The Justice Committee today issues a report giving its views on
Part 1 of the Prisons and Courts Bill, which contains those parts
of the prison reform agenda which the Government considers need
to be pursued through legislation. The Bill was introduced in the
House of Commons on 23 March 2017, and, following the House’s
agreement to the holding of an early general election, will not
be proceeded with in this Parliament. The Public Bill Committee
charged with considering the Bill did not proceed to consider all
parts of the Bill, although it did finish debating Part 1 of the
Bill before Easter.
MP, Chair of the Committee,
said:
We have taken a lot of evidence in this Parliament on prison
reform, much of which is being taken forward by non-legislative
means, and we have reported separately on governor empowerment
and prison performance. Although the Prisons and Courts Bill will
fall, we hope that the next Government, of whatever complexion,
will attach a high priority to prison reform. In the expectation
that legislation on prisons will be brought forward early in the
next Parliament, we think it is right for us to express our views
in this Report on the provisions of this Bill.
The Committee notes in its Report that, with many important
aspects of prison reform being pursued by non-legislative means,
as it eventually crystallised, Part 1 of the Bill contains a
fairly minimal and eclectic set of measures. The Committee
concludes that, important though its various measures are, Part 1
of the Bill can hardly be considered to have fulfilled the
promise made by the Government at the time of the Queen’s Speech
in 2016 that it would be the centrepiece of the Government's
legislative programme for the 2016-17 Session.
On Clause 1 of the Bill, the Committee welcomes the introduction
of a four-part statutory purpose for prisons, and the inclusion
of the aim of reforming and rehabilitating offenders as part of
that purpose. But it argues that the statutory purpose
would be strengthened by the inclusion of an aim to achieve a
decent and fair environment for prisoners. On the provisions of
Clause 1 concerning the role and accountability of the Secretary
of State, the Committee considers that it is not possible to
reach a view on whether they will make the running of the prison
system more effective, or will ensure sufficient information is
available to inform judgements on the matter, while accepting
that it is the Government's intention that this should happen.
The Committee welcomes the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill,
putting HM Inspectorate of Prisons as well as HM Chief Inspector
on a statutory basis and strengthening their powers. Given the
importance of the role of Chief Inspector, the Committee
recommends that its pre-appointment scrutiny role should be
strengthened by providing that the Committee should be required
to give its consent to a recommendation to Her Majesty for
appointment of a person as HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. The
Committee says that this would be a backstop guarantee of that
person's independence from potential ministerial patronage or
pressure. The Committee also contends that it is essential that
the Chief Inspector should be able to determine independently the
inspection criteria which he uses, and, secondly, that there
should be scope for a requirement to respond to Inspectorate
recommendations on immediate operational matters to be placed on
the governor or director of the relevant establishment.
The Committee says it very much welcomes the provisions in the
Bill (Clauses 4 to 20) placing on a statutory basis the important
office of Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, which investigates
deaths in custody and complaints made by those in detention on a
statutory basis.
On matters not currently covered by the Bill, the Committee
recommends that if legislation is brought forward early in the
next Parliament the opportunity should not be missed to place on
a definitive statutory basis the UK's National Preventive
Mechanism, the group of 21 bodies co-ordinated by HM Inspectorate
of Prisons which visits places of detention throughout the UK (in
accordance with the UN Optional Protocol to the Convention
against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment),
MP added:
We are very pleased to see the intention in the Bill to give the
Prisons and Probation Ombudsman a statutory foundation: this is
something the current PPO has been advocating for some time and
it would give greater legitimacy and authority to his office. We
also welcome the changes proposed in the Bill to the powers of
the Prisons Inspectorate which, together with the protocol which
has been agreed between the Chief Inspector and the Ministry of
Justice, should reinforce the effectiveness and independence of
the Inspectorate. But we consider that the National Preventive
Mechanism should be placed on a statutory basis, and we hope that
if legislation on prisons is introduced in the next Parliament it
will include that provision
