|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
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.
allowing prison staff arrangements to be re-profiled.
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.
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-competedthe 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 Wellingboroughwill have the opportunity through the public sector to compete against private and third sector arrangements. If they are successful, they will keep the contracts.
T2.  Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): 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 Bradleys 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.
T6.  Natascha Engel (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): When does the Secretary of State intend to publish his response to the Governments 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.
T3.  Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD): Following the Secretary of States 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.
T7.  Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): 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?
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.
T4.  Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): What proportion of the current prison population is made up of foreign national prisoners? Why are Her Majestys 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. Gentlemans 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.
T10.  John Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): 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 todayI am very happy to correct itabout 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 PNDpenalty notice for disordersystem 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.
T5.  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): 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?
The number of burglaries across the west midlands, as well as across the whole United Kingdom, has dropped dramatically in the past 12 yearsfurther
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 frameworkand Ministers within thatand 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 9you 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. Friends 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.
T8.  Mr. Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con): 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. Friends 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.
T9.  Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD):
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.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Justice Ministers leave the Chamber, can you tell us whether you have heard from any of them what action is going to be taken in respect of their response to the problem of protests in Parliament square, given that we were told that a response was imminent last October and that we now appear to have not one but two permanent protests in the square?
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the holding of interviews between site owners and prospective purchasers of mobile homes prior to any sale.
Along with the sponsors of the Bill, I am a member of the all-party group for the welfare of park home owners. The meetings of that group are extremely well attended by Members of Parliament, peers, representatives of park home site owners, representatives of residents and others. There is a great will among all of them to ensure that vulnerable residents are protected, to enhance the status and reputation of the whole sector by finding ways to address bad practices, and to get the right balance between business sustainability for site owners and the needs of residents. Park homes provide a useful addition to the supply of housing and would have even greater potential if we could improve that balance.
First, I emphasise that the points that I shall make are directed at a minority of park home site owners. There are excellent, well-managed park home sites in my constituency, and I do not wish to suggest that all site owners engage in bad practices. That is far from the case. However, there is one particular site in my constituency, the Silent Woman park near Wareham, where residents have had cause to raise many issues with me over the years. It is in an idyllic setting and residents should be able to live there without constant worries.
The Bill would prevent unjustified interference by a site owner when residents sell their park home. A park home site owner might quite reasonably wish to meet a prospective buyer or at least have some references supplied, but an interview without the seller or an independent witness present can provide opportunities for rogue site owners to make misleading or untrue statements. Examples of such statements from across the country include: The home is in poor condition; The home is not worth the price youre paying; The home will have to be moved to another pitch next year; I have a right to ask the court to let me take the home off in five years; and The park is being developed and the home will have to be moved. Alternatively, the prospective buyer might simply be intimidated by real or implied threats and not want to be involved with the site owner in any way. The prospective buyer might understandably decide that he or she does not want to live on a park run in such a way, and/or by such an unpleasant person, and the sale will fall through. After that has been repeated a few times, the seller eventually sells the home to the park owner for a token sum.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|