and Wales, both for civil and criminal legal aid, is by far and away the most generous system in the western world. It compares by a factor of about three with systems in comparable common law jurisdictions, such as Australia and New Zealand. Part of the problem concerning the burden on the civil legal aid fund and the public purse from, for example, actions for medical negligence are the costs of litigation. Those are in nobody’s interest, except those who directly benefit. Lord Justice Jackson has made specific proposals for conditional fee arrangements: he proposed that they should be abolished and replaced by an alternative of contingency fees, under which the litigant, applicant or plaintiff would pay his or her side’s own costs out of any damages recovered, and that there be a 10 per cent. uplift in damages. That is a central recommendation of Lord Justice Jackson’s review, which, as I have already made clear, we are examining with great care.
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): We, too, welcome this remarkable magnum opus. The Secretary of State will be aware that Lord Justice Jackson was very critical of referral fees and some of the practices of claims management companies. What is the Secretary of State’s view of that, and can he now give a cast-iron guarantee that when it comes to referral fees and claims management matters, there will be no special exemptions or cosy deals for the trade unions?
Mr. Straw: I am not intending that there should be any cosy deals with anybody in the implementation of the report. The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, have read with care chapter 20 of the Jackson report.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): I have read every word of the report!
Mr. Straw: There will be an examination straight after this!
The recommendations for referral fees actually came not from the trade unions but directly from the Office of Fair Trading, which still supports referral fees. That said, I fully understand the objections raised by Lord Jackson about referral fees. We have to look at all the recommendations in the round and make judgments in the round, not least after the economic assessment that we are making at the moment.
Reoffending Rates
4. John Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): What steps he plans to take to reduce the number of prisoners reoffending within two years of release; and if he will make a statement. [316132]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Maria Eagle): We have had substantial success in reducing youth and adult reoffending, which fell by 23.6 per cent. and 20.3 per cent. respectively between 2000 and 2007. The Government will continue to work towards driving down reoffending and to ensure that, alongside punishment, we also try to reform offenders.
John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. She will be aware that there is something of a revolving door as two thirds of people are reoffending. We are now talking about 20,000 extra places being made available for people who have committed crimes. Should we not be looking at why these crimes happen and why people get involved in criminality in the first place, and trying to prevent them from ever getting involved in criminality?
Maria Eagle: Of course we should, and we do both. It is not unconnected, in my view, that crime has fallen by one third and that we incarcerate serious and dangerous offenders for longer. Those things are not unconnected. Violent crime is down by 41 per cent., although the Conservative party appears unwilling to accept it. There are fewer victims of crime than ever before and one now has the lowest chance of being a victim of crime since records began. These are substantial achievements that the Conservative party ought to recognise.
David Howarth (Cambridge) (LD): It is disappointing to hear a Minister still claiming that the fall in crime has to do with the increase in the prison population, given that the same fall in crime has happened throughout Europe, apart from Belgium, without the same prison policy being in place. Does the Minister not recognise that the real underlying problem is that too many people are in prison in the first place for crimes that would be better dealt with by systems that work, such as restorative justice and getting them off drugs and drink?
Maria Eagle: We have increased fifteenfold the amount of money that we spend on drug interventions in prison and the amount we spend on providing prison education threefold. They are substantial achievements. Some 38 per cent. of those leaving prison enter education and training; 26 per cent. get a job and 80 per cent. enter settled housing. That is tackling the underlying causes of crime. Not only do we protect the public by incarcerating dangerous and severe offenders for longer, but we tackle the causes of crime.
Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab): What progress have the Government made on ensuring that offenders have bank accounts when they leave prison? Without bank accounts they cannot access accommodation or employment, and they are one of the things that help to prevent reoffending.
Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right. We have some arrangements between bankers and the Department, and through those we are exploring the provision of basic bank accounts to offenders. Clearly there are difficulties, and some banks have concerns about allowing a certain type of offender to have a bank account. However, we believe that we can overcome some of those difficulties by continuing to discuss such matters, and we are seeing some progress in that regard.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): Neither reducing reoffending nor public protection is served by this Government’s reckless early release scheme. Can the Minister tell the House whether she or the Secretary of State plans to announce the end of early release before 6 May?
Maria Eagle: I cannot say anything other than that we keep the matter closely under review. The policy was announced as a temporary measure to deal with overcrowding. We have said that we want to end it as soon as practically possible, and I, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others keep that under review frequently.
Mr. Grieve: That was a gentle masterpiece of obfuscation, so let me try again. Can the Minister confirm that the official advice that she and the Secretary of State are receiving from their Department or the Prison Service warns against ending early release now, because the lack of cells means that it would have to be reintroduced in a matter of weeks or months? Can she reassure the House that there are no plans to leave the next Government the poison pill of a looming prison crisis?
Maria Eagle: I am not about to start bandying official advice across the Dispatch Box, and I do not think that any Minister, in any Administration, would seek to do that. I will therefore not rise to the bait that the hon. and learned Gentleman is dangling before me. Beyond saying that we keep the matter, which we take very seriously, under constant review, I have nothing to add.
Re-registration (Service Personnel)
5. Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): What assessment he has made of the merits of ending the re-registration requirement for service voters. [316133]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Mr. Michael Wills): Ending re-registration altogether would create inaccuracies in the register. However, the Government recognise the need to respond to the special circumstances of service voters. That is why we have laid before Parliament an order that extends the declaration period for service voters from three to five years, and why we are taking forward further measures to help service voters to register to vote and, indeed, to vote.
Mr. Robathan: Before the last general election I took this matter up because I discovered that there were shamefully low levels of service voter registration. I welcome what the Government have said. I last had a meeting with the Electoral Commission in, I think, October, when we discussed this. I am sure that, like me, the Minister wishes to make it as easy as possible for people fighting—and possibly dying—in places such as Afghanistan to be able to vote. May I therefore urge him to reconsider so that perhaps people could register as service voters when they join the forces, as I did, and then de-register when they leave? That would be very easy: it worked in those days, and I managed to vote Conservative throughout those days as well.
Mr. Wills: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest in the matter. He brings a lot of experience to it, and I am grateful to him. I agree with him entirely: it is crucial that those who are prepared to make such sacrifices for their country should be able to have that important say in the future of their country. There is no question about that. I will of course take into consideration what he has said. We have set up a working party, with Ministry of Defence officials, Ministry of Justice officials, and representatives of the families and the armed services, to see how we can achieve long-term solutions to what is a difficult problem.
I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion. I promise him that we will take it forward and have a look at it. I know that he will agree with me and would not want to recreate the sort of inaccuracies that were in the register before 2000. However, I can reassure him that we are making efforts to ensure that our servicemen in Afghanistan in particular are enabled to register to vote in the forthcoming election, and then able to vote. The proxy vote system is available to everybody. We are trying to expedite postal voting for service personnel as well, and we will be announcing measures to that end shortly.
Prisoners Maintaining Innocence
6. John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): What recent estimate he has made of the number of people in prison who maintain their innocence. [316134]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Claire Ward): The information requested is not collected. A person who believes that they have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice can appeal against their conviction. If the appeal is unsuccessful, the Criminal Cases Review Commission can be asked to review the case. The commission has the power to refer a conviction to the Court of Appeal.
John Hemming: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does she think there would be any merit in the Government undertaking a study of miscarriages of justice, and of the correlation between unevidenced assertions and compensation in miscarriage of justice cases?
Claire Ward: There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the number of wrongful convictions is rising. The Court of Appeal quashes about 200 convictions each year, and I see no reason at all to make any change to the current arrangements.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet) (Lab): One group of people who often have difficulty expressing and establishing their innocence are those on the autistic spectrum. In the state of Maryland in the United States, this is being tackled by the Maryland curriculum, which trains court officers and police officers to recognise autistic behaviour. Would my hon. Friend be prepared to review the Maryland curriculum to see whether there would be any merit in introducing such a scheme in the United Kingdom?
Claire Ward: My hon. Friend has given the House some interesting information, and I would be more than happy to ask officials to look into it in more detail. He might also be aware of the Bradley report, in which my noble Friend Lord Bradley identifies the difficulties experienced by people with mental health and other learning difficulties. The report examines how the criminal justice system should approach these issues and suggests alternative ways of dealing with them, where possible.
David Howarth (Cambridge) (LD): I am disappointed, although not surprised, that the Minister responded to the original question by saying that the Government do not collect this information at all. About a year ago, they said it would serve no useful purpose to collect it. Does she not recognise that there is a useful purpose? When prisoners maintain their innocence, it can often lead to their being held in prison for longer, perhaps because they are held not to have completed various courses. Do the Government not see that there would be a purpose in making a study of cases such as those?
Claire Ward: When someone is convicted, it is only right that the system accepts that the court’s decision is right and, if they are sent to prison, the prison system should accept the decision on that basis. The person has an opportunity to appeal, and if the appeal is unsuccessful, they also have an opportunity to refer the case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that people who maintain their innocence might not get parole or be considered appropriately. It would not be lawful for the Parole Board to exclude someone from an opportunity for parole simply because they maintained their innocence. There are some courses that it would be inappropriate for such people to attend, such as sex offending treatment, simply because if they could not admit their offence, it would be difficult to discuss with them how they were going to progress from it.
Self-harm (Female Prisoners)
7. Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central) (Lab): What recent estimate he has made of levels of self-harm in women’s prisons. [316136]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Maria Eagle): About half of all incidents of self-harm across the entire prison estate are perpetrated by women, who comprise only 5 per cent. of the prison population. Levels of self-harm in women’s prisons are broadly stable, although they are high. The number of self-inflicted deaths, however, has gone down to a three-year average of 60, which is a significant improvement on the past few years.
Mr. Illsley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. On a recent visit to New Hall women’s prison, I was shocked to see the levels of self-harm among very vulnerable females. Some of the women are serving jail sentences for offences such as the non-payment of their television licence fee. Is there more that the Government can do to reduce the serious level of self-harm in women’s prisons?
Maria Eagle: We are taking steps to try to deal with serious self-harm in all our prisons. One of the best ways of preventing vulnerable women from self-harming is to try to provide alternatives to custody for petty offences. This enables the women to remain in the community while tackling their offending behaviour. In that respect, using the £15.5 million of extra resources that we have made available to divert women from custody is probably the best way of tackling this issue.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): Given what the Minister has just said and given the overwhelming evidence recently provided in the Corston and other reports, it is clear that far too many women in prison should not be there. More should be done, as it has been estimated that up to half the female prison population should not be in prison—we really should grasp this nettle and act urgently.
Maria Eagle: I am doing my best to do that. The hon. Gentleman’s analysis that some women in prisons should not be there may well be correct, but it is sentencers who send people to prison and we have to provide places for them. We have to find alternatives in the community for many of these vulnerable women that command the respect and support of sentencers. That is what some of the money in the diversion projects I mentioned is being used to do. It shows some progress that there has been a 4.2 per cent fall in the number of women in prison over the last year during which these projects have been working, while at the same time the male prison population has increased by 2 per cent.
Mr. Speaker: May I gently say that the comprehensiveness and courtesy of ministerial replies is greatly appreciated by hon. and right hon. Members, but I think that the abridged rather than the “War and Peace” version will suffice.
Mrs. Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): I very much welcome what my hon. Friend said about providing diversionary tactics for women in prison. Welsh women, if sentenced to a period in prison, have to serve their time in England at some considerable distance from their families. What ways can be found to help to ensure that there are greater diversionary opportunities for sentencers in Wales so that women are able to serve their sentence closer to family support in Wales?
Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is correct: about 50 or so Welsh women are serving their prison sentences in English jails, as there are no women’s prisons in Wales. We do not intend to build one, but we are providing support both in south and north Wales for diversionary projects that might enable sentencers not to impose short prison sentences for those who really would do better with community sentences.
Burglary Sentences
8. Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): What progress has been made in his review of sentencing for people convicted of burglary offences. [316137]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Claire Ward):The maximum sentence for burglary of dwellings is 14 years; for non-domestic burglary, it is 10 years; and for aggravated burglary, it is life. Within the statutory framework, it is for the Sentencing Guidelines Council to issue guidelines to the judiciary. The SGC issued guidelines for non-domestic burglary in 2008; following R v. Saw in 2009, it is currently preparing guidelines for domestic burglary.
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Twelve months ago, the Secretary of State and the then Minister of State said that they were looking at toughening up the sentencing policy for burglary offences. Will the Minister tell me what is happening with first-time offenders who commit burglary?
Claire Ward: Within the statutory framework, it is of course for the courts to determine what is appropriate, and the framework is quite extensive. As a result of that framework, we are seeing that the average custodial period for burglary has increased from 15.5 months in 1998 to 17.4 months in 2008. Overall, burglary has more than halved since 1997.
Returning Officers
9. Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): If he will take steps to strengthen accountability arrangements for returning officers. [316138]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Mr. Michael Wills): The Government are aware of concerns that have been raised in Parliament about the accountability of returning officers and registration officers, and we are exploring ways to address them. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that any changes should take place only if they support the principle of the independence of these officers.
Mr. Mackay: Notwithstanding that independence, does the Minister not agree that he should make it very clear to returning officers at the forthcoming general election that unless there is very good geographical case against, all counts should take place on the night?
Mr. Wills: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that on a personal level I have made that very clear, as indeed has my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary. I think that that is a settled view across the House. However, as the Minister responsible for elections, I have to proceed in a way that respects the integrity and independence of the system and of those officers. As I have said, we are exploring ways of addressing this issue; we will announce the outcome of that review very shortly.
Geraldine Smith (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab): I welcome the Minister’s comments, but does he appreciate that this is a cross-party issue? Indeed, we agree with Mr. Speaker when he says that we do not want slow-motion democracy, but instant democracy. In a modern democracy, we should be able to achieve that.