International Prisoner Transfer

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

On 26 April 2012, the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) convicted Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia, on 11 counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law, including, murder, forced labour and slavery, recruiting child soldiers and rape. On 30 May 2012, the SCSL sentenced him to 50 years’ imprisonment. On 26 September 2013, the SCSL dismissed former President Taylor’s appeal against that conviction and confirmed the sentence. Following a request from the President of the SCSL to the United Kingdom, former President Taylor will now be transferred to a prison in the UK to serve that sentence.

The United Kingdom’s offer to enforce any sentence imposed on former President Taylor by the SCSL was crucial to ensuring that he could be transferred to The Hague to stand trial for his crimes.

The International Tribunals (Sierra Leone) Act 2007, which allows for SCSL sentences to be enforced here, was passed with wide cross-party support in June 2007. During the passage of the Bill it was made clear, and accepted by the House, that former President Taylor could serve his sentence in the UK should it be required, and that Her Majesty’s Government would meet the associated costs.

International justice is central to foreign policy. It is essential for securing the rights of individuals and states, and for securing peace and reconciliation. The conviction of Charles Taylor is a landmark moment for international justice. It clearly demonstrates that those who commit atrocities will be held to account and that no matter their position they will not enjoy impunity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to address literacy and numeracy problems in prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

Improving prisoners’ literacy and numeracy levels is a key focus of the Offenders’ Learning and Skills Service. When a need is identified, prisoners are offered teaching and support as a matter of priority. As my hon. Friend knows, a number of charities provide invaluable support in that area.

[Caroline Dinenage]

In prisons across the country, education can take a long time to access and is often viewed as a reward for good behaviour, rather than as a vital cornerstone of rehabilitation. What plans does my hon. Friend have to help prisoners overcome those barriers and access the skills that will be vital to them on release?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend is entirely right that rehabilitation is crucial and that education is a crucial part of rehabilitation. We will ensure that prisoners have every incentive to engage in rehabilitation. That means reforming the incentives and earned privileges scheme so that they have clear incentives, and it means ensuring that prisoners who want to get to the top of that scheme help other prisoners in a range of ways, one of which may be operating as a mentor or learning tutor—roles that, as she knows, are often supported by charities.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) back to the Front Bench. It is, dare I say it, a practical example of rehabilitation. On education in prisons, is the Minister aware of the innovative scheme in Cardiff prison, where the prisoners have opened a restaurant that is open to the public? That is a great help in providing prisoners with the kind of skills, including literacy and numeracy, that they will need when they re-enter the community.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice might provide an example of rehabilitation, if not of earned release. The Clink at Cardiff prison is a fine example of rehabilitation. It allows prisoners to gain the skills that we all know they need to go on and live law-abiding lifestyles. I have eaten there, as has the Secretary of State. It is a very good example of rehabilitation and we want to see more of it.

[Miss Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation of the importance of literacy and numeracy. Following the visit of the Secretary of State to Norwich prison in my constituency in the summer, will he provide an update on how he expects more work to be made available to prisoners to ensure that they stand the best chance of rehabilitation on release?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend is right that work in prison is crucial. We are having considerable success in that area. Last year, 800,000 more hours were worked in prisons than the year before. That is progress, but there is more to do. Work is important because it gives prisoners not only the hard skills that they need to earn qualifications and to get and keep a job, but softer skills such as working in a team, getting up in the morning and understanding the necessity of working a proper working day. All of that is important and we want to see more of it in our prisons.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

3. How his new model of legal aid tendering will help to ensure a more stable environment for law firms in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

13. What recent progress he has made on improving women’s prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

We are committed to improving standards across women’s prisons to meet the needs of women offenders. We have recently conducted a review of the women’s custodial estate, the results of which will be announced in the near future. The review will inform future policy development and improvements in how the female custodial estate is configured.

[Annette Brooke]

I was recently visited by local soroptimists, who told me about their national campaign to end the unnecessary imprisonment of women in the UK. Will the Minister give his support to this campaign and put more emphasis on community sentencing, rehabilitation and support?

[Jeremy Wright]

I will certainly have a look at the campaign to which my hon. Friend refers, but we believe that there are women who need to be imprisoned, having committed offences that justify imprisonment, and for whom, for reasons of punishment and public protection, imprisonment is appropriate. It is of course important to recognise that they have different requirements from male prisoners and to ensure that the female custodial estate reflects that. She is also right that rehabilitation is crucial. I hope she can be a little more patient and wait to hear what we have to say about the women’s custodial estate. I think she will be pleased to hear what we have to say about the need to put rehabilitation at the heart of everything we do.

[Lorely Burt]

I recently visited Downview prison, and I am surprised now to learn that it is being reroled—as the term goes—into a male prison. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the resulting savings to the women’s estate will be reinvested in prevention and community alternatives for women, as the Justice Secretary promised the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 2 July?

[Jeremy Wright]

Again, I hope my hon. Friend can be a little more patient and wait for the results of the review. When she sees those results, she will see that when it comes to resources, we think it is extremely important that we invest in rehabilitation, both for those women in the custodial estate because they need to be and for those women who could be better accommodated in the community. It is important that we recognise, however, that it is for the judiciary and magistrates to decide who needs to go to prison and who does not. It is our job to provide the capacity necessary. On Downview, we calculated that that capacity could be better used for the male estate than the female estate, but as I say, when she sees the results of the review, she will see that we have in mind many of things she has mentioned.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

The hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), previously a Justice Minister, concentrated much of her time on women in prison and women generally in the justice system. Will the Minister tell me whether, as the previous Minister aimed to ensure, the bulk of Baroness Corston’s report will be implemented within this Parliament?

[Jeremy Wright]

As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, 40 of the 43 recommendations in the Corston report have already been implemented. On the rest, he will know that the last Government decided that it was not the appropriate course of action, as Baroness Corston recommended, to pursue custodial units for women. Again, I am afraid, I must ask him to wait a little longer and see what we have to say on that subject, but he is absolutely right to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), now the sports Minister, and I hope that he will see the fruits of her labour in the work we are about to reveal.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm how many women’s centres he expects to close as a result of funding cuts?

[Jeremy Wright]

Again, the hon. Lady will have to be patient and will have to see what we have to say about provision for women across the board. It is right that we do this in a holistic way, as I am sure she would agree, and that we present proposals that have been properly thought through and properly costed, so that we can explain how we think it is best to provide custody and rehabilitation for all female offenders.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

6. What progress he has made on investigating the reported misuse of public money by private contractors who hold contracts with his Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

7. What progress he has made on the roll-out of changes to the incentives and privileges scheme in prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

Changes to the incentives and earned privileges scheme to ensure that prisoners earn their privileges will take effect on 1 November this year. As my hon. Friend will know, we have already removed 18-rated DVDs and subscription television services. In addition, we are separately considering a revised system of incentives and privileges for young people in under-18 young offenders institutions.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he believe that prisons are now, or will soon be, the spartan establishments that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier this year that he would like to see?

[Jeremy Wright]

I can tell my hon. Friend that for as long as my right hon. Friend and I are in charge of prisons, they will not be places of luxury. We have made it clear that when prisoners want to wear their own clothes, and to have access to television or to more of their own money, they will have to earn those privileges. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, we are going further than that in saying that prisoners who cause damage to their cells will not only be punished for that within the prison system but will be expected to pay for the damage.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Has the review that was promised after the Reece Ludlow revelations about prisoners having access to graphic images of their victims been concluded, and has that practice now ceased?

[Jeremy Wright]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to prisoners having access to legal papers relating to their cases. This is a difficult problem because, as he will recognise, prisoners have certain rights of access to their legal papers, but it is a cause for concern to us, and to him, that they might have access to materials that they can keep in their cells and show to other people. That is clearly inappropriate, and we are looking into how we can best restrict that access. He can rest assured that we are seeking to do that.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

8. What progress he has made on the digitisation and modernisation of the criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

10. When he expects to put out to tender contracts for privatising probation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

On 19 September, the Ministry of Justice launched the transforming rehabilitation competition. It will be open to organisations from the private and voluntary and community sectors, as well as those who are currently working in probation trusts, to bid for contracts for the 21 community rehabilitation companies that will be responsible for supervising and rehabilitating low and medium-risk offenders each year. The competition will continue during 2014, and contracts will be awarded and mobilised by 2015.

[Karl Turner]

Does the Minister accept that the Offender Management Act 2007 was about probation trusts commissioning services locally, rather than about the abolition of local probation trusts and the commissioning of services from Whitehall, which is what he is now proposing?

[Jeremy Wright]

No. I have the Act in front of me, and section 3(2) states:

“The Secretary of State may make contractual or other arrangements with any other person for the making of the probation provision.”

The Act means what it says. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the last Government passed legislation that they did not intend to pass, no doubt he will want to take that up with the former Ministers in his own party who were responsible.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said in the House, referring to this very issue,

“Sometimes we just have to believe something is right and do it”.—[Official Report, 9 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 318.]

However, leaping in and hoping for the best is a sure-fire way of getting it wrong.

Let us look at the Secretary of State’s record. Only 2% of offenders on the Work programme have found jobs; dangerous offenders are not being properly risk-assessed before release; in a brand-new prison, obtaining drugs is easier than obtaining soap; and mismanaged contracts with G4S and Serco are under investigation for fraud. I could go on. Does all that not represent the triumph of the Secretary of State’s wishful thinking over public safety?

[Jeremy Wright]

I barely know where to start, but let us start here: it is a good idea to read the facts and not the newspaper headlines. What the hon. Lady has described is a travesty of what we are proposing to do. If she is talking about the involvement of the private sector in the monitoring of contracts, she needs to be extremely careful, because she ought to know that those contracts were negotiated by the last Labour Government. She is sitting in a very large glass house and throwing stones in every direction.

I think it important for us all to understand exactly what we are proposing to do, which is to bring new people with new ideas into the provision of rehabilitation for offenders of all kinds. It is important for us to recognise that the status quo should not be what we seek to defend. Reoffending rates are too high, and we need to bring them down. If the hon. Lady wants to defend the status quo, that is up to her, but we intend to improve the situation.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must make some progress. I want to allow Back Benchers to speak, and conceivably even a Front Bencher.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

14. What steps he is taking to strengthen the prisons and probation ombudsman.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

We are reviewing the prisons and probation ombudsman’s terms of reference to make even clearer his independent status and role in investigating deaths in custody and in responding to complaints from detainees. I fully support the ombudsman’s steps to improve the quality and timeliness of investigations and to ensure that others can learn lessons from his findings.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the Minister for his comments but the changes proposed to prison legal aid put a great deal of weight on the quality of the prisons and probation ombudsman. What certainty can the Minister give that that will increase the quality and speed of decisions and save money? Can he be sure that that will happen?

[Jeremy Wright]

We believe that this is a better way of resolving matters in the prison system than spending money on legal aid, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State has met the ombudsman to discuss precisely the issues that he has raised, and we will work with the ombudsman to ensure that his office is capable of dealing with any additional demand that may be generated.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

May I urge the Minister to extend the ombudsman’s powers to include investigation of the deaths of transferred prisoners who are moved into secure mental health units for mental health treatment? At present, such deaths are subject only to internal NHS review rather than the full scrutiny that would be required if the death occurred in a prison.

[Jeremy Wright]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. If he will forgive me, I would like to reflect on it. I will come back to him.

[Mr Speaker]

Tom Harris—not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

T3. I am chair of the all-party group on child and youth crime, and although crime is falling, too many of our young people are being sucked into a life of crime, and too many are becoming involved in, or victims of, violence. What does the Secretary of State plan to do to stop this cycle of abuse?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

My hon. Friend is right. He will recognise there are two encouraging statistics and one depressing one in this context. The two encouraging statistics are the number of young people coming into the criminal justice system in the first place and the number of those who are incarcerated, but he is right: the one that is depressing is the rate of reoffending, which is over 70%. We need to take a look not just at rehabilitation more broadly, as he knows we are doing, but specifically at the youth custodial estate. He will hear, in very short order I hope, what we plan to do to reform that.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

This Justice Secretary and his Government have failed to stand up to G4S or Serco, which, as my hon. Friends have reminded the House, failed with the electronic tagging of prisoners and with the transfer of prisoners, and are failing in Oakwood prison, and he is refusing to rule out both companies from the process in relation to probation. Why should we believe that his plans for privatising probation will fare any better?

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

T6. In light of the announcement of a new prison for male prisoners in north Wales, will the Justice Secretary assure me that he will re-examine the provision for female prisoners, given the inordinate distance to travel to HMP Styal?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am going to sound like a stuck record at this rate, but I am afraid that I must tell the hon. Lady what I have told others earlier. She knows that we are looking at the female custodial estate, and one of the reasons why are doing so is, as she mentioned, the distances travelled by visitors, family and friends to visit people in custody. We will announce—in a relatively short time, I hope—what we intend to do, and she will see how we attempt to address the point she raises.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

T8. The wrong decision to close HMP Blundeston in my constituency was taken after a detailed evaluation of every establishment across the prison estate. Please can the Minister publish the evaluation report for Blundeston and confirm that it took full account of both the building improvements that have taken place in the past two years and the work done by staff in that period to make Blundeston a high-performing, well-run and cost-effective prison?

[Jeremy Wright]

As my hon. Friend would expect, I cannot agree that the wrong decision was taken, but I can reassure him that we carried out a full and proper assessment of what was going on not only at Blundeston, but across the estate. The reason I cannot publish that is, as he will immediately understand, that it is a comparative analysis and so would cause considerable consternation among prisons that did not quite make the cut. However, we will do everything we can to ensure that those currently employed at Blundeston are properly looked after, and we will work with him in any way we can to address the future use of the site. He and I have spoken about this matter many times, and I am sure that those who work at the site and have him as their representative will be very grateful for his interest.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

T7. Will the Minister publish the risk register for his probation privatisation plans, so that the public can see at first hand the dangers they are being exposed to as a result of this reckless rush to dismantle and fragment our probation service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What is the latest total for the number of foreign national prisoners in our jails and what steps have been taken in recent months to send them back to secure detention in their own countries?

[Jeremy Wright]

The last time my hon. Friend asked me that question, I did not have the number to hand. I still do not, but I can tell him that it is in the order of 10,800. He and I are in full agreement that that number is too high. As for the second part of his question, as he knows we are attempting to negotiate compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with a number of countries. We already have one with the European Union. I know how enthusiastic he is about EU measures, so he will be pleased to know that we are making real progress in sending people back under the EU PTA. We will continue to work hard to do so.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Local multi-agency public protection arrangements, introduced under the previous Labour Government, have been highly successful in protecting the public from high-level violent and sexual offenders. Concerns have been expressed to me that those arrangements might be centralised, making management of such offenders difficult and putting the public at risk. Will the Minister assure me that the Government do not intend to make that worrying scenario a reality?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

When the Minister quotes the Offender Management Act 2007, will he do me the courtesy of looking at the Hansard for that period, when the Minister in question—that is, me—said that the vast majority of probation boards would stay in public ownership?

[Jeremy Wright]

I quoted directly from the Act, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that I quoted correctly. I was asked a question about what the Act says. I quoted what it says. How he might have meant it to be interpreted is something else. I am afraid he and his hon. Friends must recognise that if they passed a law they did not mean to pass, that is not our problem but theirs.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The British people are sick and tired of those given long custodial sentences being released early as a matter of right. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice recently made an announcement on those given the longest custodial sentences, but can he confirm to the House that it is his intention in due course to remove the automatic right of those who serve custodial sentences to an automatic discount?

Parliamentary Written Answer (Correction)

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

I regret to inform the House that a written answer I gave on 2 September 2013, Official Report, column 218W, to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was incorrect. The hon. Member asked the Secretary of State for Justice how many offenders released on licence following a life sentence have committed (a) homicide and (b) other offences in each of the last two years. The response originally stated that there were four murders committed by four offenders. In fact, there were five murders committed by four offenders. All four offenders are now serving whole life tariffs.

The corrected answer is as follows:

Data on life sentence prisoners who commit offences of homicide are taken from the NOMS Public Protection Unit Database.

The most recent figures were published in July 2012 and may be found at the following web address:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/163377/2012-compendium-reoffending-stats-analysis.pdf.pdf

In the last two years there were five murders committed by four offenders on life licence, two in one year and three in the other. To provide some context, there are around 1,900 life sentence prisoners on supervision in the community at any one time.

Data on offenders released on life licences who have committed offences other than murder are not held centrally in a readily accessible format for the last two years. To obtain these data would exceed cost limits.

However, there are also data from published proven reoffending statistics for England and Wales for life sentenced prisoners. These statistics are published on a quarterly basis and the latest bulletin, which was published on 26 April 2013 on the Ministry of Justice website, is available at the following address:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proven-re-offending--2

Parliamentary Written Answer (Correction)

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

I regret to inform the House, because of an administrative error within my Department, the written answer given to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on 10 September 2013, Official Report, column 690W, was incorrect. The revised answer is as follows:

Jeremy Wright: The Government have carefully considered the responses to the consultation “Transforming Legal Aid: Delivering a more credible and efficient system” and has published the response “Transforming Legal Aid: Next Steps” available at: https://consult. justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-legal-aid-next-steps. We remain of the view that taxpayers should not be expected to pay the legal bills for a significant number of weak judicial review cases which are not permitted by the court to proceed at the permission stage. This does not just cost the legal aid fund, it also means more costs for the courts in considering applications and for public authorities in defending proceedings.

However, the Government have listened to concerns raised by a number of respondents who argued that the original proposal not only targets weak judicial review cases but would also unfairly affect meritorious cases where permission is not granted simply because the case concludes prior to consideration by the court. The revised proposal seeks to address this concern.

We are therefore consulting on a further proposal in which providers would not be paid unless granted permission, subject to discretionary payment in certain cases which conclude prior to a permission decision without a costs order or agreement.

The further proposal is set out in a separate consultation paper on judicial review and is accompanied by an impact assessment available at: https://consult.justice. gov.uk/digital-communications/judicial-review

Justice

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Mrs Grant]

At around £2 billion a year we have one of the most expensive legal aid systems of its type in the world. The consultation paper ‘Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system’, contained a range of measures aimed at reducing the cost of and promoting public confidence in the legal aid scheme, including a proposal that providers would only be paid for work on an application for permission to proceed with a judicial review if permission is granted by the court.

We are concerned that legal aid is currently being used to fund applications for permission for judicial review in weak cases which are unsuccessful and which have little effect other than to incur unnecessary costs for the public.

As part of our consultation we have published an impact assessment which is available at:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-legal-aid

As noted in the impact assessment, under our proposal set out in the consultation paper the provider would need to make an assessment of whether the application is arguable and therefore permission should be applied for. There may therefore be a fall in permission applications made. This may reduce the number of cases the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) need to process and reduce the number of hours required in court for these cases with an associated saving for Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). We have also noted in our assessment that there is the potential for an increase in requests for reconsideration of the permission application at a hearing, or onward permission appeals to the Court of Appeal where permission has been refused, which may result in an impact on HMCTS from reconsidering the applications.

In both circumstances however this is unquantifiable as the behavioural response of providers and clients is unknown.

Regarding possibility of increased applications for costs from public authority opponents, it is already the case that providers should generally agree costs as part of a settlement or seek a costs order form the court, as they would if acting for a privately paying client. This is set out in paragraph 6.58 of the 2013 Standard Civil Contract General Specification.

The consultation closed on 4 June 2013 and we intend to publish a Government response shortly.

The correct answer should have been:

[Jeremy Wright]

At around £2 billion a year we have one of the most expensive legal aid systems of its type in the world. The consultation paper ‘Transforming Legal Aid: delivering a more credible and efficient system’, contained a range of measures aimed at reducing the cost of and promoting public confidence in the legal aid scheme, including a proposal that providers would only be paid for work on an application for permission to proceed with a judicial review if permission is granted by the court.

We are concerned that legal aid is currently being used to fund applications for permission for judicial review in weak cases which are unsuccessful and which have little effect other than to incur unnecessary costs for the public.

As part of our consultation we have published an impact assessment which is available at:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-legal-aid

As noted in the impact assessment, under our proposal set out in the consultation paper the provider would need to make an assessment of whether the application is arguable and therefore permission should be applied for. There may therefore be a fall in permission applications made. This may reduce the number of cases the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) need to process and reduce the number of hours required in court for these cases with an associated saving for Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS). We have also noted in our assessment that there is the potential for an increase in requests for reconsideration of the permission application at a hearing, or onward permission appeals to the Court of Appeal where permission has been refused, which may result in an impact on HMCTS from reconsidering the applications.

In both circumstances however this is unquantifiable as the behavioural response of providers and clients is unknown.

Regarding possibility of increased applications for costs from public authority opponents, it is already the case that providers should generally agree costs as part of a settlement or seek a costs order form the court, as they would if acting for a privately paying client. This is set out in paragraph 6.58 of the 2013 Standard Civil Contract General Specification.

The consultation closed on 4 June 2013 and we intend to publish a Government response shortly.

Criminal Legal Aid Reforms

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I begin by registering my interest. I, like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), practised in the criminal courts for some time, and I, like him, was very much a thin cat. I recognise and agree with the comments that he has made about the quality of advocates who practise in our criminal courts. I also agree, of course, with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) on that.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East on securing the debate and thank all Members who have spoken or intervened in it. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a debate and a discussion that has been ongoing for a considerable time and that the Government have listened to a variety of different contributions. He knows that, for example, Ministry of Justice officials have travelled across England and Wales and met approximately 2,500 practitioners, members of the judiciary and members of the public.

We have heard and considered views expressed by the hon. Members who participated in a previous Westminster Hall debate on these proposals, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), and of course the views expressed in the Backbench Business Committee debate, which has also been referred to today and which I had the pleasure of responding to. There have also been meetings of the Justice Committee; a moment or so ago, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) about those. In addition, there have been meetings of the all-party group on legal aid.

Furthermore, Ministers have met a variety of different stakeholders. We have received just under 16,000 responses to the consultation, which have all been considered in order to inform the development of the policy. We have also had a variety of letters from the public and from parliamentarians, a multiplicity of parliamentary questions and debates in the other place, which Lord McNally has responded to. Of course, there is also what has transpired in the media. So there has been a good deal of engagement and that process will continue. I certainly welcome the contributions that have been made to it today.

Let me be clear on one or two points in general. I think that the first point is recognised; I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) referred to it late on in his remarks. It is that we have to make savings in the legal aid budget. There is simply no getting away from that; in fact, I think that it is also well understood within the legal profession. So that point is not in dispute; it is a question of how we make those savings.

In that process, it is important that we listen to all the people I have mentioned, and to those in the legal profession. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East asked us to sit down with those in the legal profession and listen to what they have to say to us. Well, we have done that and I think that he will see the fruits of that when we respond to the consultation, which we will do as soon as possible.

Let me try to deal with some of the other points that the hon. Gentleman made. As he will understand, I will not be able to respond to everything he said in the time that I have—indeed, I will not be able to respond to everything that other Members have said in the debate. However, I will do my best to pick out some of the things that he referred to.

The hon. Gentleman and others referred to inefficiencies in the legal system and in the courts process that need attention. They are all absolutely right about that. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) all referred to such inefficiencies, as did the hon. Gentleman. Of course, it is an area that we must look at, but it will not exclude the need to find savings within the legal aid budget.

The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and others said that we should look at the very high-cost cases, and they are absolutely right. We are looking at the issue; our proposals include a 30% reduction in the fees paid for cases of that nature. Again, however, dealing with those cases on their own will not do the necessary job of delivering savings.

Many Members who have spoken in this debate have been concerned about quality, and of course they are right to be. No part of the proposals that we are making suggest that quality is not important in the provision of legal aid services, and any system that we institute will require those providing those services to maintain standards of quality. In addition, those standards must be properly monitored.

It is important when we talk about eligibility for legal aid that we are clear about what these proposals actually are. It is not sensible to refight all the battles over the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012; we certainly do not have the time to do so and you, Mr Davies, would not let me. However, in relation to the particular proposals about criminal legal aid, the argument over eligibility is limited to whether it is right to set an eligibility threshold at a disposable income of £37,500 a year. The only people who will not have access to legal aid for criminal cases will be those who have a disposable income of that level or above. That is a generous level, and I think that the majority of our constituents would consider it right that people with substantial wealth should pay up front for their legal fees, which of course will be refunded to them if they are, in the end, acquitted.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Does that not counter a tradition in British law that someone is innocent until they are proven guilty? The fact that the Minister is suggesting that somebody who is yet to be found guilty will not have access to the law is an absolute affront to the criminal justice system in this country.

[Jeremy Wright]

I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Lady, because we are not talking about changing that presumption of innocence. What we are saying is that people with the means to pay—sometimes, very substantial means to pay—should not have access to taxpayer-funded subsidy for their legal fees if they are, in the end, found guilty. If they are found innocent in the end, the amount that they have paid for their legal fees will be considered for refund. That is important, but it is not about a presumption of innocence, which remains intact, as—of course—it should.

I will say something about prison law, because that is an issue that many people have raised. The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) asked some sensible and detailed questions about it. If she will forgive me, I must say that in the five minutes I have left to me I will not have the opportunity to respond to those questions, but I will write to her about the specific points that she has made.

However, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough is entirely right that the nature of the case that is being considered and that may be litigated is crucial. It is not the case that every instance of grievance raised by a prisoner should be litigated through the courts. Also, the changes that we are proposing say that it is important that when a prisoner’s liberty or the length of their sentence are considered, they should still have access to legal aid. However, there are a whole range of other complaints that can be more properly and more effectively dealt with through other methods, rather than involving the courts and costly lawyers.

I will also say something about the residence test, because the right hon. Member for Tottenham and others expressed concern about it. Again, I think that in principle it is right that those who have a strong connection with the United Kingdom should have access to taxpayer-funded legal aid, and that those who do not have a strong connection to the United Kingdom should not have access to it. There are exceptions to that principle, which we have made clear. For example, these changes will not apply to refugees or asylum seekers. In general, however, applying that principle is the right thing to do, and I think that it will have the support of the public.

Judicial review has also been referred to. We absolutely support the principle of judicial review. Those who have spoken up in favour of it were right to do so; it is a crucial tenet of our system that the public should be able to hold Government to account through the judicial review system. However, it is equally important that that system should not be abused, and we simply have to face up to the fact that there has been a huge increase in the number of cases pursued through the judicial review process that are not found to have merit.

It is important that the crucial pre-court phase does not cover the initial preparatory work on a judicial review case. In that phase, lawyers should think carefully about whether a case has merit, and they should have something at stake when they do so. That is the basis for the proposals that we are making.

[Dr Huppert]

Can the Minister just clarify the position about really strong cases, where the case does not proceed because it is won so quickly through a settlement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point in relation to settlement. Again, if he will forgive me for now, I will write to him about it, because it is not something that I can go into in the two minutes I have left. Nevertheless, he is right to make the point, and we will certainly explore it—

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jeremy Wright]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I would rather not give way to him; I want to deal with the point about price-competitive tendering that he referred to. Obviously, it is a crucial question. Should we deal with legal aid reform in that way? I am sure he is aware that as recently as last year, the hon. Member for Hammersmith was still saying that there was no reason not to do price-competitive tendering in legal aid, and that he said that he had seen nothing in the past two years to say why we should not press ahead with it. The hon. Gentleman may want to speak to the hon. Member for Hammersmith about whether price-competitive tendering is a deeply flawed concept that could never work.

However, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East will also know that we are considering a range of submissions—we will also consider his submission—and that the Government will respond to the consultation that we have held. In addition, he knows that there will be a further period of consultation on some of the proposals. I hope that he will be a little more patient and see what those responses entail, because we will want to consider carefully a number of things and to decide what our response to them should be. He will forgive me if I cannot give him a sneak preview today, but he will not have to be patient for very much longer to see how we intend to respond.

There are crucial points to be considered—they have been raised again in this debate today—about the nature of rural areas and the advice to be provided to people there. As I say, hon. Friends and hon. Members have made those points, and they have been listened to and understood. Similarly, the point was made about Welsh language requirements. Any contracts that are issued will include a requirement that Welsh language services be provided. That is the law and that is as it should be.

Again, I stress that this process is an opportunity for people to contribute their views about what we have set out. With our legal aid reforms, the intention is to do two things: first, to address the real financial challenge that we face; and secondly, to reinforce public confidence in what is a very important system of providing taxpayer-funded subsidy to those who need it in our courts. Our proposals have those twin objectives. We will listen to the submissions that have been made to us, but in the end those objectives are what we seek to achieve.

Probation Trusts (Triennial Review)

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

On 27 March 2012, in his written statement—Official Report, column 129WS, announcing the launch of consultations on community sentences and probation reform, my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Justice explained that the consultation exercise and subsequent Government response would form the basis of stage 1 of the triennial review of probation trusts. That is, it would identify and examine the key functions of these non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), look at how they contribute to the work of Government, and consider whether they were still needed.

Triennial reviews are a central part of the sponsorship and governance relationship between a Department and their NDPBs. All NDPBs are subject to triennial review, and the probation trusts formed part of the wider programme of such reviews for the Ministry of Justice.

On 9 May this year, following a further public consultation, my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary announced the publication of “Transforming Rehabilitation: A Strategy for Reform”. This set out the Government’s plans for transforming the rehabilitation of offenders by opening up rehabilitation services to a more diverse range of providers, drawing from the best of the voluntary, community and private sectors, equipped with the flexibility and incentives to reduce reoffending, extending statutory support to some 50,000 offenders who receive prison sentences of under 12 months and putting in place a nationwide “through the prison gate” resettlement service.

As an integral part of developing the strategy, we looked in detail at the full-range of probation trust functions and at how we could organise the public sector probation service in the most efficient manner to discharge its new responsibilities. This is in line with the requirement of a triennial review to look at the function and form of an NDPB and to consider the best delivery model, options for which would include moving delivery from an arm’s length body to an in-house provision. On that basis, we will create a new national probation service, working to protect the public and building upon the expertise and professionalism already in place.

The design of our delivery model is based on our goals of harnessing the expertise of a more diverse market of providers to reduce reoffending, making use of new payment incentives and protecting the public from the most serious offenders through a strong public sector which is organised in the more efficient way for the delivery of its new functions. By sharing back-office functions within the public sector we can release efficiency savings to invest in rehabilitation, and by MOJ through National Offender Management Service (NOMS) managing the new public sector probation service directly, we can ensure that contract managers can effectively oversee the work of both the public sector probation service and competed providers, and how they interact. In considering the most appropriate delivery model, the consultation and strategy have addressed the central questions asked by stage 1 of a triennial review.

In line with the Cabinet Office central guidance on triennial reviews, where a review recommends that an NDPB no longer continue in its current form, there is no need to proceed to stage two of the review. This statement, therefore, marks the formal closure of the triennial review. In line with Cabinet Office guidance, my right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, has signed off the outcome of the triennial review.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (Triennial Review)

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

Today, I have published the report of stage 1 of the triennial review of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB). I have placed a copy in the Library. I have taken the unusual step of publishing the stage 1 report in advance of completing stage 2 as it is important that there is clarity about the future of the Youth Justice Board ahead of recruiting a new chair of the YJB to replace the current chair when she finishes her second term of office in January 2014 and to ensure that the recommendations can be considered as part of my ongoing reform of the youth secure estate.

In line with the process and methodology established by the Cabinet Office, stage 1 of the review assessed the continuing need for the YJB to carry out each of its functions in their current form. The responses to the consultation have informed how these functions should be delivered in the future.

The report concludes that all of the functions remain necessary and makes 14 key recommendations relating to the delivery of these functions. It further concludes that it is appropriate for the majority of these functions to be delivered together as a critical mass of expertise. This decision recognises that the Government have repeatedly and recently stated their commitment to maintain a distinct youth justice system. Finally, the report concludes that the appropriate delivery model for the delivery of these functions is, at this time, as a non-departmental public body.

The Government will now continue to conduct stage 2 of the triennial review, reviewing the control and governance arrangements in place for the YJB with a particular focus on increasing ministerial accountability and a closer degree of control of financial management. I will report back to Parliament on the outcome in the autumn once this has been completed.

I am very grateful to all those who took the time to respond to the call for evidence. Their contributions and varying perspectives were extremely valuable.

Support for Prisoners’ Families

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Friday 12th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) on securing this debate, and also return the compliment to him by thanking him for the considerable interest he takes in this subject? He has highlighted one of several important issues covered by the Government’s plans to transform the criminal justice system. He is right to say that we must consider such matters in the context of falling crime figures, which is good news, but reoffending remains a serious challenge, and the ways to achieve further reductions in crime and reoffending include taking bold and effective steps to rehabilitate offenders by assisting, encouraging and guiding them away from crime into new, worthwhile and productive ways of life. The evidence shows that support for prisoners’ families is an important part of that, for two reasons. First, supporting offenders’ family relationships can help to reduce reoffending. Secondly, supporting offenders’ families can help to reduce the likelihood of intergenerational offending. Both those things are important.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, we announced on 4 July that a total of 70 resettlement prisons have been identified for the adult male prisoner estate, with more to be identified for the female and young adult estates. Resettlement prisons are one strand of a comprehensive strategy of reform that is seeking to tackle the problem of reoffending in all its aspects. That should provide both better opportunities to support contact with families, and links with local partners and providers of support services. Providers will offer a resettlement service for all offenders in custody before their release, which may well include family support, where it is needed.

I agree with my hon. Friend that positive family relationships can be an important protective factor in helping offenders desist from future offending. We understand that we can help to break the cycle of offending by working to strengthen family ties, to improve family and other relationships, to improve parenting behaviour and to increase acceptance into communities and social networks. He was right—my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) made this point, too—to say that research has shown that ensuring a prisoner keeps in contact with his or her family while in prison can help in reducing the likelihood of reoffending. We know, too, that most prisoners regard their families as important to them and want them to be involved in their lives, and that they believe that support from their family and seeing their children would be important in stopping them reoffending in the future. It is therefore important that we support and allow contact, and the involvement of families in prisoners’ sentences.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon asked, in particular, about phone contact. He will know that there are private prisons that currently allow phone use in cells. Rochester prison, in the publicly run estate, is also trialling the use of phones in cells. It is important that we look at what the evidence is showing us about that. He makes a fair point that if a prisoner is to be encouraged to make more phone calls home and to speak to the children more often, they are more likely to do that if the phone is located in the cell than if it is located on the landing. However, he will recognise that we cannot allow unrestricted access to telephones, and whatever we do there will still be a restricted list of numbers that prisoners are able to call.

[Guy Opperman]

We all know that at least 8,000 mobile phones are confiscated by the Prison Service every year, so by supposition another 8,000 that are not confiscated are probably in the system. It must be accepted that mobile phones are already in the system. Due deference must be paid to security, but does the Minister accept the broad principle that a greater degree of communication, whether by phone, e-mail or computer, in whatever shape or form, must be the way ahead if we are to have this family relationship encouraged, as we would like?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend rightly says that, sadly, mobile phones find their way into prison, but that is an offence and we do not tolerate it. It cannot be wise to allow for unrestricted access to communications, be that telephone contact or e-mail contact. What is sensible is that we consider ways in which, within the restrictions of a limited amount of approved phone numbers or approved contacts that a prisoner can have, we look at the best way of ensuring that that contact can happen, for the reasons we have been discussing.

This debate is also important because of the effect that parental imprisonment has on children. It is estimated that in any given year approximately 200,000 children are affected by a parent being in or going to prison. Most children who experience parental imprisonment are likely to experience it more than once. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon referred to the figures, and we know that children with parents in prison are more vulnerable than other children. They are more likely to become offenders themselves and to develop behavioural problems and poor psychological health than children who have not had a parent in prison, and they may lose contact with their imprisoned mother or father. So we do understand that by supporting offenders’ families and children we can help to reduce the likelihood of intergenerational crime.

We take that responsibility within the Prison Service very seriously. Prison Service instructions on rehabilitation services outline expectations on prisons to: help staff in recognising the impact of imprisonment on prisoners’ families and to understand their role in the maintenance of family relationships and supporting offenders’ families; to provide advice, support, signposting and to refer prisoners to services; and to reflect the involvement of families in the offender management process.

Prison rules require prisons to encourage prisoners to maintain outside contacts and meaningful family ties. Prison governors have duties under the Children Act 2004, many of which are associated with either the child’s right to contact with parents who are held in custody or the safeguarding and well-being of children with whom they have contact. There are also minimum standards relating to how prisons support family visitors, including having visiting times that maximise opportunities for prisoners and families to meet and ensuring opportunities for reasonable physical contact. That goes to the point my hon. Friend made about the presence of glass screens and the like. He will appreciate that there is always a balance to be struck between the security of the prison and ensuring that contraband cannot be passed, and the need to ensure that relationships with family members are maintained with as much normality as can be managed in a custodial environment.

My hon. Friend was right to make the point early on in his remarks that in many ways the families of prisoners are victims of what that prisoner has done, too. In many ways, the prisoner’s family also undergoes a sentence. There is a period of separation that cannot be helpful to domestic life and that certainly is not helpful to the relationship a prisoner might have with his or her children. When we can maintain physical contact and where it is compatible with security to do so, my hon. Friend is right that we should seek to do that. We can take practical measures too, such as providing facilities for children to play while visiting and providing decent, indoor facilities with toilets and baby changing facilities. The National Offender Management Service also encourages additional activities such as enhanced children’s play facilities, family support worker services, family days, child-centred visits and the like.

My hon. Friend asked about what will happen in the future. As he knows, by opening up probation to a wider range of providers, we can bring additional skills and ideas into play, while the national probation service will continue to have a key role in managing risk, including the direct management of higher-risk offenders.

My hon. Friend also asked about smaller organisations and I understand his concern. We, too, are concerned that we should ensure that those smaller organisations, particularly those in the voluntary sector, can play their full part in the new landscape. We need to do that in a number of ways. Let me give him two of the most important. We must ensure that in the bid assessment process we take full account of what the sustainability is likely to be of the relationships between larger and smaller organisations. We anticipate that many of the bids we will receive will come from a group of organisations, some large, some small. It is important that the smaller organisations are looked after in those arrangements and we assess bids with that in mind. We will also need to ensure that over the duration of the contract period we have robust processes of contract management in place to ensure that the sustainable relationship between larger and smaller organisations is maintained.

[Guy Opperman]

Does the Minister accept that there is a genuine problem with the bid assessment process in that the smaller providers—charities, community groups—are effectively being frozen out of the process? We need to be very certain that there is a flexible system rather than a one-size-fits-all system to accommodate those small providers.

[Jeremy Wright]

I can understand my hon. Friend’s concern, but I think that many of the small organisations about which he, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon are concerned will be involved in the bid process. The trick is to ensure that they are still involved on a sustainable basis throughout the period of the contract. I can see the attraction of those smaller organisations and we are all familiar with excellent voluntary sector organisations that offer something special in a particular aspect of rehabilitation. I am confident that they will be involved; we must ensure that they stay involved and that they can remain in a sustainable relationship as time goes on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon asked about funding. He will understand that the central premise of the system we are looking to establish is that what works should receive support. I think, as he does, that the evidence is good that involvement with families demonstrates effectiveness and I am confident that providers of rehabilitation services will look to provide that. Similarly, on his point about the justice data lab, it is important that we consider ways in which we can display information about what works in the most effective way, and I will consider his specific point about that.

My hon. Friend will understand that the delivery of services to the children and families of offenders must be considered in the context of the Government’s wider approach to supporting families. Tackling troubled families is a priority for this Government and supporting offenders’ families is an important aspect of that work. That involves a partnership approach, which is embedded elsewhere with other Departments and is part of a legacy of earlier cross-government work.

No one imagines that changing entrenched patterns of reoffending is a simple matter, but the Government firmly believe that the measures we are putting in place will help to achieve a fundamental transformation. Supporting offenders’ families has an important part to play in that.

Question put and agreed to.

Members: Correspondence

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Bridget Phillipson]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice will reply to the letter from the hon. Members for Houghton and Sunderland South and for Sunderland Central of 20 March 2013.

[Official Report, 20 June 2013, Vol. 564, c. 792W.]

Letter of correction from Jeremy Wright:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) on 20 June 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Jeremy Wright]

I can confirm that a response was sent to the hon. Member in response to her letter dated 20 March 2013. The response was dated 22 April 2013 and a copy of the letter was sent to her office based in the House of Commons.

The correct answer should have been:

[Jeremy Wright]

I can confirm that a response was sent to the hon. Members in response to the letter dated 20 March 2013. The response was dated 2 July 2013 and a copy of the letter was sent to their office based in the House of Commons.