3 Mar 2009 : Column 611
House of Lords
Tuesday, 3 March 2009.
2.30 pm
Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.
Prisons: Safety
Question
2.36 pm
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they plan to respond to the concerns about prison safety set out in the annual report of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons published on 28 January.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach): My Lords, we welcome this report and, in particular, the recognition of Her Majesty’s chief inspector of the progress made over the past year against a difficult background. The detailed individual inspections carried out by HMCIP provide valuable insight into a range of key operational issues. The issues set out in the report have all previously been raised as a result of individual prison inspections. Each inspection report results in a detailed action plan with progress monitored by NOMS senior managers.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Is he aware of one of the chief inspector’s conclusions based on an analysis of 52 inspections; namely, that small prisons perform better than large ones and, in particular, that they are safer? The report says that,
What influence will this evidence have on the Government’s plans to build three Titan prisons, each holding 2,500 prisoners?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we are grateful to the inspectorate for bringing this research to our attention. We are currently in discussion with it about this report, but we are not yet in a position to comment on the methodology and the results. With regard to Titans, clusters or large prisons, we will publish the Government’s response to the consultation shortly. The response will set out at high level our thinking on large prisons and we will be looking to continue to talk with those interested about how these prisons can be developed to support improved outcomes.
With the caution that the inspector inspected only 52 of the 139 prisons, the noble Baroness will remember that in her opening comments the chief inspector said that the number of self-inflicted deaths has decreased this year from the extremely high level of last year. Among other points, she said:
“This year, more than 70% of our assessments, against our four tests of safety, respect, purposeful activity and resettlement, were positive”.
In other words, the prison was performing at least reasonably well in that area. We take some comfort from that part of the report.
3 Mar 2009 : Column 612
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Minister was a little complacent in his Answer. Does he remember the words used by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons in her report when she said that there is “little room for complacency”? Will the Minister comment on the fact that some 80 of the 139 prisons in England and Wales are seriously overcrowded? What will the Government do about that?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I hope that I was not complacent. Of course overcrowding is wrong. Too many prisons are currently overcrowded and that is why there is a prison-building programme and why we are consulting on ideas about large prisons. I think it is fair to ask the noble Lord sitting opposite exactly what his party—
Lord Bach: My Lords, I think that I have answered the noble Lord and I now ask him in his turn, although not today, to consider what his party’s policies are. If members of his party are so concerned about overcrowding, what precisely do they intend to do about it?
Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, did the noble Lord notice that the section on race and religion in the chief inspector’s report stated that the perception of black and minority prisoners about their prison experience is far poorer than that of their white counterparts, particularly in relation to safety? The chief inspector puts this down to a lack of cultural awareness in prisons which are a considerable distance from prisoners’ homes. To buttress what the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, said, the chief inspector finds that in local prisons which are nearer to where prisoners live, the trend is reversed, with the percentage of prisoners expressing concern dropping from 59 to 21. Therefore, does the Minister agree that more local, smaller prisons are the only answer when looking across the range of prisoners, irrespective of their sentences?
Lord Bach: My Lords, local prisons are very important, and the inspector makes important points about, and criticisms of, the present system. However, in her introduction to the report, she says:
“Though there is still much to be done ... our prisons are, in general, undoubtedly better-run, more effective and more humane places than they used to be”.
I do not think that that is bad.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on page 20 of the report the chief inspector makes the point that, although more than 50 per cent of all self-injury cases in prisons relate to women, women represent only 5 per cent of the total prison population? Will he give this matter his urgent attention, particularly in the context of assistance in relation to mental health and detoxification, and especially in relation to women under 21?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as always, the noble Lord makes a good point. I take this opportunity to say that, if any noble Lords are interested, immediately after Questions in Committee Room 2 I shall be
3 Mar 2009 : Column 613
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, does the Minister understand the frustration felt by IPP prisoners who have served their sentences but still find themselves in prison because no courses are available for them? Does he see that that frustration adds to the tension in already overcrowded prisons and makes them less safe places to be?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I know that prisoners serving indeterminate sentences have lots of frustrations. Indeed, to be fair, the inspector refers to them in her report and the initial legislation in particular. Additional funding was provided for the implementation of offender management in prisons in 2007-08, particularly in relation to indeterminate sentence prisoners, and a further £3 million was made available last year and the year before. However, I am conscious that there are difficulties concerning these prisoners, and that is one reason why we changed the law in relation to them last year.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the first part of the noble Lord’s Answer mean that the Government are now having second thoughts about Titan prisons? If not, and in regard to the growing volume of evidence that they are the wrong answer, why not?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord and the House will have to wait. Proper and full consultation has taken place and, as I said, announcements will be made shortly, and perhaps even very shortly.
Olympic Games 2012: Tourism
Question
2.44 pm
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the basis for their decision not to award any additional funding for tourism in respect of the 2012 Olympic Games.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communications, Technology and Broadcasting (Lord Carter of Barnes): My Lords, to date, we as a Government have provided more than £130 million in funding to VisitBritain during the period of the current Comprehensive Spending Review—between 2008 and 2011—for the purposes of marketing Britain overseas and England to the British. A great deal more is being provided at local and regional levels, and we are satisfied that, if the investment is co-ordinated efficiently, it is sufficient. The matter will be further considered in the next spending round.
3 Mar 2009 : Column 614
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Government have on many occasions confidently predicted that there will be an extra £2 billion of revenue from tourism arising from the holding of the Games. How can they do that without granting additional funding, without a national marketing campaign and without additional promotion of tourism in the run-up to the Games? Is it any wonder that the chairman of the Tourism Alliance has described the decision not to grant any special funding in the run-up to the Olympics as short-sighted and damaging?
Lord Carter of Barnes: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows better than I, feelings understandably run high on this subject in the tourist industry, and we are aware of some of the comments and criticisms that have been made. Our view is clear: after due consideration of the request for additional funds for marketing we believe that they are, first, not available and, secondly, in our judgment, not required at this stage. We have made significant investment in many other areas of the tourist industry, whether in training or in our commitment to bringing new signature events, major sporting events and global events, as well as commissioning the strategic review of the industry. We have said that for the period of this Comprehensive Spending Review, the budget for marketing is as it is. We believe that more value could be extracted from the budgets that are available, and we will revisit the question in the next review period.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, would my noble friend agree if I suggested to him that the public investment of £10 billion in the Olympic Games is sufficient for them to be able to market themselves? For the tourist industry to be demanding yet more money is a sign of greed on its part that should not be acceded to by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Carter of Barnes: My Lords, perfectly put, if I may say so, by my noble friend. I am not sure that I would go as far as to use the greed word, but none the less, our view is the same as his. There has been significant investment. Frankly, this is a rather arcane debate about marketing budgets and other investment. The scale of investment in this area has been significant.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I must declare an interest as president of the Cumbria tourist board. Does the Minister accept that there are potential tourists to this country who do not like sports and will therefore be unlikely to come here in 2012?
Lord Carter of Barnes: My Lords, we are trying to cover as many sports as possible. As the noble Lord will know, we are pitching for an unprecedented decade of sport, including golf and the Rugby World Cup—four world cups, in fact. I take his point that there is a significant part of the market for whom sport is not necessarily the most attractive reason for visiting this country. The programme for promoting tourism is not dependent on the investment in sport, but that does not undermine the fact that the Olympics are an enormous opportunity to promote this country more broadly, beyond the sporting activities associated with the Games.
3 Mar 2009 : Column 615
Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, does not the Minister appreciate that the single biggest boost to domestic tourism at no cost would be if we moved to double summer time and embraced the arguments of the campaign for daylight saving supported by all of the tourist industry, Age Concern, RoSPA, the Local Government Association and, I suspect, the organisers of the Olympics?
Lord Carter of Barnes: My Lords, as I am conscious that we are running out of time, a debate about time may not appropriate. The noble Lord knows the Government's position on that question, which remains as is.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Australian friends engaged in the Sydney Olympics tell us that the great success in Sydney was the use of volunteers both for the Games themselves and for the wider tourist industry in Sydney. Can my noble friend assure us that we are investing in recruiting and training, attracting volunteers to give the same sort of welcome that made Sydney such a success?
Lord Carter of Barnes: Absolutely, my Lords. This goes back to the question of how narrow an attraction sport is. The Olympics are an opportunity to bring a wide community of people into the process of welcoming visitors to this country. The Sydney Games were a shining example of how to do it well, and they were exploited by Australia as an overall marketing event as well as a hugely successful global sporting event. We are most certainly learning those lessons and seeking to apply them.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Olympic Games are not just about sport? They involve many other happenings, including a cultural Olympics, the Paralympics for handicapped people and all sorts of other events around the country for tourists to see. Does the Minister agree—I do not suppose that he does, but I will ask him—that this failure to up the money for the tourist industry in 2012 just shows contempt for the industry?
Lord Carter of Barnes: My Lords, I certainly welcome the noble Lord’s comments about the wider reach of the Olympics as an event and the events happening alongside them. To describe our response to this question as contemptuous is a misrepresentation of the time, effort and consideration that the Government have put into coming to our conclusions. I think that reasonable people will have to agree to disagree.
Mountain Rescue: VAT
Question
2.50 pm
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will place mountain rescue services on the same basis as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution for VAT purposes.
3 Mar 2009 : Column 616
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as part of the wide range of VAT and other tax reliefs available to charities, mountain rescue charities can purchase medicines, medical equipment and certain other specialised equipment VAT-free. Zero rating also applies to the supply, repair and maintenance of lifeboats and lifeboat equipment used by charities for sea rescue. However, we cannot now extend our zero rates beyond the scope of our European VAT agreements, signed by successive Governments.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, mountain and cave rescue services in this country rescue many people and save many lives each year. It is all done on a voluntary basis and, in England, depends entirely on donations. It seems ridiculous that the service, which, if the Government had to step in and replace it, might cost £6 million a year, is subject to VAT on its equipment and most of its spending, when the equivalent service, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, is not. Discussions have taken place recently between national representatives of mountain rescue, assisted by my honourable friend Tim Farron, Member of Parliament for the Lake District. Do those discussions not suggest that, if the Government argued for it seriously, the European Commission might well agree to zero rating for mountain rescue in this country?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord suggests that a change to VAT across Europe, to which 26 other countries would have to agree, is an easy objective to realise. I assure him that it is not. We cannot expect a ready change to VAT. We do the best that we can with VAT reliefs for certain aspects of mountain rescue equipment, as I have indicated. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that the rescue service is greatly valued wherever it operates in the United Kingdom. I had personal experience of the Oldham service in the Pennines. It does a magnificent job through voluntary effort. We will give every support that we can. However, the one thing that we cannot do is extend VAT relief.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Minister said that the mountain rescue service is greatly valued throughout the United Kingdom, but is it not much more greatly valued in Scotland, where public money is made available to support it? That is completely different from the manner in which it is provided in England.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is a decision for the Scottish Administration, as it is for the Welsh Administration in Wales. In England the issue is devolved to the local authorities and their partnerships with local mountain rescue arrangements, where they have them. Of course there is a degree of public support. This country is different from the rest of Europe and, if people wonder why the rest of Europe does not give the respect that it might to mountain rescue, I should say that the countries that have responsibilities in the Alps all operate state-owned schemes, not the voluntary arrangements that we have in the United Kingdom.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, given the important role that mountain rescue plays in tourism and in the safety of people hillwalking, and given the difficulties of financing
3 Mar 2009 : Column 617
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful for that point. The Minister in the other place met a delegation the other day and we are looking at the matter to consider ways in which we can give support. I am reflecting the perspective of the Treasury that the representations relating to relief on VAT are not realisable. Therefore, we are looking at other areas of support. There is no question but that we recognise the value of the mountain rescue teams and the fact that the country gets a great deal of this support through voluntary effort. But that is also true of the lifeboats, which are also a voluntary organisation.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the Minister has agreed that these voluntary organisations are doing a job that the Government would otherwise have to do. In that case, would it not be permissible to give some form of support to allow volunteers to take on this activity safely and with the right equipment? If there is not a case for giving this sort of support, I am afraid that the Government really have lost the plot.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, far from the Government losing the plot, we are keen to sustain and support mountain rescue activities, which play an absolutely critical role. I emphasise again that the representations that suggest, for instance, that the equipment used for mountain rescue should be free of VAT raise significant issues, both in relation to Europe and the provisions on VAT and in relation to the fact that the kind of equipment that mountain rescue teams use—for instance, four-wheel drive vehicles—are also used by other members of the community, which means that giving special relief to mountain rescue teams would be quite difficult.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the lifeboats. Why cannot the mountain rescue teams be organised on exactly the same basis as the lifeboats?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, to a large extent they are, but the lifeboats have two advantages in relation to Europe. First, the institution predates the development of the European Community by more than 100 years and we therefore were able to negotiate particular VAT reliefs for the RNLI at the inauguration of our membership. Secondly, the European Community has a strong interest in lifeboats and sea safety because it exports a great deal of goods by sea. It makes its own arrangements with regard to those countries that have mountains.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, a number of noble Lords spent some time in the Committee stage of the borders Bill last night discussing voluntary service as a condition for active citizenship as part of the whole learning-earns-citizenship basis. Will the Government’s views on voluntary work for citizenship include the potential to take part in mountain rescue and lifeboats? If so, are the Government prepared to consider how to validate such voluntary activities?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |