|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Imbert: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for a disabled person to apply for exemption from the congestion charge he or she has to supply an original birth certificate or marriage certificate and a copy of both sides of his or her blue or orange badge and pay a £10 administration chargeto relieve the disabled person of paying a £5 congestion charge?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree on reflection that it is simply no good for him or the Government to continue to try to distance themselves from the Mayor of London and the damage that he is likely to cause? If that damage is only slight, maybe they can get away with it. But if the consequences are muddle and expensive chaos, they can be very sure that they will be deeply involved in answering for it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is making a political judgment, which he is entirely entitled to make. But I am concerned that we should reflect the law as we have it in this country which was passed by Parliament. We passed an Act of devolution of power in London to the mayor and the Greater London Assembly. That was agreed by all parties at the time to be the right thing to do. You do not thenwhen there are worries about the mayor's particular policies or even about a number of issuesgo on to demand the repeal of legislation.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, did I hear correctly that adequate means of public transport must be provided? Is that what the mayor said? How can residents of Battersea find adequate public transport when there is no Tube and, to get from Battersea to Parliament Square, for instance, one must take a series of buses?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Secretary of State said it, not the mayor. He said that any congestion charging scheme must be supported by public transport alternatives. We are assured by the mayor, in particular, that the bus service has provision for increased capacity to meet the expected extra demand.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, can the Minister shed any light on the suggestion that the extended period for red traffic lights in central London is likely to be dramatically reduced upon the introduction of congestion charges in order to suggest that congestion charging is responsible for the easier flow of traffic that will result?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can report only what we are told by Transport for London, which reports to the mayor. It says that there are two aspects of traffic light phasing, which is entirely the mayor's responsibility in central London. One has been that, until the works in Trafalgar Square are complete next summer, there has been phasing to choke off a certain amount of traffic to the square. The other, which is undoubtedly true, is that London was one of the few places that did not observe the phasing for pedestrians to cross roads, which followed the Department of Transport's guidelines set out in 1981. Transport for London is now observing those guidelines.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the Government are providing additional prison capacity. They have announced that £60 million will be made available to provide 740 additional prison places by March 2004. We have recently approved Prison Service plans for two new prisons. Sentencing is a matter for the courts, but, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my noble and learned friends the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General said in their recent statement, dangerous, violent and sexual offenders should be given custodial sentences for as long as punishment and public protection require. In addition, seriously persistent offenders who continue to offend, despite being given every reasonable opportunity for rehabilitation, should normally expect to receive a custodial sentence. For less serious offenders, consideration should be given to effective, non-custodial sentences. The government reform of the criminal justice system introduced tough new community sentences that can provide robust and effective alternatives to custody.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and acknowledge my involvement with the Prison Reform Trust. It is remarkable and perhaps sad that when the Minister introduced the Government's penal policy in the debate on the Address he did not spare a word for the grossly overcrowded state of our prisons. How many
Can the Minister assess the effect on programmes for education, training and family visits of the churn; that is to say, the present habit of shunting sentenced prisoners up and down the country repeatedly to try to solve the problem of overcrowding? If this continues, will not our prisons, a crucial but often forgotten public service, become, not part of the cure for crime, but nurseries for future crime?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in response to the first question, in October 2002, approximately 15,000 prisoners were held with another prisoner in cells designed for one. The key performance indicator in that respect was that only 18 per cent of the prison population should be held in such cells. The figure is about 21 per cent.
As regards the churn, where figures are available, 6,358 of a total prison population of about 72,500 were transferred between prisons in October 2002. Pressure on accommodation will inconvenience prisoners and disrupt programmes, but the Prison Service seeks to avoid this as much as possible and encourages establishments to place the necessary holds on prisoners studying for basic skills qualifications. The number has increased from 5,771 in October 2001. I express my gratitude to the noble Lord for giving notice of his supplementary questions.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, does the Minister not accept that one result of overcrowding is undoubtedly the serious dilution of an already thin provision of education? To take just one example, with the numbers in Forest Bank prison in Greater Manchester, which has a very good education and training record, having risen rapidly from around 700 to nearly 1,000, it can provide education for fewer than half of its inmates.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the effect of current numbers in prisons inevitably dilutes the ability of the Prison Service to provide basic education and skills, which make a real contribution to stopping reoffending and must be one of its vital aims. That is partly because of the transfers, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and because there are more prisoners. All prisons are required to provide a core curriculum, which includes basic skills, information technology and preparation for work, all of which lead to nationally recognised awards and qualifications. The more people there are in prison, the harder it is to provide that.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the director of the Prison Reform Trust, in an article nine days ago in the Observer, underlined the Lord Chief Justice's comment that we now imprison almost double the irreducible minimum to which the Lord Chief Justice referred. To respond simply by having an increased prison building programme has all the disadvantages and attractions of widening the M25. Will the Minister consider
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Lord Chief Justice, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my noble and learned friends the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General made clear that, apart from the categories of case that I mentioned in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, consideration should be given to alternatives to custodyfor example, curfews, strong community sentences or finesso that reoffending can be effectively reduced. Separately, we also need to consider how, when people are released from prison, steps can be taken to help them to reintegrate in society to ensure that they do not reoffend.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there are now 20 per cent more women in prison than there were last year and that the number now is approximately 4,000twice as many as when Labour came to power in 1997? How have we created this anomaly in the criminal justice process whereby we incarcerate proportionately more women than men? Why are community sentences not used as often in the case of women, who commit less serious crimes than men?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we do not incarcerate more women than men. The number of women incarcerated has gone up as a proportion, although that is now flattening out. It is difficult to identify the main reason from the figures, but one of the largest categories of offence for which women have been incarcerated where that has not been so in the past is drug-related offences. That appears to be one factor that has driven up the female population in prison.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page