Oral Answers to Questions

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for raising this point. Joshua Rozenberg has made a profound and important contribution to our country. Indeed, he is required reading, and I read him most days. I share my hon. and learned Friend’s profound regret, and I echo his sentiments. I think the whole House will wish Joshua Rozenberg well.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

All through Lent, women nationwide have faced intimidation from the anti-choice group 40 Days for Life blocking their entrance to abortion clinics daily. Why is that happening, given that MPs voted by a ratio of 3:1 in 2022 for safe access zones, with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) being one of them?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Laura Farris)]

I concur with the hon. Lady that it is completely unacceptable that anyone should feel harassed or intimidated when exercising their legal right to abortion services. I hope she will be reassured to hear that it is anticipated that section 9 of the Public Order Act 2023 will be commenced no later than this spring. The consultation on the guidance published by the Home Office closed on 22 January and the final response will be published in due course. I must just say one thing, however: it is right that a balance will need to be struck where competing rights are engaged, including under articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights.

Violence Reduction, Policing and Criminal Justice

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

On the contrary. I know that my right hon. Friend rightly, on behalf of his constituents, wants to ensure that those who destroy lives and have a corrosive impact on communities are brought to book. That is why the provisions have been carefully constructed and calibrated to ensure that those who are unable or unwilling to abide by an order of the court can expect to hear the clang of the prison gate. Not only will the proverbial sword of Damocles be hanging over them, but for those who commit an offence when they are subject to a court order—be it a supervision order, a community order or a non-molestation order—the presumption no longer applies. We send a clear message to criminals: obey the order of the court or expect to go to prison.

Judges will retain their discretion to impose immediate custody when an offender poses a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to an individual—this is to the direct point made by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford—so that domestic abuse offences and other violent offences against women and girls can and will continue to be punished, with immediate custody protecting victims. Nothing changes, but for those whose sentence is suspended, the courts will be able to continue to use a range of requirements, including curfews, electronic tags, community payback and exclusion requirements. Those who do not comply or who commit further offences can be brought back to court and risk being sent to prison.

Alongside that, we want to ensure that we have the prison places to keep serious and dangerous offenders locked up for longer, while allowing lower risk offenders to benefit from community-based restrictions to assist with their resettlement, get back into work and start contributing to society where that can be safely managed. For that reason, we are extending home detention curfew to offenders serving sentences of over four years and keeping our tough restrictions that prevent serious violent, sexual and domestic abuse offenders from accessing this facility.

The Criminal Justice Bill includes measures that deliver on three strategic objectives: first, protecting the public from violence and intimidation; secondly, enabling law enforcement agencies to respond to changing technology deployed by criminals, including by equipping them with sufficient powers to address emerging types and threats; and thirdly, strengthening public confidence in policing. We will protect the public from violence and intimidation by strengthening the law on the taking of intimate images without consent and expanding the offence of encouraging or assisting self-harm.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. We used to have happy times on the Justice Committee together when we were little striplings. What he is saying sounds good, but my question is this. Last year, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and I amended the Public Order Act 2023 to stop intimidatory protests against women using abortion clinics. Although it was passed, that is the only section that has not been enacted. Ealing Council does not know whether to renew its temporary order, which is coming up again. If the law was passed and enacted, it should not have to. Can he tell Ealing Council and the whole country what to do when women every day face intimidation?

[Alex Chalk]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We did indeed have a productive and non-partisan time on the Justice Committee. On the specific important point she raises, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), will address that point in closing—but essentially, it will happen in due course.

We will protect the public from violence and intimidation by strengthening the law on the taking of intimate images, as I have indicated. We will increase the multi-agency management requirements on offenders convicted of coercive or controlling behaviour. As I say, that was not an offence in 2010. We are implementing a further recommendation in the domestic homicide sentencing review, giving judges the discretion at sentencing to add a statutory aggravating factor for a killing connected to the end of a relationship, many of which are committed where there has been a history of coercive or controlling behaviour. That man who says, “If I can’t have you, no one will” can expect a more serious penalty.

Finally, it is a further insult to families when perpetrators refuse to appear in the dock to face up to the consequences of their actions, so it is quite right that we will give judges the power to order offenders to court and punish those who refuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

After 13 years of Tory austerity, what a thin King’s Speech it was from a Government who are out of touch and out of ideas, and hopefully soon out of office. They promise change by wheeling out the Prime Minister who ran off after he accidentally bequeathed us Brexit. Then there is the ex-Home Secretary, who is so fixated by the next Tory leadership race that she forgot her function of keeping the streets safe. She made them less safe by stoking unrest and fear, and encouraging a right-wing mob on to our streets—kudos to Sir Mark Rowley and the Met for standing up to the meddling.

Crime and antisocial behaviour need neighbourhood policing, but this gimmicky Government still have not restored to 2010 levels the officers they cut. Hate crime should not be on our streets, but sadly, events far off have triggered Islamophobic and antisemitic events nationally and even locally in the past month. I was alarmed by reprehensible individuals hooting horns and provocatively waving flags in Acton on 7 October, the day of the worst atrocity in Israel’s history. Since then, we have shockingly also seen red paint daubed on two mosques, three times between them, and on a Syrian café. That is disgraceful.

With winter approaching, there should not be street homelessness and rough sleeping in one of the richest countries on earth in 2023. That is also disgraceful, as is the ex-Home Secretary calling it a “lifestyle choice”. Reclaiming the streets also means an end to the grisly roll-call: Sarah Everard, Sabina Nessa and Zara Aleena, who were only walking home. However, my last example is from the streets of Gaza, which have dominated MPs’ inboxes and filled our TV screens with desperation, death and destruction. I have heard it at first hand from a man who came to see me, whose brother had lived in Ealing and trained as a surgeon at Guy’s before returning to Gaza with his expertise. He has not moved from Al-Shifa Hospital since the start of the war. That hospital is now a household name, surrounded by tanks and with no food, water or power.

Long before Hamas’s despicable slaughter on 7 October started this cycle of violence, the new Foreign Secretary called Gaza an open-air “prison camp” that is unsustainable. Those words are now truer than ever, so I back Labour’s amendment tonight demanding both the end of violence and a two-state solution, stressing the importance of international law, and condemning Hamas, illegal settlements and west bank violence. I have also put my name to amendment (b), which asks for some of the same stuff, including the release of hostages—who themselves are at risk from 20 hours a day of incessant bombardment—but also calls for the end of the siege of Gaza, condemns collective punishment, and urges the Government to press for a negotiated ceasefire that is binding on all sides, not a surrender. All wars end in ceasefire eventually. We cannot continue at the rate we are seeing, with lost lives and 50% of buildings in Gaza demolished; it is only a month in.

Even The Sun called this a “damp squib” of a King’s Speech, from a party for whom it truly feels like the end of days. To paraphrase the Spice Girls, what we want—what we really, really want—and what this country needs is a general election now. Bring it on!

Biometrics Commissioner and Forensic Science Regulator

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate, in line with current Government guidance—although hasn’t that changed again overnight? Never mind—and that of the House of Commission. I am not, because I may be required to speak at any moment. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week before coming on to the estate. They can do so downstairs: I did so the other day, and they gave me a pack of six for the future as well. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.

[Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Nineteenth Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Session 2017-19, The work of the Biometrics Commissioner and the Forensic Science Regulator, HC 1970, and the Government Response, Session 2019-21, HC 1319.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for allocating time for this issue to be debated. I also acknowledge the role of the predecessor Science and Technology Committees—some Members who will speak in this debate served on those predecessor Committees, and I pay tribute to their assiduity and tenacity in keeping a focus on this subject—ably assisted by a succession of brilliant Clerks, who continue to this day in the shape of Mr Ben Shave, one of the Clerks who is advising the Committee on these matters.

The issues covered by my Committee and its predecessors are of considerable complexity, but also great importance. The global value of biometrics is expected to reach £21 billion this year, a 130% increase compared with 2016. The perceived vulnerability of passwords, the growing prevalence of mobile devices with biometric capabilities, and wider advances in computing technologies all point to biometrics and forensics playing a greater role in public and private life. In the UK, biometric data obtained via technologies that capture, measure, analyse and process digital representations of our physical or behavioural traits, such as DNA, fingerprints, voice and handwriting, are held by the police on no fewer than four separate databases, while criminal investigations have long relied on the services of private sector and in-house forensic science laboratories.

As I said, the Science and Technology Committee and its predecessors have published a number of reports on forensic science—specifically in 2011, 2013, 2016, 2018 and 2019—and on biometrics in 2015 and 2018. Our sister Committee in the House of Lords has also undertaken a detailed examination of the use of forensic science in the criminal justice system over the course of almost a year. In 2018, our immediate predecessor Committee called on the Government to give statutory powers to the Forensic Science Regulator, a recommendation that—thanks to a private Member’s Bill tabled by my fellow Select Committee Chair and a former member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones)—has now been implemented. We place on record our gratitude to him for his achievement in securing that legislation.

We also said that the Government should strengthen the auditing of standards of compliance; deliver a planned IT upgrade that would fully implement an automatic custody image deletion system for those not convicted of any crime; and ensure that any wider deployment of facial recognition technology is not considered an operational decision for the police but is a matter for Parliament to decide. We said that the treatment of how image databases should be managed and regulated should be subject to similar scrutiny.

Shortly after that 2018 report was published, the Government published their biometrics strategy, which committed to enabling

“more efficient review and automatic deletion of custody images by linking them to conviction status, more closely replicating the arrangements for fingerprints and DNA”.

However, it did not mention the important matter of the accreditation of police laboratories. In a follow-up report, published in 2019, our predecessor Committee concluded that concerns remained about the long-term viability of the market for forensic science services and highlighted the significant risk that that posed to the effective functioning of a criminal justice system. Other recurring concerns raised in that report included gaps in current forensics research, the absence of a mechanism to set clear national research priorities, insufficient oversight of biometric technology, and a lack of scientifically rigorous testing of new biometric technologies. That Committee also expressed worries about the effectiveness and potential bias of facial recognition technologies.

In the 20 months between the publication of that report and the Government response—it is worth noting that 20 months is an unconscionably long time for the Government to take to respond to a detailed and specific set of recommendations—the passage of the Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021 gave the regulator new, statutory powers, so our Committee invited the former regulator, the former biometrics commissioner and relevant Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing, to seek their views on where things stood in June of last year.

Professor Gillian Tully, the former forensic science regulator, told us that at the time of her departure, in February 2021,

“neither toxicology nor digital forensics had sufficient capacity to meet the current needs of the service.”

That shortfall in capacity has real-world consequences. Professor Tully spoke of cases that rested on the accusation that an individual was, for example, driving while under the influence of drugs, and cases that she was familiar with had to be dropped. It may not have been a large number, and prioritisation on the part of individual police forces may have also been a factor, but her testimony is worrying nevertheless, at the time when advances in toxicology and forensic science more generally should be playing a greater role in securing convictions. Indeed, in a conversation with a person with current knowledge of the system, I was given to understand that we have only 30 qualified toxicologists operating in the United Kingdom. That is an extraordinary number, considering the weight of responsibility that rests on their shoulders.

In his appearance before our Committee, the Minister acknowledged that he, too, was concerned about capacity, and I know this from conversations separately. He committed to looking urgently at how to stimulate more forensic toxicologists to join the profession. Part of the purpose of today’s debate is to seek from the Minister an update on how that is going and whether the intention is being translated into practice. On digital forensics, we heard about mobile devices and computers sitting in very long queues for analysis, and that convictions that might have been made if there were greater integrity to the laboratory accreditation process have been lost.

Such concerns relate not only to forensics but to biometrics. Professor Paul Wiles, the former commissioner for the retention and use of biometric material—the biometrics commissioner—highlighted four concerns. First, the existing framework governing the use of biometrics by our police forces had not kept pace with developments in biometric technologies, and the Government had not responded to domestic and European Court of Human Rights judgments about the framework. Secondly, the police, the Home Office or some combination of the two had yet to create a proper evidence base for the use of new biometrics, which could complicate the decision-making process around future deployments. Thirdly, the Home Office has yet to update databases containing both biometric data and more general information relating to offenders, convictions and arrests. Finally, Professor Wiles argued that biometrics, together with artificial intelligence and large databases, are the technologies that, at least in part, will drive the future social world in which we live, and their use should therefore be considered a key strategic issue across Government. For a Government who have made a signal commitment to improving conviction rates and protecting society to fail to make use of stunning advances that can help to secure convictions and put into jail people from whom society should be protected is a serious omission.

Professor Wiles also specified several areas where he thought elected Members of Parliament should decide what was not in the public interest. Facial recognition technology is a case in point, as well as the fingerprints we use to log into our phones, and a plethora of applications including voice recognition and gait analysis.

I do not want to give the impression that we were told that the use of all these technologies falls on the negative side of the register—that the advances they comprise are not good for society. That would be the wrong impression. Professor Wiles highlighted the idea of frictionless airports and their potential for eliminating the onerous barrier checks that have come in in response to the terrorism threats of recent years. Advances in technology might allow some relief there, which would be very much in the public interest. However, the point that he and others have made is that the rules need to be clear, there needs to be a co-ordinated cross-Government approach when it comes to formulating those rules, and that we should not delay doing so.

That brings me to the response from the Government to our predecessor Committee’s 2019 report, and the work that has been undertaken since then. I am sure the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) will cover the report in his contribution, as will the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). From my perspective, the key takeaway of our Committee session that questioned the Minister and his colleague Baroness Williams, the Minister for Countering Extremism, is that, although some progress has been made, it does not stand comparison with the progress that should have been made, and the opportunities to protect society from the advances in technology that are available. It was clear to me from the session that the outstanding issues need to be addressed and the pace of action needs to be accelerated.

Several areas require scrutiny in the weeks and months ahead. As of July 2021, 16 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales have joined the Forensic Capability Network, although the Government anticipate that the number will have risen by the time powers in the Forensic Science Regulator Act are fully taken up by the new regulator. Will the Minister update us on the current number of forces that have joined the network?

On a related point, we remain concerned that without the disclosure of data on accreditation and compliance, the Home Office will not be able to evaluate the success of the Forensic Capability Network, or the transforming forensics programme that was launched in 2017. Will the Minister update us on the Government’s plans for measuring the success of the new regime in driving accreditation and compliance? Has the case for a single system of accreditation for both police and private laboratories been considered?

The Government have encouraged some collective decision making through these two initiatives, but in our June 2021 session Professor Tully suggested that attempts to

“work through persuasion rather than any form of mandate”

have now run their course. She stated clearly that there are some areas on which there should be national decision making, even if that results in reversing some decisions that were been taken by previous Ministers and Administrations, whatever good faith and optimism was vested in those decisions at the time. However, the Government have confirmed that there are no plans to establish a new decision-making body specifically for forensic science, citing ongoing work taking place in the Home Office and UK Research and Innovation as a better avenue for determining future priorities and ensuring that capacity grows. I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on this work. What might persuade the Government to revisit the muscular approach the Home Office is taking to this important matter?

In short, the picture is mixed. Some progress is being made, but not nearly enough considering the clarity of what was set out as being needed and the available opportunities. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is being considered in the House of Lords, and forthcoming College of Policing guidance on the use of facial recognition will provide opportunities to strengthen these matters. It will be helpful to hear from the Minister what assessment he has made of the contribution they will make. The Minister’s latest update to the Committee did not contain a publication date for the guidance; can he offer one today, so that we know where police forces stand on facial recognition technology?

There are several other areas I would like an update on. First, on biometrics governance and updates to the framework, the Committee was told in September 2021, following the Court of Appeal judgment in Bridges v. South Wales Police, that the Government were updating the surveillance camera code accordingly and consulting the relevant organisations set out in the governing legislation, including police, local authorities, the Information Commissioner’s Office and the biometrics and surveillance camera commissioner. A revised code of practice was promised towards the end of 2021. We have now passed that date. When can we expect that to be issued?

Secondly, on the timeline for the new automatic deletion system for custody images, the 2024 deadline is approaching. I hope the Minister can update us on the interim steps being taken by the Government. Thirdly, the custody image review has been absorbed into the wider piece of work to implement the Government’s manifesto commitment to empower the police to use new technologies such as biometrics and including facial images within a strict legal framework. Can the Minister confirm what progress is being made on delivering against that manifesto commitment?

I mentioned that the Science and Technology Committee first examined these complex questions in 2011. More than a decade on, our interest in them is undiminished. The developments in technology cause us to commit to taking a close interest in the responses of the Minister today and in the months and years ahead. I urge the Government to have the same sense of determination and purpose in order to achieve the breakthrough in police practice and regulation that the technologies allow.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. It is also a pleasure to serve on the Science and Technology Committee under the chairship of the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I associate myself with his questions and the general points that he made, with one exception. The history of the Science and Technology Committee looking at forensic science goes back even further than he set out. I have been on the Committee a long time, but the first report on the subject came out before I joined it. Called “Forensic science on trial”, the report was published on 29 March 2005. The right hon. Gentleman referred to issues that have been examined repeatedly by the Committee—these are not my speaking notes, Dr Huq—but not to all the reports and the responses of the Government that have been produced on this issue.

The “Forensic Science on Trial” report went through the even longer history of forensic science. The way in which the Home Office has responded over time to the changing science is interesting and relevant. Science and the ability to examine and get information from crime scenes have changed enormously over time. It was only in 1988 that DNA led to the conviction of the double murderer Colin Pitchfork. Since then, DNA has been used thousands of times for many different crime scenes.

What worried the Committee then was that there had been big changes. Back in the early 90s, police forces went along to the people who did forensic science and asked for analysis of things from a crime scene, and they got it with no cost. The then Home Secretary, the noble Lord Blunkett, thought that there should be a more commercial relationship between the Forensic Science Service and police forces, and that the Forensic Science Service should be moved into a public-private partnership body. The Science and Technology Committee looked at that proposal and said that things would be lost if the service was changed in that way. A lot of evidence was taken, and the Committee’s report, which I will summarise, having just read it again, said that the evidence was not there to justify doing that.

Nevertheless, after the 2010 general election, the new coalition Government looked at the funding of the Forensic Science Service. They said that it was losing £2 million a month and things would have to change. They said that there was a real possibility, given that the Forensic Science Service was world leading, that we could sell our services internationally and make money from them. The Committee looked at that and said that the case was not made, because the statistics claiming that the cost was £2 million a month were based on false information. The laboratory at Chorley had already been closed, and the people working in the Forensic Science Service on the other side of Lambeth bridge were very worried about their future. The Committee certainly was not convinced that the changes should be made.

I will say this now so that there is no mistake: the Labour Government made some of the original decisions to change the Forensic Science Service, the coalition Government made a number of changes and the Conservative Government have made further changes. I do not see this as a party political matter at all. Like the Minister and other hon. Members around this Chamber, I want the forensic science facilities, whether private or public sector—it is not about differences between private and public—to yield the best information that will lead to the conviction of criminals. That is the key issue. It is not an ideological issue. Having said that, there has been a failure of Government, right the way through the process, to properly consider how to keep our elite status in world forensic science—it looks as though we have lost it now—and how best to deliver forensic science for the criminal justice system.

One of the conclusions of the Committee’s forensic science report, which was published during the 2010 to 2012 Session, was that if and when the Forensic Science Service disappeared, which it did, one of the things that would be lost was the context of the crime. The private sector does a very good job when it comes to simple, repetitive operations, such as doing fingerprint or DNA analysis. What is missing from the service at present, however, is the ability for the police to go to a public sector body, or a private sector body for that matter, and ask, “What question should we be asking? We are not scientists.” Previously when I visited the Forensic Science Service, it was very strong on the point that it would be able to help the client—the police, the criminal justice system—ask the right questions, which it could then examine scientifically before giving the information back. That has not happened, and that is one of the losses to the service.

The other loss to the service, to which the Government have never really responded, is that when the Forensic Science Service went, the money going into forensic science research and forensic science was lost and has never been replaced. The different science funding bodies do not really recognise forensic science as part of their bailiwick or funding responsibilities. Not only are the right questions not necessarily being asked, but the money going into research and science has been lost, and I believe it should be replaced.

During one of the many inquiries we have had, we heard from Dr Tully, who worked for the Forensic Science Service, then became a regulator and has now gone into academic life. When she came before the Committee, I asked her three or four times whether murderers and rapists would get off because of the changes in the Forensic Science Service, and every time she answered positively—that that would be the case. The right questions would not be asked, so the right information would not be fed into the courts system and very bad people would not be brought to justice. Murder and rape are the worst crimes, but the problem goes right the way through the system. If we do not have a good forensic science service, we do not have a good criminal justice system, because the criminal justice system relies on the scientific interrogation of crime science.

When the original decision was taken to disband the Forensic Science Service and leave things up to the market, there was an internal Home Office problem that I think indicates a broader problem. Professor Silverman, who was then the scientific adviser to the Home Office, told the Committee he was not consulted, and nor was the then Forensic Science Regulator. That indicates that the decision was viewed entirely as a cost-saving issue and not as a way of ensuring that the criminal justice system worked as well as it could to bring criminals to justice.

The other side—which the Committee has written about in every report since, including the latest one—is that now that the Forensic Science Service has effectively been disbanded, we all rely on the market to work. At different times, as the Minister will know, because he has replied to this point, the market in forensic science has been close to collapse for a number of reasons—most recently, because of covid, not as much work was being commissioned. One of the good sides of covid was that there was less crime, so there was less need for forensic science.

Another driver, over a longer period, was that the police were taking a lot of forensic sciences in-house to save money. However, they were not only saving money but using non-ISO-accredited systems to do that. They lost the good Forensic Science Service and replaced it with something with no accreditation, which makes it more challengeable in court. That was another reason why the Committee did not support the disbandment of the Forensic Science Service—because the market was too volatile and not stable enough to ensure that the forensic science that the police and the courts needed would be there to be used.

I do not know why Governments of different political colours have not got this correct and have dragged their feet on the regular call for the Forensic Science Regulator to be put on a statutory footing. It is half on a statutory footing now because my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), with Government support, took a private Member’s Bill through. However, even that Bill does not deal with biometrics in terms of the statutory basis for the regulator, so that demand has only partially been met.

I do not know whether the Minister, who has been in office for a period, knows why the Home Office, under different political parties, has not given the service the political prioritisation that the public would want, because I think the case is overwhelming. The public have an enormous appetite for television shows about forensic science and for reading detective novels, in which cutting up cadavers is the main focus. Yet, at the same time, our forensic service has gone from being one of the best in the world to, quite frankly, being moth-eaten and not as good as it should be.

I have spoken for quite a long time, but I want to emphasise a point that the Chair of the Committee made about custody pictures. If you, Dr Huq, were arrested—I am sure you would not be found guilty of anything—and taken into a police station, your DNA, fingerprints and photograph would be taken. If you were arrested by mistake, your DNA and your fingerprints would be destroyed if you wanted them to be, and you would have no criminal record, but your facial record would remain in the computers. With all the connections those computers have, that is very worrying. Most people do not know that they can ask for those photographs to be deleted. The Chair of the Committee referred to the Government’s commitment that they would be automatically deleted after six years. That is too slow. I do not think police forces have any right to keep a picture of you or anybody else who is not guilty on record, where it can be misused and accessed improperly in many cases. The Government have not, over that period, given the resources to police forces to delete those pictures. However, I have spoken long enough and I will let other people speak.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

The first of our Front Benchers, who is also a Committee member, is Carol Monaghan.

Metropolitan Police: Stephen Port Murders Inquest

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

First, it is not the case that this matter is not being investigated further. As I have outlined several times, a number of lines of inquiry are being pursued, both about the Met’s investigation generally and its culture more specifically, and the IOPC may or may not reopen the investigation into the officers. So it is not the case that this has reached some kind of dead end, as some Opposition Members seem to be implying. It is simply not true to say that we are not bending every sinew to try to identify those who are likely to murder, in all different circumstances, whether domestic or through drugs—whatever the circumstances are. As I say, just last week I sat the seven biggest forces down and we had a three-hour session to look at what more work we could do to identify those who are likely to go on to commit such crimes: what their precursor behaviour is; what indications there are in their background; what data pools we could put together, whether that is their background offending or intelligence about them, that would give us clues towards what they were likely to do and allow us to intervene before. That enormous project of work has been under way for two years, and I hope and believe it will drive down murder numbers in the next few years to come. It is very unfair to accuse us of not taking these murders extremely seriously—that is exactly what we are doing and we are determined to make sure that they do not happen again.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

We have seen the Daniel Morgan, Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman cases, the Sarah Everard case and then the resulting vigil, the fiasco at Wembley and now this shocking set of gay murders—the Minister has not said that word.

[Kit Malthouse]

I have.

[Dr Huq]

I do not think the Minister has said it. In any case, the list of bunglings under this Metropolitan Police Commissioner this year alone seems endless, and they date back to 2005, with the shoot-to-kill Jean Charles de Menezes operation. May I ask that as well as the inspection that the Minister mentions, he undertakes a full statutory inquiry, with teeth, into the entire Met police and, although it may sound unsisterly to say so, its leadership? That should be a priority for whoever steps into the shoes of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) as Chair of the Committee on Wednesday.

Ten-Year Drugs Strategy

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

A shiny new 10-year strategy sounds good, but the Government also need to address unfinished business. Three years after the Minister’s Government legislated for medical cannabis on the NHS, why have only three prescriptions ever been written for it, leaving families broke, having shelled out privately to fund their kids’ amelioration of pain?

[Kit Malthouse]

That is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, but, where requests have come to me to facilitate the acquisition of those products for affected families who need them, we have moved heaven and earth to do so as quickly as we could. The hon. Lady might be interested to know that we are reaching the end of a piece of work by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on barriers to research and medical exploitation of particular compounds. I hope that we will be able to publish that soon and cover some of the regulatory hurdles that she points to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend has identified, with his usual wisdom, one of the three pillars of success post incarceration: a house, a friend and a job. He is quite right and I congratulate Milton Keynes College on its participation in the “Ban the Box” campaign. The Ministry of Justice has also been pleased to support business in the community at the event marking the remarkable milestone, it tells me, of 1 million roles covered by “Ban the Box” in March this year. We adopted “Ban the Box” in the civil service in 2016 and about 350,000 of those 1 million jobs are now in the civil service. More widely, as part of our approach to revising offender management, we are working very closely with colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure that those who leave the secure estate have a fair shake in the job market, which, as he rightly said, will go a long way to cutting reoffending.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

What steps his Department is taking to improve support in the justice system for victims of violence against women and girls.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

What steps his Department is taking to improve support in the justice system for victims of violence against women and girls.

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

Supporting victims to seek justice is a significant priority for the Government. We are investing in vital victim support services—more than £150 million this year—and a new victims code sets out the level of service that victims can expect to receive from justice agencies, but we must go further. The victims Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech will enshrine victims’ rights in law, hold agencies to account for delivering those rights and set expectations for the standard and availability of victim support.

[Dr Huq [V]]

The Minister talks about a victims Bill. There has been one in every Queen’s Speech since 2016 and we have not seen any concrete action. So can I ask him to remedy that by starting with a particular concrete action? Can he back the amendment that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and I are tabling to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to address the fact that 50% of women seeking abortion at clinics face intimidation and emotional distress? We want national legislation put in place to provide clarity for women, police and girls rather than relying on councils all the time, which do not have the bandwidth, resources or time to do this issue justice.

[Kit Malthouse]

I take the hon. Lady’s rebuke about a victims law, but she should be reassured that we are currently scoping the outline of that Bill with an intention to consult for prelegislative scrutiny later this year. We are firmly of the conviction that the victims code, which became effective on 1 April this year, is worthy and should be enshrined in statute and that is what we are aiming for. As to her amendment to the Bill, no doubt it will be considered as part of the legislation going forward.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Rupa Huq Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 2
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

This monster of a Bill includes the word “women” zero times in 295 pages, yet statutes, war memorials and monuments are mentioned multiple times.

The Bill is likely to go into Committee, so it is then that I will seek to improve it by tabling an amendment to prohibit the long-standing and continual, daily harassment and intimidation of women at abortion facilities. Every year, 100,000 women across England and Wales who try to exercise their right to a termination are told that they are going to hell, filmed, followed and given propaganda that is inevitably medically wrong and unwanted. That is not healthy, noisy protest but the shaming of individual vulnerable women for decisions taken perhaps as a result of rape or similar. It is gendered harassment, which is not included in the Bill but overlaps with part 3—the explanatory notes talk about

“disruption to the life of the community”

when

“the purpose of the organiser is to intimidate others into doing or not doing something that they have a right to do”.

Many women will have recognised what the Home Secretary said yesterday about how we all too often quicken our pace or grab our keys or phone in uncomfortable street encounters. Factor in being booked for a time-sensitive medical operation and there is no easy escape. This intimidatory activity is calculated to make women cancel their appointment or, at the very best, rebook it for when those people are not there. There is unpredictability and inconsistency: only three local authorities have gone down the byelaw route of local public space protection orders. This cannot continue; it is unequal access to justice, if nothing else.

When I asked the Health Secretary in this Chamber for his opinion on anti-vaxxers, he told me that no one’s access to legal medicine should be barred or prevented. By lumping such a measure in with prosecuting sports coaches who groom teams, criminalising already-persecuted Traveller lifestyles and introducing excessive sentences for toppling statues, the Government are inevitably going to accuse those who oppose the Bill of being soft on sex offenders, which is really disappointing.

Harassment of women is objectively wrong; it is surely not party political. Indeed, the cross-party will of the House is behind such a measure. The last time my private Member’s Bill was put to a vote in June, the House voted for it by 213 to 47. I even had Government Members on the payroll coming up to me all day saying, “Good on you, I wish we could have voted for this too.” So it is high time we updated what is being done in common law and put into statute, followed Canada—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am terribly sorry; we have to move on.

Victims of Crime: Rights

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I am sure all Members will recognise the feeling I am about to describe, although perhaps with a different landmark in mind: when I travel home after a long week here, I see the Humber bridge and know that that means home—I am nearly there; it is not far to go. Home should be the place where we feel the safest, where we feel secure, but sadly, for many of my constituents and many others around the country, crime and antisocial behaviour are hitting them right in the heart of their lives—in their home. I will use my speech today to raise my constituents’ concerns about antisocial behaviour. Sometimes it is dismissed as not really a big deal, but in reality it affects the lives of many people.

My constituency is a wonderful place to live and grow up in, but sadly many areas are now blighted by antisocial behaviour. In the Hessle part of the constituency, I hear many reports of children creating lots of difficulties—for example, running in front of buses and making them do emergency stops with the passengers still on them, upsetting people in the street, throwing dog dirt through pub doors, damaging car park fences, standing on signs, climbing on to walls and generally making people feel unsafe and unhappy in what is a wonderful community and place to live. An elderly lady told me that as she was walking down the street, groups of young people passing on their bikes shouted abuse at her; she is now worried about what might happen when she goes out to do her shopping.

Sadly, that is not the only area of my constituency where there are problems. I have been contacted by residents of the Great Thornton Street flats, an inner-city tower block, who are being subjected to hate crime. Some of them are having their scarves pulled off their heads. They are witnessing drug abuse and violence and even finding human faeces in the corners outside their homes. The situation is no better in Bean Street, where there is much public drug taking and antisocial behaviour. I have been told that on more than one occasion a nearby park has attracted drinkers and drug users shooting up in broad daylight.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate, Mrs Main. My hon. Friend refers to hate crime and I wondered whether she was aware that some of us Muslim Members of Parliament have been victims of a hate crime on the parliamentary estate today and yesterday. I could not be here at 2.30 pm because I was dealing with the aftermath of a suspicious package intended for me, which was opened by one of my staff.

My hon. Friend talks about crime at home. Does she not agree that thousands of British people abroad who are victims of crime need a better support system? My constituent Susan Sutovic—

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady was late. I have allowed the explanation but she is making an extremely long intervention. Perhaps the speaker will reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) for presenting the case, and for giving us all more time than there might have been to speak on the matter. I am also conscious that you have indicated the timescale to which we all have to try to adhere, Mrs Main.

The issue of victims is incredibly sensitive and needs to be handled with care. There are many victims of physical, emotional and sexual assault who have been re-traumatised—I have said this before, in questions to the Minister in the Chamber—through the handling of their case. Many victims will not come forward, as they feel as if they are on trial themselves, and are not supported. I recently read an article on abortion by a baroness in Ireland. Although this is not the debate in which to bring up the abortion issue, I felt it was significant that she lost her baby as she was caught up in an IRA bombing. She describes herself and her child as victims, and remains traumatised to this day. Time has not healed that wound; she feels the pain of loss to this day, and will do so beyond. This is how we need to consider victims: not that something once happened to them, but that their life was irrevocably changed, and that that change has become part of their day-to-day life. They need care and help to go over that, and to deal with the aftermath.

We have a duty to victims to ensure that they are heard and supported. That was what was agreed when we passed the legislation, and voted to help to make victims feel secure and to create a system whereby crimes could be prosecuted, and victims could feel safe and able to feed into the process. Although the spirit of the current legislation agrees with that, there is no enforcement process. I ask the Minister how we move from guidelines and perceived support to enforcement.

It is little wonder that Baroness Newlove’s report in January 2015, “A Review of Complaints and Resolution for Victims of Crime”, found not very satisfactory results—that is how it was reported. It surveyed the experiences of some 200 victims and found that almost 75% were unhappy with the response they received. More than 50% found the relevant agency’s complaints process difficult to use. Have we moved on from that? Is the process easier? Is it more relevant?

A second review, “The Silenced Victim: A Review of the Victim Personal Statement”, was published in November 2015. It found inconsistencies in approach, with six out of 10 victims not recalling being offered the chance to make a victim personal statement. That also illustrates the things that we need to be addressing. I look to the Minister to see whether he can address those issues and give us the responses that we wish to hear.

To me, this says that what we set out to achieve through the legislation is not being achieved. We therefore need to make changes. First, we need to stop it being no more than a guideline or a suggestion, and ensure that it is enforceable and as much a duty in the prosecution of a case as any other aspect, such as evidence gathering.

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Gentleman talked about there not always being an audit trail. Does he agree with me that when victims of crime are abroad, such as my constituent Susan Sutovic, whose son died in mysterious circumstances in 2004 in Serbia, there needs to be some sort of diplomatic and legal framework to help those victims?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention; I agree with her. It is important that we have a framework in place. Hopefully the Minister, who I know is taking notes on the debate, will give us some response on how he sees that changing.

The care of the victim must be paramount and be seen as part and parcel of the justice system. I agree with the options presented in the Victim Support manifesto. There should be a single complaints system for victims of crime, a more powerful Victims’ Commissioner, and better communication with victims about the outcomes of their case—how often that falls down. Court compensation should be paid immediately and not linger on for months or sometimes years. Trained intermediaries should be available for all child witnesses—I know a lot of Members in the Chamber feel as strongly as I do about that. No child should be obliged to enter a court building to give evidence. There should be pre-trial therapy for all victims of sexual crimes, and a national strategy for victims with mental health issues. Like others, I feel strongly on behalf of children about how their cases are handled. Again, I look to the Minister to see what help he can give us.

It is essential that these foundations, which are not currently in place, are in place for victims. The end goal is justice for the crime and for the victim. The crime has to have the right sentence, but the victim must also feel part of the process and feel that they are not being put upon by the court system. I hate to hear of crimes that could not be prosecuted as the key witness is frightened to come forward. Knowing that a system is in place to support victims is a key component in the prosecution of crimes. Again, I look to the Minister for a response on that.

I will conclude, as I am conscious of the time I agreed with you beforehand, Mrs Main. I again thank the hon. Member for Leeds North West for introducing the debate. I thank Baroness Newlove for her hard work in making a difference to the lives and experiences of victims. It is now in the hands of the Government—and perhaps the Minister in this case—to bring forward the promised changes. I for one will be eagerly awaiting the legislation that is to be introduced.

Suicide and Self-harm in Prison (England)

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on securing today’s debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) for his insightful interventions.

I extend my particular thanks and welcome to Mark Saunders, the father of Dean Saunders, who tragically died by his own hand in Chelmsford prison, for joining us for the debate. I reiterate the point that the Secretary of State and I made to him when we met: I very much look forward to working with him to bring in some real solutions to the challenge of suicides in our prisons.

Like the hon. Lady, I am concerned that the rates of suicide and self-harm in our prisons are too high. It is an issue that transcends political parties, despite our obviously different perspectives on the reforms needed in our prisons. My priority as prisons Minister is to provide leadership and to drive improvement across the system to bring those rates down.

As hon. Members will recognise, some of the problems in our prisons have long roots. It will take time to refocus the system on rehabilitation and reform but, as the last set of statistics for levels of suicide and self-harm reaffirm, we must also take urgent and decisive action to make prisons places of safety for those prisoners who are at risk.

The challenge of record levels of suicide and self-harm in prisons is a complex one and there is no simple solution. We know that prisoners are a high-risk population and that many of them come into the prison system with drug or alcohol problems, isolation, social disadvantage, experience of sexual or physical abuse, or mental health problems. All those factors increase the risk of self-harm or suicide among prisoners. We acknowledge that the nature of a custodial experience can further increase those risks, but that should not serve as an excuse.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I am encouraged by the Minister’s comments. Is he aware of figures from De Montfort University that show that 46% of women in custody have previously attempted suicide and that women in the criminal justice system on average die 16 years younger than their counterparts? Will he acknowledge that that issue should be part of the ongoing dialogue that is needed between the mental health and the criminal justice systems?

[Mr Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. I did say to the hon. Lady earlier that interventions from Opposition spokespersons are not allowed in a short Westminster Hall debate. I have re-confirmed that that is the ruling, so I am not going to allow the Minister to respond to that intervention. I apologise to the mover of the debate for the interruption.

Prison Safety

Rupa Huq Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered in the Sixth Report from the Justice Committee of Session 2015-16, on Prison Safety, HC 625, and the Government response, HC 647.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to welcome the Minister to his place. I think this is the first time he has had the chance to reply to a Westminster Hall debate on this topic.

I am grateful to the House for this opportunity to debate the Justice Committee’s report; I thank all my Committee colleagues for their work, and other hon. Members from across the House who have a long-standing and informed interest in justice. I am particularly pleased to see the former prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), to whom I pay tribute for his work in an always difficult and intractable area of public policy.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

There are two former Ministers here!

[Robert Neill]

Indeed. I was referring to the immediate former prisons Minister with whom the Committee worked. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) graces us on the Select Committee and we have had the benefit of his input.

Let us be blunt. Prison safety is terrible. Those are not my words, but those of the former Secretary of State, my Friend the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), in a prompt and frank response to our inquiry. He is entitled to credit for that.

The difficulty, which the current Minister will recognise and accept, is that prison safety was terrible when our report came out and it has got worse. I have hesitated until now to talk about a crisis in prison safety, but I think we are now at that stage. I say that because on every measure, safety has deteriorated and has continued to do so over a long time. That cannot be regarded as a one-off blip and we see no sign yet, despite considerable Government endeavour and intervention—which I do not dispute—of the situation or the underlying reasons being turned around. The situation has become grave and our report is particularly timely. That is important for two reasons.

First, whatever one’s view about the purpose of prison and how much emphasis we place on rehabilitation on the one hand and retribution or prevention of danger to the public on the other—all legitimate considerations to put in the mix—when the state legitimately takes it upon itself through proper process to incarcerate someone for their wrongs against society, there is an element of punishment in doing that properly, but we also take on board responsibility for ensuring that they are treated not only humanely, but safely. If the state fails in that, it fails in one of its primary obligations.

Secondly, in respect of broader policy, the current Secretary of State, like her predecessor, and the Minister, like his predecessor, are committed to a policy of prison reform. I hope that all of us in Westminster Hall today are committed to a policy of prison reform. The reality is that the less safe the prisons are, the harder it is to achieve reform. If we want real rehabilitation, real change and to reduce reoffending, a raft of interventions in prison is required, which can be properly delivered only if prisons are safe to start with.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huq]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robert Neill]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush first.

[Dr Huq]

That is not yet the redrawn boundary—my constituency is Ealing Central and Acton at present, although it may be changed.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and pay tribute to him for his sterling work chairing our Select Committee. He mentioned how things are interlinked with education. That point has been vividly brought home to us on the many visits we have made, in particular to Aylesbury and Wandsworth, where we heard that prisoners sometimes want to go on educational courses but there are not the staff available to relieve others so that they can do it. It seems to be a Catch-22 situation, and people are locked into a cycle. They want to get education, but there are not enough staff to supervise the groups travelling across the courses. That means that courses are often cancelled, which is an unacceptable situation.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Lady is right. I am probably so old in politics that I can remember a constituency configured that way in the past. She is quite right—it comes back to this same circle.

People who say that the only answer is more and more imprisonment and more and more lockdown perhaps ought to go into prisons more. There are an awful lot of people—even people who, frankly, deserve to be in there for some time—who are none the less interested in engaging in purposeful activity. That makes them less inclined to behave in a way that threatens safety and gets them involved in gangs or other forms of violence. It is a win-win at every level. Whatever the level of the sentence, providing such activity is a good and, basically, a morally right thing to do. However, we cannot put prison officers or instructors into environments where it is not safe for people to be out of their cells to get that education and personal activity. That is why getting the regime safe is critical to everything.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huq]

My right hon. Friend is painting a very compelling picture and giving a timeline. Does he agree that the logical consequence of the bleak picture he paints is more incidents such as the walkout in May at Wormwood Scrubs prison by staff, who felt so unsafe that they downed tools? That prison is on the border of my constituency—it is next door, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). The situation has been described as “Dickensian squalor” by the current chief inspector, Peter Clarke, whom the Committee interviewed. I know this lot—the Government—are into Victorian values, but this is the wrong value to go for.

[Mr Hanson]

Self-evidently, if prison officers feel so unsafe in their place of work that they walk out, it is for them to express that concern. I hope they find mechanisms other than walking out because not being there does not make the prisoners any safer.

The key thing—this is linked to the previous point—is that six years ago there were 1.73 prisoners for each prison officer. Now, there are more than 2.015 prisoners for each prison officer, which affects the amount of investment and time they can put in. The Government’s response shows that a lot of people are walking away from the Prison Service. We have appointed 3,100 new prison officers in the past year but, overall, there has only been a rise of 300 officers. As well as the Government dealing with the issue of having sufficient prison officers, I would welcome their view on retention. Ultimately, we face a situation whereby some prisons have experienced prisoners and inexperienced prison officers, which is not a good mix if the system is to be managed effectively.

If we are losing the number of prison officers that the Minister’s report says we are in just one year—we have a net increase of only 300 prison officers after recruiting 3,100—what steps is he taking to incentivise people to stay, to ensure we retain recruitment and to keep experienced officers in place? Given the age profile of prison officers, will the trend be such that the Minister really has to ramp up recruitment because people will want to retire as they approach natural retirement age? What profiling has he done and will he confirm to the Justice Committee that his recruitment numbers will have a real impact given the number of prison officers we have lost?

The Government’s response puts in a word about mobile phones, which is a perennial problem that we have all dealt with during our times in the Ministry of Justice. They also make points about drugs in prison and about detection, which is equally important. They then come to the next issue, which is:

“Building five new prisons by 2020 to modernise the prison estate and close the most inefficient out of date jails.”

Perhaps the Minister will tell us, apart from Her Majesty’s Prison Berwyn, which is 10 miles down the road from my constituency, which are the other four prisons? When will he put bricks on the ground and which are the inefficient and out-of-date jails? At what stage will those predominantly Victorian prisons, possibly even some that have been mentioned today, be closed and what is the transition period for that? What measures, including staffing numbers, design, education and input, is he building into the new prisons, such as HMP Berwyn, to make them safer?

We can all sit here and pontificate on what should be done, but it is clear from the tone of the debate and the information to date that there has been serious deterioration over a range of measures and indices over the past five—and particularly the past two to three—years. A range of things can be done regarding staffing ratios, retention, drugs, mobile phones, education, mental health and the cohort of prisoner numbers, but it comes down to points made by my fellow Justice Committee members, the hon. Members for Cheltenham, for Henley and for Bromley and Chislehurst. If we are going to continue to imprison people at the rate that we are, sufficient resources must be put in to manage that in an effective way to provide rehabilitation.

Looking into ways of taking people out of the Prison Service and into short-term community sentences might take some of the pressure off prison numbers. We cannot have a situation whereby there is an increased cohort of difficult, challenging prisoners with mental health, drug and alcohol problems, who are in for violent offences, and for longer sentences for a range of offences, when the way in which prison operates is dealt with by an ever-diminishing number of staff who are more poorly trained than and not as experienced as the people they are replacing, and whose safety, along with those who are in prison, is paramount.

Will the Minister put a bit more meat on the response now or indicate to the Justice Committee at what stage a bit more meat will be put on it? I look forward to the Committee being able to assess indices of success so that we have clear measurements of where improvements will be made.

With due respect to the document, rather than blind assurances that the Government will produce a plan, monitor effectiveness, look into increasing the number of prison officers, deal with drugs and phones, and build some new prisons, I would like a bit more detail. If the Minister is not able to give that today, will he commit to reporting back to our Committee at a time of his convenience with a detailed plan, including detailed indices for improvement and detailed financing for those indices, so that we can measure what happens in the future, rather than just take assurances, which, while well meant, may not actually meet the objectives we have set?