Justice

The Secretary of State was asked—

Party Funding

Danny Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (LD)
1. What recent discussions he has had on Sir Hayden Phillips’s recommendations on party funding.

The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw)
Formal inter-party talks based on Sir Hayden’s recommendations ended on 30 October 2007 without agreement. However, Sir Hayden’s reports have made an important contribution to debates and discussions ever since, in the House and outside. The Political Parties and Elections Bill, as amended in this place, received broad support, and is now proceeding in the other place.

Danny Alexander
How can the British people have confidence in our political system when, despite many of Sir Hayden’s recommendations, the wealthy can still buy influence in our politics with massive donations, and parties can still spend without limit at local level to buy votes? Will the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, amend his Bill in the other place to take account of Sir Hayden’s recommendations and ensure that the big money is taken out of politics—or is this another issue on which the Government have thrown away their moral compass?

Mr. Straw
The hon. Gentleman had to keep consulting his notes in order to read that question out—and it did not have much force behind it. The answer is this: I believe that, on the issue of party funding above all else, it is extremely important for us not to proceed without a broad consensus between the parties. Otherwise we would end up with the position that obtains in Canada, where so-called “great reforms” in party funding—including state funding—have become partisan tools in the hands of the Government of the day. We have one of the cleanest systems of party funding and party operation in the world, as the recent Electoral Commission report made clear.

Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the proposals on party funding now being dealt with in another place are of necessity short-term arrangements? Does he intend to pursue, in particular, the issue of whole-term party funding limits in the immediate future?

Mr. Straw
I do not think that those proposals are short-term, but inevitably, they are not completely comprehensive. Labour Members are attracted to the idea of comprehensive funding limits that would continue throughout a Parliament, and I hope we can persuade the other parties in favour of that course as well.

Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind)
Although the Secretary of State was right to say that this country is relatively clean in comparison with others, he must still acknowledge that there are excesses and abuses in the system. Will he urge all political parties to stop funding candidates massively before the calling of an election, which is what the Conservative party is continuing to do?

Mr. Straw
All parties seek to operate within the limits set by the law. At some stages, the Labour party funded candidates well when it was in opposition. That is now a matter for the Conservative party. Although the hon. Gentleman is in a small minority in the House in terms of the party that he represents, let me say to him that we have enough problems in terms of the reputation of party politics, without turning the issue of party funding into another partisan political football.

Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a huge conundrum when it comes to party political funding? The public want democracy, but it is expensive. They do not want to pay for it with their own taxes, and they do not want other people to pay for it with their hard-earned cash.

Mr. Straw
The hon. Lady has put the dilemma very acutely. She will know that one of Sir Hayden’s key recommendations was that in return for donation limits there should be very extensive state funding. I think it is now recognised, not least given the state of the British economy, that the British people would not take kindly to that proposition. In Canada, where there had been state funding, the Government of Mr. Stephen Harper suddenly decided to withdraw it as an economy measure, causing a fundamental crisis in Canadian politics. That, I suggest, is another reason not to introduce comprehensive state funding.

Yes, it is true to some extent that the public want democracy and do not want to pay for it. Meanwhile, I happen to believe that it is entirely honourable to ask people to contribute to the political parties of their choice, provided that those who donate make it clear that they are donating.

David Howarth (Cambridge) (LD)
The Secretary of State’s answers have been largely disappointing, apart from his answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). I considered that answer encouraging, and urge him to go further. He referred to the political context—but it is a context in which public faith in politics is plummeting, and the McBride affair and discussion of our allowances just make matters worse. Does he not accept that the Political Parties and Elections Bill gives the Government an opportunity to do something now—something generous, something principled and something non-partisan? It is up to him to make proposals in that regard.

As for the Secretary of State’s comments about large donations and state funding, surely the Obama campaign has put paid to the myth that political campaigns can be funded only by large private donations or by the state. President Obama managed to do without both. [Interruption.]

Mr. Straw
As the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), says from a sedentary position, that was not strictly true. I do not think that we should necessarily look first to the United States for examples of total transparency in political funding, not least given the degree to which third-party organisations are used as back-door methods of campaigning, and particularly negative campaigning. Secondly, the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) should not assume that it is only the Liberal Democrats who are interested in principles; we all are. He knows very well, however, that we can, and should, proceed only by consensus. I put forward a number of propositions and then negotiated with the other parties in order to reach a consensus. Some of the propositions I put forward did not find favour—that is called democracy—but if we are going to try to make progress and achieve a stable regime for party funding, we must do so by agreement.

Prison Privatisation

Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD)
2. What representations he has received on proposals for further privatisation of prisons; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Mr. David Hanson)
We receive regular representations from a number of sources on competition policy. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary made the Department’s policy on competition clear in the announcement he made to this House on 27 April.

Paul Rowen
In his statement on 27 April, the Secretary of State referred to Buckley Hall prison in my constituency of Rochdale. That prison has already had five changes of designation since it opened in 1996—from private to public, from male to female, and then back to male. Can the Minister please tell us what, if any, advantages such rapid change offers in terms of prison officers being able to deliver a proper service for the public?

Mr. Hanson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to tell him that, as I am sure he knows, Buckley Hall prison is a very high-performing prison, and is currently a level 3 prison, so the changes to date have, in fact, improved performance. He will also know that the contract for that prison is coming to an end and that, in the light of the Justice Secretary’s statement of 27 April, we will be putting the contract out to competition again. Both the public and the private sector—and, indeed, the voluntary sector—can compete for that contract, and I have no doubt that we will ultimately choose whoever can provide the best service to continue the good work that has been done to date at Buckley Hall prison.

Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) (Lab)
Why are the Government so wedded to increasing the number of private prisons, given that we already have more private prisons—by which I mean a larger proportion of the prison estate run privately—than anywhere else in Europe, and there is no real evidence any more of cost savings from private prisons, but there are a lot of question marks as to how well they actually perform?

Mr. Hanson
My hon. Friend will know that at present about 10 per cent. of the estate is private prison-orientated and 90 per cent. is in the public sector. Let us look at what the Labour Government have done to date. In the last 12 years, we have commissioned and built RAF Coltishall in Norfolk, which will be opening shortly as a public sector prison, and we have also opened HMP Kennet in Maghull on Merseyside as a public sector prison. What we said in our 27 April announcement is that the next two 1,500-capacity prisons to be built will be private sector institutions, but that we are not averse to the public sector being considered after that, because there is a need for an appropriate mix. The public sector does a good job, and the private sector can do a good job too; what we are interested in is the cost and efficiency of the prison service, and I believe that both sectors have their role to play. My hon. Friend will know, however, that the public sector overwhelmingly remains the major provider of prison services in England and Wales, and will continue to be so.

Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking) (Con)
But does the Minister accept that reoffending rates are frighteningly high in both privatised prisons and public sector prisons? When he listens to further representations about prisons, will he concentrate his mind very much on what kind of prison provides the best resettlement programmes, enabling people leaving prison—who are often youngsters—to go into a home and a job and back into the community with a proper resettlement programme, as that is the best way to stop reoffending?

Mr. Hanson
The hon. Gentleman makes extremely valid points. He will know that what happens in prison and how we re-enter people into society when they leave prison are the two key determinants as to whether reoffending behaviour occurs. I am deeply committed to trying to develop regimes in private and public sector prisons that achieve maximum outputs for both. To do that, we must not just look at prisons in isolation, but also look at them as transitional places from where people return to the community. That is why the hon. Gentleman’s points about housing, employment and skills development are the key issues that we need to continue to work on. I believe we have been doing some good work to date, but there is always more to do, and I hope we can focus on that, regardless of who happens to run the prisons in the future.

Mrs. Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Parc prison and young offender institution in Bridgend is a private sector prison. Despite the best efforts of staff, it fails to provide an in-reach child and adolescent mental health service, it fails to provide education for more than 70 of its young people and it fails to meet its task as an adult training prison. What steps are being taken to ensure that if there is any expansion of private sector prisons in Wales, prisoners will have access to the same quality of provision as if they were serving their sentences in England?

Mr. Hanson
My hon. Friend raises some important points, and I shall certainly examine those that she raises on the performance of Parc prison. She will know that there are differences between the provision in England and Wales on some of these issues, and that I have been in discussions, in particular with Edwina Hart, the Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales, to consider how we can examine the mental health services performance at Parc prison. Only last week we published Lord Bradley’s report on mental health, and we wish to take these issues forward with the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that we reproduce and develop a very strong service in respect of all people who provide prison accommodation in England and in Wales.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
The small print in this year’s Budget Red Book announced that

“all new-build prisons will be built and managed by the private sector”.

Despite the fact that several prisons, including HMP Garth in Lancashire, are now working to rule, and that industrial action may recur this summer over this and other proposals, can the Minister reassure the House that this policy has the wholehearted and unanimous support of his parliamentary party?

Mr. Hanson
Give over, please! The hon. and learned Gentleman aspires to hold this position on the Government Front Bench—so I suggest that he focus and concentrate on how we deliver the best possible services to prisoners in respect of reoffending and prison build. He will know that this Labour Government have committed the most money ever invested in the Prison Service to build new prison services in the future. I feel that he is not really living up to the standards that would be expected on the Front-Bench.

Drug Courts

Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North) (Lab)
3. What plans he has to set up dedicated drug courts.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Bridget Prentice)
The two dedicated drug court pilots that we have provided in Leeds and west London have been shown to be good models on which to work, and we are therefore extending those models to a further four sites, which we will continue to monitor closely. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice was very pleased to launch one of these new pilots recently in Cardiff magistrates court.

Julie Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I was very pleased that the Secretary of State was able to come to Cardiff in April to open the dedicated drug court, which is now meeting every Wednesday—and I look forward to seeing the results. Does my hon. Friend agree that the success of such initiatives depends on a regular review of offenders by the same members of the judiciary over a period, so that any progress made by the offender in respect of their drug use can be praised, and when things go wrong there can be sanctions? Does she agree that it is important to have the same people following such cases regularly?

Bridget Prentice
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and the judges in those courts recognise exactly what she is saying. They make it clear that if offenders who come before them for the first time do not follow through the sanctions that they have been set, they will be brought back before the very same judge to be dealt with properly. They also make it clear that they will see such people personally, and that helps greatly in ensuring that offenders know that this is a serious situation, and that they must follow through the sanctions that the judge has set.

Mr. David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
It is evident that most offenders with drug and alcohol problems have mental health problems too. Why, then, did the Government fail even to mention the need for mental health support in their last evaluation of drug courts, and why, despite Lord Bradley’s commendable report—sent to Ministers in February—expressing  disappointment with this failure, was yet another criminal justice Green Paper published last week that does not address the vital mental health services needed for drug courts to work effectively?

Bridget Prentice
The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in suggesting that the Government do not take mental health problems seriously. As the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), mentioned in response to an earlier question, the launch of Lord Bradley’s report last week was an important milestone in the policies that we are developing to deal with offenders. We are working closely with Lord Bradley and examining the results of his report to ensure that we take a holistic view of dealing with people who have both drug and mental health problems.

Reoffending

Mr. Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con)
4. How many offences have been committed since 1997 by those who had previously been released from prison or completed community sentences.

The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw)
A much more robust measure of reoffending was established in 2000. This means that we cannot draw direct comparisons with data from before that date. Between 2000 and 2006, reoffending rates fell by 23 per cent. for adults and 19 per cent. for youths. In 2000, 189 further offences were committed per 100 adult offenders; in 2006 the number had fallen to 146. There is therefore no question but that reoffending has been reduced substantially under this Government.

Mr. Ellwood
The Secretary of State puts his finger on the problem by saying that there is a new system for making the calculations. If a policy is not working, the Government change the way in which the figures are calculated and, hey presto, they meet their targets. That aside, compared with Europe, we have some of the worst reoffending rates in the western world. Does the Secretary of State agree that the reason for that is the overcrowding and lack of rehabilitation in our prisons?

Mr. Straw
I do not accept any of the hon. Gentleman’s assumptions. The change was made in 2000 to make the data more robust, just as we have made two sets of changes to the calculation of the recorded crime statistics, which have had the effect of nominally increasing recorded crime. I introduced one of those changes 11 years ago, as Home Secretary—a change that my predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), had sat on and refused to implement because he thought that it would send up the crime figures even further than they had already gone up under the Conservatives. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) says, we have good and declining reoffending rates, and I do not know where he got his data about other European countries. Moreover, we have increased the amount being spent on drug treatment tenfold, and the amount spent on learning and skills threefold, since the Government whom he supported were in power.

Mr. David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Given what the Secretary of State has just said, what would he advise me to tell the people who work in the probation service in the north-east? How are they supposed to improve reoffending rates if, because of deficit cuts, they lose £1.6 million this year and £4.2 million in 2012, and do not employ the 24 trainee probation officers who have been trained over the last three years, at a cost of £2.5 million to the public purse? Surely that cannot be correct?

Mr. Straw
My colleagues and I are always happy to see my hon. Friend—and, if necessary, a delegation from Northumbria probation service—about their concerns. The probation service has had a 70 per cent. real-terms increase in funding in the last 12 years, compared with an increase of just over 50 per cent. in its case load, so it has had substantial additional resources. We are seeking to end the situation in which some of those resources have gone on unnecessary layers of middle management. Given the overall levels of funding, we are in no doubt that front-line delivery of probation services can be continued at its current level.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
There is one figure on which we can agree, and that is that more than 50,000 offenders have been released early by this Government, including people convicted of terrorist, violent and sexual offences. It is bad enough that the Government have recklessly failed to build enough prison places, but can the Secretary of State now confirm that the £30 million in planned cuts to local probation services must mean even less protection of the public from serious offenders after their release?

Mr. Straw
I do not accept that. The nominal reduction in spending is belied by the fact that for the year that finished at the end of March—just over five weeks ago—the probation service underspent by £23 million. Interestingly, and somewhat to our surprise, given the concerns expressed by the probation service, there is no reason why probation services should not be able to manage within their budgets. What would the hon. and learned Gentleman do? After all, his policy is for much larger cuts than anything that we are contemplating.

Mr. Grieve
I wonder whether the Justice Secretary has actually read his own guidance to probation trusts. In 2007, probation officers were required to provide a report every three months on those sentenced to life imprisonment and subject to close monitoring on release. Last month, probation officers were told to report every six months instead, because of the resources available. Can he confirm that that is indeed the guidance? Does he now accept that these cuts in front-line probation services must put the public at greater risk?

Mr. Straw
I am sorry, but I do not accept the basis of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point at all. We have significantly increased real-terms resources to the probation service, so it is much better resourced than it ever was under his party’s administration. At any time, of course, adjustments may be made for different levels of offender. We want to see—and the public want to see—probation resources concentrated on the most serious offenders, especially when they are released from jail. That is precisely what we are doing.

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab)
One of the reasons for recidivism is that about half, or even more, of prisoners are functionally illiterate. I welcome the steps in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, which we will be debating later this afternoon, to assist with education for young people in the secure estate. However, will my right hon. Friend tell me what more is being done to improve what has until recently been the pretty poor record of prisons in educating prisoners in basic skills and literacy?

Mr. Straw
I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says about the very low level of skills of the majority of prisoners. We are transforming the situation for the education and training of prisoners. The amount spent on offender learning just since 2001 has increased by three times, and has now risen to more than £175 million. There are 21,000 prisoners achieving skills for life qualifications and 70,000 achieving vocational qualifications. That is a dramatic change in the provision of education and training in our prisons.

Electoral Registers

Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con)
5. What recent assessment he has made of the integrity of electoral registers.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Mr. Michael Wills)
The integrity of the register is crucial, and we keep this area under constant review.

Andrew Selous
Just before the last European elections, a national newspaper managed to register a fictitious person by the name of Gus Troobev—an anagram of “bogus voter”—in 40 different electoral registers. How confident is the Minister that that could not happen for the European elections next month?

Mr. Wills
We can never be complacent about any incident of fraud whatever. However, it is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that just last week the Electoral Commission and the Association of Chief Police Officers produced a report on the 2008 elections, which concluded that they were

“free from major incidents of electoral fraud”.

The report conducted by the Electoral Commission and ACPO, shows that there is a steady decline in the allegations of such malpractice—but we cannot be complacent even about a single incident, and we are not. That is why, in the Electoral Administration Act 2006, we brought in a raft of measures to tackle fraud. It is also one of the reasons why we are bringing in individual registration. We will never be complacent about a single incident, but we have to accept—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept this—that in this country, such incidents are, fortunately, few and limited.

Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the integrity and quality of electoral registers will not improve in areas such as Bradford as long as very little canvassing is done at local authority level? That is especially true in an area such as Bradford, particularly in my constituency, which is one fifth of that area, where many people do not have English as their first language.

Mr. Wills
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to the importance for all electoral registration officers—in her constituency and throughout the country—of conducting their canvasses extremely diligently, and ensuring that every person in this country who is eligible to vote is registered to vote, and can therefore exercise that democratic duty. We are very concerned that when we bring in a system of individual registration—we are placing such measures before Parliament as we speak—there will not be a fall in the number of those who are registered to vote. That is why we are placing new duties on electoral registration officers and taking all sorts of measures to ensure that, in my hon. Friend’s constituency and everywhere in the country, everybody who is eligible to vote can do so.

Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con)
Leaving aside, for the moment, implementation of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that prisoners should be registered and able to vote, what arrangements does the Department offer so that people who are to be released from prison before a known election day are on the electoral register and can vote?

Mr. Wills
Of course, we are concerned to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote is able to do so. That will be a matter for electoral registration officers in constituencies that harbour such people, and for those people themselves.

Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Has the Minister given any further thought to whether the electoral register should include prisoners?

Mr. Wills
The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes, we have given further thought to the matter. She will be aware that we have just published a second consultation paper—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Obviously, Conservative Front Benchers have very strong views on this matter; we look forward to receiving their representations.

Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
Of course I share the concerns raised about fraud by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). However, the issue of under-registration is worrying, too. All too often, those who need their voices to be heard fail to register, thereby disfranchising themselves from the electoral and democratic process. How confident is my right hon. Friend the Minister that what we propose in the current legislation will ensure that those who need their voices to be heard will be registered?

Mr. Wills
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the subject up again. It is absolutely crucial to the health of our democracy that everyone who is eligible to vote is registered, and can therefore vote. At the moment, our best estimate is that something like 3 million people in this country who are eligible to vote cannot do so, because they are not registered. That is a disgrace to our democracy, and we have to do everything possible to make sure that we do not let that situation continue. I think that the whole House agrees that a system of individual registration is desirable, both in principle and in practice. It has a lot of benefits associated with it, but there is a risk as well, to which my hon. Friend referred: when we move to such a system, there is a real risk—we saw this happen in Northern Ireland—that many of those who are eligible to vote will simply not be registered. That is why the legislation that we are putting before Parliament says that before we move definitively to a system of compulsory individual registration, the Electoral Commission must be satisfied that the register is comprehensive and accurate. That is why we put that provision in. I hope that that will provide some reassurance to my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)
As the Minister knows, we enthusiastically welcome the steps that he and his colleagues are taking to bring in individual voter registration, for which we have called for over five years. We Opposition Members are never complacent about electoral fraud; this House derives its legitimacy from the integrity of the ballot. Individual voter registration is only part of the solution. Does the Minister agree that the integrity of the ballot will only be really secure when a potential voter is required to produce evidence of their identity when they go into the polling station to get a ballot paper? The Minister knows that that works in Northern Ireland. When will he take steps to introduce the system in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Wills
As I have said to the hon. Lady before in Committee, there seems to have been a policy switch by Conservative Front Benchers in favour of the advantages of identity cards, and I am glad that she seems to be endorsing that— [Hon. Members: “No.”] I simply say that the hon. Lady needs to be careful about which policy prescription she comes forward with. On her first point, she has advocated individual registration for some considerable time, but throughout that period she was silent on the need for the register to be comprehensive as well as accurate. I have to say that until this Government brought forward proposals that combine measures to complete the accuracy of the register and measures to ensure its comprehensive nature, individual registration carried as many risks as benefits. I would just ask the hon. Lady to reflect on that the next time she makes such comments.

Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely right to insist on that twin track, because while none of us would approve of fraud by people who actively seek to pervert the electoral process, the biggest fraud in this country at the moment relates to the 3 million people who are not registered, and whose voices are not heard. We know that the Conservative party is not keen on doing anything about that, because it believes—rightly, I think—that it would be electorally disadvantaged by such a process. However, democracy depends on everybody having the right to vote, and the opportunity to cast that vote.

Mr. Wills
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I would just say to the Opposition that this is the time, right now, for them to lay to rest the suspicion that they do not care and that large numbers of our most vulnerable—[Interruption.] Well, I am giving them the opportunity to do so. They can demonstrate it very simply—nobody has to come to the Dispatch Box now—by supporting the measures that we have introduced on individual registration.

Prisons (Mental Health Services)

Sandra Gidley (Romsey) (LD)
6. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the provision of mental health services in prisons.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr. Shahid Malik)
Ministers and officials from both Departments meet on a regular basis, including on the provision of mental health services in prisons. Most recently, we worked together on Lord Bradley’s report, which was published with the Government response on 30 April 2009.

Sandra Gidley
The Minister will be aware that more than 70 per cent. of prisoners have some sort of mental health problem. He mentioned the Bradley report, so presumably he is aware that it says:

“Where appropriate, there are significant benefits when individuals receive a community rather than a custodial sentence.”

What are the Government doing to ensure that prisoners with a mental health problem receive real help, rather than being banged up as a first resort?

Mr. Malik
We have made considerable progress in this area, as the hon. Lady will know. Since 2006, responsibility for commissioning prison health services, for example, has moved from prisons to the NHS. The Bradley review has been mentioned two or three times, and 102 mental health teams have been established to provide assessment, treatment and support to offenders, and there is a total of 360 extra staff. In 1997, not a single mental health team was working in that way. We have new systems to monitor and support individuals who are at risk. The list goes on, but I suspect that you would stop me, Mr. Speaker, if I continued.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that responsibility for mental health services in prisons has switched to the NHS. He will see in the Bradley report a recommendation that the NHS commissioners should ensure that those services improve. What discussions are taking place with the Department of Health and the NHS commissioners to make sure that that is carried out and that mental health services in prisons are improved?

Mr. Malik
There is much scope for improvement, and as a result of the Bradley review, we are about to establish a health and criminal justice national programme board, which will bring together the relevant Departments covering health, social care and criminal justice for children and adults. A national delivery plan will be put together later this year, and a national advisory group ensures the wider involvement of interested organisations. We will produce a progress report within six months, detailing strategy on mental health and learning disabilities, as well as broader health and criminal justice system strategy.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC)
Having read the Bradley report, I believe that it provides important input into the whole debate. However, I expected one further recommendation in that report: the Government should undertake a detailed study of all low and medium-risk offenders with severe mental  health problems who could be safely housed elsewhere, thus dealing with them more humanely and relieving pressure on the prison estate.

Mr. Malik
Individuals with mental illnesses are regularly transferred from prisons. Every year, approximately 900 people who meet the criteria under the Mental Health Act 1983 are transferred. We are trying to speed up the availability of beds for those individuals. In 2007, some 40 individuals waited longer than 12 weeks for a bed. By March 2008, the number of such individuals had been reduced to 24. We have a target of 14 days, instead of 12 weeks, and I am confident that we will meet that target. I believe that we can make better use of community orders and suspended sentences. In 2006, of the 203,000 requirements for treatment orders, only 725 were for mental health problems, and that can certainly be improved.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op)
Suicide and self-harm, psychotic and neurotic activity, drug and alcohol dependency, and serious personality disorders, are all at significantly higher levels among prisoners than in the general population. How confident is the Minister that the most seriously ill prisoners are in an appropriate setting for treatment and that they should not be admitted to the nearest acute mental hospital?

Mr. Malik
As I have already stated, 900 prisoners a year are transferred where they meet the Mental Health Act criteria. The Bradley review focuses on intervention, prevention and early assessment. We have a medium-term goal that every police station and court will have access to liaison and diversion services, which will ensure that people who ought not to be going to prison in the first place are prevented from doing so, so that they do not potentially have a life of criminality.

Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con)
The Minister is just beginning to get to the point. Is there not a real problem in that many people with mental illnesses who commit crimes are sent to prison when they should not be sent there at all, because of the absence in hospitals of adequate facilities—particularly beds—to deal with those with mental illness? Will the Minister address the fact that too many people are being sent to prison because of the absence of adequate mental facilities in the community?

Mr. Malik
Of course we could do more. It is important to state that year on year we have consistently increased funding in this area. For example, in 2007-08 and 2008-09 we have an extra £4 million for the development of mental health services in the prison establishments, of which £1.6 million is for child and adolescent mental health services within the young people’s estate. Since 2006-07, £20 million a year has been allocated for mental health in-reach services. I have already said that we have 102 teams that give such support, and I have stated twice that some 900 people a year are transferred. Of course there is more that we could do. To an extent, Bradley points the way forward in this area.

Reoffending

David T.C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
7. On how many occasions offenders under probation service supervision reoffended in 2008.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Mr. David Hanson)
The latest figures show that the three-month reoffending rate of all offenders on probation caseloads in England and Wales during the period 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2008 was 9.88 per cent. out of approximately 172,500 offenders. Between 2000 and 2006, the reoffending of adult offenders commencing a court order under probation supervision fell by 23 per cent.

David T.C. Davies
On the basis of those figures we can safely extrapolate that tens of thousands of people who should be in prison are out on the streets committing offences, and presumably tens of thousands more are committing offences but are not caught and do not show up in those figures. Does this not show the scandal of all forms of early release? Will the Minister undertake to ensure that people are not let out of their sentences less than halfway through as a result of a few bleeding-hearted social workers, and that they serve their sentences in full, as given by judges?

Mr. Hanson
As ever, the hon. Gentleman’s supplementary does not relate at all to the question that he tabled, which was about probation supervision, but if he wishes to talk about prisoners being released, I can remind him that under the Government whom he supported, more prisoners were released on any single day than ever under any Government to date. He will know that I am concerned, as are all Labour Members, about reoffending rates. They remain too high, and we have to get them down. The work that we are doing on employment, housing and skill development is about reducing reoffending. I would much rather follow the line of attack of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and the points that he set out today.

Prison Officers

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab)
8. What changes he plans to make to prison officers’ terms and conditions of employment in the next two years.

The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw)
I have no plans to change the terms and conditions of employment for existing prison officers over the next two years. We are currently consulting the trade unions and others on important but limited changes that will apply to officers appointed from 1 September.

Mr. Prentice
Page 130 of the Red Book talks about “£82 million savings” from “core day standardisation” and

“allowing prison staff arrangements to be re-profiled”.

What does that mean in plain English? Is it a way of cutting weekend overtime by keeping prisoners in their cells? Is that what it really amounts to?

Mr. Straw
The core day has already been introduced. What those measures mean is that we have responsibilities to the taxpayer, who pays for the prison service. The prison service in the United Kingdom is not the most expensive in Europe, but it is one of the most expensive, and at any time, we must ensure that we are getting value for money, including from the prison service. On prison officers’ terms and conditions of employment, as repeated pay review body reports have shown, prison officers, by comparison with any outside comparable employees, are very well paid and have generous pensions. That is also illustrated by the fact that the wastage rate for prison officers is the lowest of any part of the public sector.

Topical Questions

Mrs. Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
T1.  If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw)
The House will wish to know that, last Tuesday, I announced the establishment of an advisory panel on judicial diversity to be chaired by Baroness Neuberger, and on Wednesday I published the “Engaging Communities in Criminal Justice” Green Paper, a consultation document drawn up by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, and myself. It includes plans for a website on court outcomes, 30 justice pioneer areas, community prosecutors, an expansion of citizen panels in respect of community payback, the introduction of community impact statements in courts and the greater use of community justice techniques.

Mrs. Riordan
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. I recently met prisons representatives, and they are deeply concerned about plans to extend the prison privatisation programme. There is a valid concern that the prison-for-profit culture would make prisons more dangerous for the prisoners, the staff and the public. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will not compromise prison security by further privatisation of the prison system?

Mr. Straw
We will never compromise prison security for any wider consideration. A number of National Audit Office reports have made it clear that the introduction of a very limited element of the private sector has helped to raise standards in the public sector. That may be an unfortunate conclusion, but it happens to be true.

As to the future, apart from the two entirely new prisons that will be built in the private sector, as I announced last week, all those that are being re-competed—the five so-called strategic level arrangement prisons that have been re-competed, one that came back to the private sector and the two new ones, Birmingham and Wellingborough—will have the opportunity through the public sector to compete against private and third sector arrangements. If they are successful, they will keep the contracts.

Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
T2.  Does the Secretary of State agree that a police cell is rarely appropriate as a place of safety for the purposes of sections 135 and 136 of the Mental Health Act? Following Lord Bradley’s report, will the Secretary of State ensure that primary care trusts, mental health trusts and police forces start work now to ensure that, without delay, mental health trusts can provide appropriate places of safety locally for those who need them, and that access to mental health services on the NHS is unconditional, just like access to any other treatment under the NHS?

Mr. Straw
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There have been important improvements in the provision of prison health services, which are primarily mental health services, not least through the ending of the separate prison medical service; however dedicated its staff, it was, frankly, a second-class service. Furthermore, a few years ago this Government implemented the arrangement through which all health services in a prison are provided by the relevant primary care trust.

However, I accept entirely what the hon. Gentleman said. The more that we do to divert the mentally ill from the prison system and police cells and into the proper mental health system, the better.

Natascha Engel (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab)
T6.  When does the Secretary of State intend to publish his response to the Government’s consultation on pleural plaques? I do not have to tell my right hon. Friend how serious the issue is. Quite a large number of people are literally dying to hear his reply.

Mr. Straw
Of course, I fully acknowledge the concern of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on both sides of the House about that issue. Consideration of the responses, of which we have received quite a number following publication of our paper on the way forward, is taking longer than we anticipated, because of the complexity involved. However, I certainly intend that we should come to conclusions before the summer recess.

Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD)
T3.  Following the Secretary of State’s decision to permit public reporting, with appropriate safeguards, of proceedings in the family courts, what steps is he taking to ensure that the change is applied fairly and uniformly?

Mr. Straw
First, given that the press now have access to the courts, we are relying on them to let us, as well as their readers, know about anything that they regard as a failure on the part of the courts to live up to the spirit of the changes. Secondly, we ourselves are monitoring the situation. Thirdly, as I have already made clear, this is only the first phase of the changes. The next phase is the introduction of legislation that will ensure that the reporting and admission regime for all levels of family court is put on the same foundation as that for youth courts. In other words, the press may report the substance of what they witness, but not any information that would lead to revealing the identity of the parties to the proceedings.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab)
T7.  A Bangladeshi constituent of mine, who is being divorced by her husband, has been well treated by the Birmingham courts, which have provided screens and interpreters. However, will my right hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to make sure that such women, who have no money or recourse to public funds, can get the legal advice that they need so that they can exercise their rights, rather than being divorced by their husbands and left completely destitute?

Mr. Straw
I am glad to hear that the courts are giving the lady in question the support that she requires. We are doing a great deal better in supporting innocent parties in forced marriages, but I am certainly ready to talk to my hon. Friend about the specific problems that she has identified, in case there is a gap in the overall support arrangements.

Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
T4.  What proportion of the current prison population is made up of foreign national prisoners? Why are Her Majesty’s Government not doing far more to return those people to secure detention in their own countries, so that the British taxpayer does not have to pay the enormous bill for their incarceration?

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Mr. David Hanson)
At the moment, the foreign national prisoner population in England and Wales equates to just under 14 per cent. of the total. According to independent data, that is significantly fewer foreign national prisoners than in any other country in the rest of Europe.

The hon. Gentleman’s point is important. We have already negotiated 100 prisoner return agreements with other countries, and we are working with other key countries. We are trying to address the issue in a key way. Recently, we have been considering, with the UK Border Agency, a service level agreement to ensure that there is extra help and support and that we speedily deport those due for deportation from the United Kingdom back to their country of origin.

John Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab)
T10.  My right hon. Friend will be aware of the rumour that fixed penalty notices are going to be changed, with some offences coming into the system. Will he assure me that things such as crime and fraud will not come under a fixed penalty notice and that the sentence will fit the crime?

Mr. Straw
There was an erroneous report today—I am very happy to correct it—about further offences being brought within the fixed penalty notice regime. We have no plans to extend the number of offences brought within the fixed penalty notice regime. The principal offence of dishonesty covered by the PND—penalty notice for disorder—system is shop theft. That was introduced for circumstances in which the courts were typically awarding fines of less than the value of fixed penalty notices or the police were issuing informal warnings and taking no effective or recordable action against offenders. However, I have always been uneasy about the inclusion of shop theft in the PND regime, and we are consulting the police and other interested parties, including retailers, as to whether, at least in the short term, we can reduce the scope of PNDs for shop theft.

Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
T5.  Now that the Government have pretty much designed out custodial sentences for burglaries, which are rising, preferring a complex web of fines and cautions instead, does the Secretary of State feel some embarrassment that in some parts of the west midlands burglars can commit up to 12 burglaries before receiving a custodial sentence? Is that how he intends to keep the people of the west midlands safe?

Mr. Straw
The number of burglaries across the west midlands, as well as across the whole United Kingdom, has dropped dramatically in the past 12 years—further evidence that we are the only Government since the war to preside over a reduction in crime rather than an increase in crime.

As for the precise level of sentences that are issued, I inform the hon. Gentleman, in case he has not worked it out, that in this country there is a separation of powers between Parliament, which sets the overall sentencing framework—and Ministers within that—and sentencers, who are independent of the Executive. It is not me or anybody in this House who sentences individuals. Penalties for burglary are quite adequate; it is a matter for sentencers to use them within the guidelines.

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab)
One of the consequences of the affair concerning the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) is the indication that there is woeful ignorance among senior police officers and civil servants, and probably servants of this House and Ministers, about the implications of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. What will the Justice Secretary do to increase awareness of the implications of our own United Kingdom Bill of Rights of 1689, particularly in relation to article 9, with its ramifications for this place? Will he discuss this now, please? Article 9—you know about that, do you?

Mr. Straw
I do indeed remember article 9, although I was not here to witness its coming into force—[Interruption.] It was marginally before my time. [Interruption.] If I could have less levity from my ministerial colleagues, that would be helpful. Of course I understand my hon. Friend’s point. This has been a subject of considerable interest in the context of bribery and whether there should be application to Members of Parliament, which it is generally felt there should be. If he looks at our Green Paper on a Bill of Rights and responsibilities, he will see that there is a good discussion of article 9 and the privileges of Parliament.

Mr. Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
T8.  Given the comments about rehabilitation, what does the Minister think of the recent Ofsted report pointing out that in only three quarters, I think, of the prisons it visited was there the opportunity to gain meaningful qualifications?

Mr. Hanson
I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the points made earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). There has been, and will continue to be, an increase in resources and time spent on meaningful activity. We are trying to ensure that people who are in prison have employment skills and literacy and numeracy skills to equip them for life outside prison. The number of people attending those courses has risen significantly over the past 10 or 11 years and will continue to do so, with the sole objective of ensuring that when they leave prison they are better equipped outside than they were when they went into prison.

Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
On 8 April, the High Court refused to extradite four Rwandan nationals who were wanted by the Rwandan Government to stand trial for crimes of genocide. Thanks to a loophole in UK law, they cannot now be tried in England for the crimes of which they are accused. May I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to work with right hon. and hon. Members and the all-party group on genocide prevention to close that impunity gap and ensure that the UK does not become a safe haven for international criminals?

Mr. Straw
I greatly applaud my hon. Friend’s work on this issue. I recently met her and her colleague on the all-party group, the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), and they made a very powerful case for the inclusion of genocide as an extra-territorial offence within British law. I am currently giving it active consideration with relevant colleagues.

Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
T9.  In February, Ministers told us that 1,500 prisoners on indeterminate public protection sentences could not get access to courses, and so could not go in front of the Parole Board. That includes two of my constituents. What progress is being made towards making those courses available, so that those prisoners can come out of prison and free up the places that are so urgently needed for prisoners of other categories?

Mr. Hanson
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have identified a need to drive that forward and are now putting in place extra support for courses, including several million pounds to get IPP prisoners across the line and ready for the Parole Board. He will know also that we have made changes to legislation to ensure that there must be a four-year sentence before an IPP sentence can be applied. Those two factors together will undoubtedly lead over the next couple of years to a reduction in the number of people who are post-tariff but cannot secure a proper hearing by the Parole Board. It is a slow and difficult process to get there, but we are doing what we can to expedite it as much as possible.