Clause 98 - Miscellaneous amendments relating to release and recall

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 6:15 pm on 11 October 2011.

Alert me about debates like this

Amendment made: 386, in clause 98, page 77, line 30, at end insert—

‘( ) In section 263(2)(b) (concurrent terms: authority to release), for “section 244” substitute “section 246”.

( ) In section 263(2)(c) (concurrent terms: licence period), for the words from “for so long, and subject to such conditions, as is” substitute “—

(i) until the last date on which the offender is required to be on licence in respect of any of the terms, and

(ii) subject to such conditions as are”.’.—(Mr Blunt.)

Photo of Helen Goodman Helen Goodman Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport)

I beg to move amendment 409, in clause 98, page 77, line 30, at end add—

‘(6) After s.254 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 insert—

“s.244A Duty to Cooperate

The Secretary of State must make arrangements to promote co-operation between—

(a) the local authority where the prisoner will reside;

(b) each of that local authority’s partner authorities; and

(c) such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State thinks fit.

(2) The arrangements are to be made with a view to reducing reoffending and managing the prisoner’s transition from prison into the community.

(3) Each partner authority must co-operate with the responsible local authority in the making of arrangements under this section.

(4) The responsible local authority and each partner authority must, in exercising their functions under this section, have regard to any guidance given to them for the purpose by the Secretary of State.

(5) A responsible local authority and any partner authority may for the purposes of arrangements under this section provide staff, goods, services, accommodation or other resources. s.244B Definition of Partner Authority

(1) For the purposes of this Part, each of the following is a partner authority in relation to a responsible local authority—

(a) any district council which is not a responsible local authority;

(b) a police authority;

(c) a chief officer of police;

(d) a Strategic Health Authority;

(e) a Primary Care Trust;

(f) a youth offending team established under section 39 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;

(g) the Probation Trust;

(h) a Department of State.

(2) the Secretary of State may by order specify other Partner Authorities.”.’.

Photo of Helen Goodman Helen Goodman Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport) 6:30, 11 October 2011

I think that all members of the Committee understand that if we could manage the period shortly before and the few weeks immediately after a person leaves prison, it would be one of the ways we could have a significant impact on reoffending rates. I think that the whole Committee agrees that that is what we are aiming to do. Of course, the issues about co-operation between statutory agencies apply in the medium term as well.

I told the Committee of my concerns about women with children being released without their housing being sorted out well in advance. I cannot remember whether I also told the Committee, when we were discussing the mental health provisions of the Bill in September, about my concerns in that regard. The case that I am thinking of involved a woman who had almost killed one of her children because she had Munchausen syndrome by  proxy. She was sentenced to two years in prison, followed by two years of supervision. She had no medical treatment in prison. When I met her with her probation officer, she was halfway through her supervision period and had still had no medical treatment. That is not acceptable, and I am sure that no member of the Committee thinks that it is acceptable, but one thing that really struck me was that the probation officer did not regard it as her responsibility or her duty to phone the primary care trust, the GP or the local health authority to ensure that the woman received the mental health treatment that she needed.

The Minister will say that everyone can be very creative in the rosy world that he is creating, but my experience of the public services is that when people are under pressure, they do the “need to” things, not the “nice to” things. Co-operation with other agencies that have an impact on the person in order to ensure that the whole person is dealt with and that all the issues that will impact on their behaviour and quality of life are dealt with is not properly being addressed at the moment. Therefore, I am promoting in the amendment a duty to co-operate. I know that it works legally because we put it into the Child Poverty Act 2010 in the last Parliament.

I am suggesting that the prison authorities should have a duty to co-operate with the local authority where the prisoner will reside and with the partner authorities. The definition of partner authority includes a district council, because in some places the local authority and the district council are different and the district council would probably have responsibility for housing; the police authority; the chief officer of police; the strategic health authority; the primary care trust; a youth offending team if it is a young person; the probation service; and a Department of State. What I had in mind as the Department of State was the Department for Work and Pensions in order to sort out the person’s benefits.

We need those statutory bodies to co-operate so that we handle people as well as possible, and I am not convinced that the Minister’s competitive model, which he keeps throwing back to us as the ideal, will necessarily work in all circumstances. Everyone with whom I have discussed the matter, whether they are in the voluntary sector or the statutory authorities, has said that they would welcome a duty such as the amendment proposes; they think it would be very helpful and that it would enable the people who work in the authorities to reorder their priorities in a sensible way to the benefit of the offenders and the rest of the community.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) (Prisons and Probation)

The amendment is designed to amend clause 98 by putting in place a duty for the Secretary of State to promote co-operation between the local authority, each of their partner authorities and other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State sees fit to reduce reoffending and to manage the prisoner’s transition from prison to the community. In turn, each partner authority must co-operate with the responsible local authority to provide staff, goods, services, accommodation or other resources, and such bodies must have due regard to any guidance given to them by the Secretary of State.

As the hon. Lady will anticipate, I think the amendment is unnecessary, because statutory provisions and other partnership approaches from local bodies to reduce reoffending are already in place. The proposals require  local authorities and partners to have regard to guidance given to them by the Secretary of State. They also run against the Government’s stated principle to free up professionals and communities to tackle the problems that face them in line with their local needs and priorities.

The hon. Lady has spoken to all the agencies that want to do the right thing, yet for some reason they cannot be trusted to do the right thing; they have to be told what to do and precisely how to do it. In my experience, from what I have seen of the regulation of the probation service and the Prison Service that I inherited from the previous Administration, the hon. Lady’s approach is consistent with the philosophy that sits behind the proposed amendment, which takes us to a completely over-regulated, over-controlled and over-managed service that is told very precisely what to do and not given the freedom to exercise proper responsibility to try to deliver the objectives that everyone engaged in offender management wishes to achieve.

Responsible authorities—the police, police authorities, local authorities, fire and rescue authorities, primary care trusts and probation—already have a statutory duty to reduce reoffending through legislation introduced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, supplemented by the Offender Management Act 2007. We are not talking about a situation where no duty exists. Statutory multi-agency public protection arrangements are also in place and are operated by criminal justice and social care agencies to protect the public and reduce serious reoffending by sex and violent offenders.

In addition to statutory requirements, there are many other mechanisms through which local partners are encouraged to work together to reduce reoffending. Integrated offender management, which we discussed earlier, is a framework that brings together local agencies—statutory and non-statutory—to tackle the offenders causing the greatest damage to their communities, ensuring that they are prioritised for appropriate interventions.

The Green Paper, “Breaking the Cycle”, laid out our clear intention to take a radically new approach to rehabilitating criminals and reducing reoffending. We have already commenced our pilot programmes to introduce payment by results, and I am happy to acknowledge that part of the design of the Peterborough programme began under the previous Administration. I am delighted that they want to sign up to this approach, because it will enfranchise the professionals—the people at the sharp end who are dealing with the situation—to focus on the outcome that we all desire and get away from prescribing the inputs.

Mr Watts rose—

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) (Prisons and Probation)

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way. I need more evidence that he is a rehabilitated offender with regard to telling people precisely how to behave.

The memorandums of understanding that we have with Manchester and with five London local authorities are specifically aimed at motivating more effective partnership approaches to tackling crime and reoffending. We are giving those local partners the opportunity to share in the savings released in the justice system, which they can then reinvest in activity to reduce reoffending in their communities.

The amendment does not enhance the statutory arrangements that are already in place. I hope that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland will feel able to withdraw the amendment and not further add to the complexity of the environments that our harassed professionals already operate in.

Photo of Helen Goodman Helen Goodman Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport)

I do not think the proposal is complex; it is simple and straightforward. The Minister has misdescribed it. I do not understand why arrangements that apply to MAPPA—as previously discussed—should not apply more widely.

In September, we had an interesting debate in Committee about the fact that there are, of course, examples of good practice in the criminal justice system, but the difficulty is ensuring that that good practice becomes common practice. The amendment is designed to do that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that officials always show Ministers the best examples and the things that are really working well. Ministers always see the most innovative practice. It could be said that Opposition Members are always shown the biggest problems and the worst scenarios. We are trying through the amendment to make good practice become common practice. Co-operation between the agencies is important, so I shall be pressing the amendment to a Division.

Photo of Dave Watts Dave Watts Labour, St Helens North

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, unlike the Minister who is obviously worried about not having the appropriate answers to questions. One of the reasons why the statutory agencies may be seeking partnership, or would be obliged to do so if it was a statutory duty, is that the Government would then have the duty and responsibility to provide the resources. Is it the case that although those statutory bodies would like to achieve such a partnership and deliver the service, they do not have the resources so they are using the proposal as an opportunity to make the Government fund what they want to deliver?

Photo of Helen Goodman Helen Goodman Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport)

No one has said that to me, in terms, although it may indeed be the case. However, we are taking a common-sense approach. I am disappointed in the Minister; his whole attitude to the Bill has been extremely self-satisfied. He has behaved as if it cannot be improved in any way. The amendment is not designed to make political points, but to improve the system and I shall press it to a vote.

Question put,That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 11.

Division number 43 Decision Time — Clause 98 - Miscellaneous amendments relating to release and recall

Aye: 9 MPs

No: 11 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly negatived.

Photo of Helen Goodman Helen Goodman Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport)

I beg to move amendment 418, in clause 98, page 77, line 30, at end add—

‘After section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 insert—

“s.244C Discharge grants for certain offenders

(4) A prisoner with an infant formerly held in a prison mother and baby unit shall on release from prison be entitled to a discharge grant of £96;

(5) The Secretary of State may by order amend this sum if it appears to the Secretary of State that there has been a change in the value of money”.’.

The discharge grant given to prisoners has remained at the same level for a long time. Given the financial constraints, I understand why the Government do not want to increase it generally. However, when I discovered that the discharge grant is the same for a mother with an infant leaving a mother and baby unit as for other prisoners, I knew that it was simply not reasonable. In fact, a child protection issue is at stake. I remind members of the Committee that the discharge grant is £48.

Photo of Helen Goodman Helen Goodman Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport)

The Minister corrects me.

Do Members seriously think they could survive on that amount for 24 hours with an infant under the age of 18 months? On leaving prison with an infant, one is bound to buy a pack of nappies at a cost of £6.50, some formula milk at £8.46 and a steriliser set at £45.99. It is some time since I had infants, so I went to the trouble of getting the up-to-date figures. Government Members are chuntering, but they know perfectly well that many such mothers are drug addicts, and it would be dangerous to suggest that they should breastfeed; they are bound to be giving their children bottled milk. A pack of baby rice costs £1.69 and a jar of food costs 59p, which brings the total to £63.23, and adding in a kettle to actually make some milk is another £12. So we are looking at £75, before the prisoner has even had anything to eat or paid a bus fare.

What we propose is a small measure, to help the most destitute and vulnerable group of people. The total cost to the Exchequer would be no more than some £10,000, because only 200 such mothers leave mother and baby units every year—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman want to say that the taxpayer cannot afford £10,000 for that group of vulnerable people?

Photo of Ben Gummer Ben Gummer Conservative, Ipswich 6:45, 11 October 2011

I was about to say that the hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. Of those 200 women, how many leave prison in such a state of penury?

Photo of Helen Goodman Helen Goodman Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport)

People in prison need the grant because they have no other resources. Many of them are homeless, and have no job or family to go to. I would have thought that all that was common knowledge, and that it was not worth disputing that this is a vulnerable group that does not have resources. We could do this small thing to address their needs, and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) (Prisons and Probation)

I recognise the hon. Lady’s intention to assist offenders with parental responsibilities on release from prison, but we need to decide whether it is appropriate to put the kind of provision she suggests into primary legislation, and we do not think that it is.

The purpose of the grant is not to provide for all the prisoner’s needs after release. It is intended solely to assist them in the first few days, before they might reasonably be able to get a job, or get an appointment at a jobcentre and begin to access state benefits. It is not intended to assist with travel costs because released prisoners additionally receive a travel warrant or the payment of fares to their release address.

Photo of Alex Cunningham Alex Cunningham Labour, Stockton North

Would the Minister care to share with us how many people leaving prison he thinks get a job within a day, a month or a year?

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) (Prisons and Probation)

We could get into a debate about the purpose of the discharge grant, but this is a narrow point about whether we should add £50 to the grant for mothers in such circumstances, and I want to limit the debate to that. If we do not, we could get back into a debate about what we are doing with the offenders stream of the Work programme and about what an excellent improvement that will be on the rehabilitation of prisoners system that we inherited from the previous Administration. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will not want me to go there, and I suspect that you, Mr Sheridan, would not let me. There is a proper answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we have already given it.

An eligible prisoner is one who is sentenced to and serves more than 14 days in custody, although there are some exceptions, such as those who are leaving the country, or those who have savings at a level that would make them ineligible to receive income support. Payment of the discharge grant is not set in any legislation at present. That would not be helpful generally, as it is necessary to take current benefit provisions into account. The move to universal credit will, I hope, begin to address what has been identified as a real issue about the benefit gap on release. However, again, this debate is not the appropriate moment to explore that.

It would certainly be perverse to require payment at this rate for the very small number of female prisoners who have been held in a mother and baby unit. We need to remember that eligible mothers in custody receive child benefit. While they are expected to use that for their child in custody, they are able to save some of that money for provision, on release, towards the expected costs that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland identified. When dealing with mothers and babies for whom there is an immediate accommodation issue, then of course governors have discretion to make an additional payment of £50 directly to a genuine accommodation provider to help the prisoner secure a release address. For that combination of reasons, the proposal is an inappropriate way to make this kind of provision and deliver the kind of care obligations that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland drew attention to. It is not right to put this in statute when the £46 level is not in statute. I would invite the Committee to resist the amendment.

Photo of Helen Goodman Helen Goodman Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport)

I am disappointed and astonished by what the Minister has said. He could have stood up and said, “It is not in statute, but I accept what the hon. Lady says and will make administrative arrangements to do this”, but he did not do so.

Photo of Anna Soubry Anna Soubry Conservative, Broxtowe

Could the hon. Lady help me in this respect: is she saying that for the last 13 or 14 years women were being effectively turfed out, destitute, from custody with their babies? If that was the case for the last 13 or 14 years, could she enlighten us as to what the last Government did about that, and, if they did nothing, why?

Photo of Helen Goodman Helen Goodman Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport)

The hon. Lady seems to think that on each side of the Committee we should present a picture of our policies as perfect and unimprovable. That is the stance of the Minister and the hon. Lady: I do not suffer from that illusion. I do not suffer from the illusion that everything that the last Labour Government did cannot be criticised, or that there are no gaps in provision. The hon. Lady herself knows that these are the most destitute and vulnerable of people.

Photo of Anna Soubry Anna Soubry Conservative, Broxtowe

I would like to know the evidence to be placed before this Committee for the number of women being discharged from mother and baby units who are, to use the hon. Lady’s word, “destitute”. Where is the evidence?

Photo of Helen Goodman Helen Goodman Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport)

The evidence comes from those voluntary sector organisations that work with these women. Charities, such as Babies in Prison or Action for Prisoners’ Families, all report very serious need. It seems to me to be a common-sense approach. Someone with an infant obviously needs more money than somebody who does not have an infant.

Photo of Kate Green Kate Green Shadow Minister (Equalities)

Does my hon. Friend also acknowledge that there is a very high incidence of single parenthood among women in prison, and therefore it is unlikely that they could rely on a partner being ready to receive them and their child and to have the resources there to support them?

Photo of Helen Goodman Helen Goodman Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My hon. Friend has also reminded me that the current level of child benefit, to which the Minister referred, is around £18. I ought to know—I get it.

Photo of Helen Goodman Helen Goodman Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport)

There we are, marvellous. As I set out in my earlier remarks, that is not enough, No one imagines that they can keep a child on child benefit alone—it is there to help keep a child. No one in their right mind believes that a child can be kept on £18. I fear that the Minister gave the speech that his officials wrote for him before they had heard the justification for my proposal. I have not mentioned accommodation; I simply refer to the infant’s immediate needs in the first 24 or 48 hours after a mother’s release from prison. I should have thought that we would be on common ground about the need for provision in that situation.

Photo of Ben Gummer Ben Gummer Conservative, Ipswich

I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene again. I hope she has read the Prison Reform Trust’s excellent report on women in prison. Although I do not agree with all its conclusions, I do not recall there being one recommendation for an increase  in the release grant. Many recommendations about improving release terms for women are right, and I hope that the Government will consider them soon. However, the trust did not, at any point in its in-depth researches, suggest an increase in the release grant. I hope that the hon. Lady is not setting up an Aunt Sally in order to say that the coalition is pursuing an anti-women agenda.

Photo of Ben Gummer Ben Gummer Conservative, Ipswich

There we go—that is exactly what we were expecting. We are exposing the situation now.

Photo of Helen Goodman Helen Goodman Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport)

In response to the hon. Gentleman, this is not an issue about women; it is about children. That report was about women, but my concern is with the child, and the Children’s Commissioner has also expressed such concern. I had not intended to press the amendment to a vote, but, having heard the position of Government Members, I must do so.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 12.

Division number 44 Decision Time — Clause 98 - Miscellaneous amendments relating to release and recall

Aye: 8 MPs

No: 12 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 98, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.