Prisons and Courts Bill

Alex Chalk Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have sent plenty of people to prison, some of them for very long periods of time. I wish that we were able to make sure that those who do not need to go to prison, or who need to be sent to another place, such as a mental hospital, could be dealt with in a more sensible, productive, efficient and effective way. The argument is not about whether criminals are good people and whether we should love them dearly and hug hoodies; it is about doing what is best for all of us and ensuring that the money raised through taxes—the money spent on the health service and education—is properly devoted and directed towards getting these people better so that they do not do it again. Most people who have their house burgled want to ensure that the person responsible is caught, stopped and dealt with but, secondly, they want to be sure that that person does not do it again. If all we do is feed the conveyer belt, we achieve nothing but a waste of money.

The crux of the problem that we face with prisons—it is not a new problem—is overcrowding. I wrote a paper called “Prisons with a Purpose,” having visited 65 of the 140 or so prisons, young offenders institutions and secure training units when I was shadow Minister for prisons between 2005 and 2009. It was abundantly clear then, as I suspect it is now, that our prison estate was woefully overcrowded. We cannot sensibly rehabilitate or reform prisoners, adequately protect the public, prepare prisoners for life outside and maintain a safe and secure environment within our prisons unless we deal with the problems of overcrowding. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), the Minister for prisons, are fully aware of that. They have been inside prisons and know what is going on, and they have to deal with the arithmetic of how to spend the money in the most sensible way, subject to the demands of the Treasury.

The task of the Secretary of State and the Minister is a difficult one. The aims that the Secretary of State has written into the Bill are good, but in six months or a year—or a suitable time period after the Bill has been enacted—I do not simply want a report from the Secretary of State or the chief inspector of prisons, welcome though such reports are; I want real, practical advances. It is one thing to write things in the Bill; it is quite another to ensure that they happen.

Most centrally, we must address the hideous problem of overcrowding because with overcrowding we get churn. A person who is sentenced to prison at Canterbury Crown court is sent that night to Canterbury prison.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Not any more.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

Or the nearest prison to that Crown court.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the improper behaviour that occurs in some cases. It is right that the Solicitors Regulation Authority and disciplinary tribunals take a tough line on that. We have seen some recent examples of that.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Barristers and solicitors across the country are making a remarkable pro bono contribution worth around £600 million per annum, but they cannot do it all. Does the Minister agree that pro bono must be an adjunct to, and not a replacement for, a properly resourced legal aid system?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I do agree with that, but with the caveat that we are changing the way in which the justice system works, so that it is simpler and more accessible. We are also using modern technology. We should look at how legal support dovetails with all that. So, yes—but we are moving forward with our plans.

Prison Officers Association: Withdrawal from Voluntary Tasks

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

As I have said, strike action is unlawful. If prison officers withdraw their labour, that will make the regime even more restrictive, as the Chairman of the Justice Committee suggested. That is why we are urging hard-working prison officers to go back to work and make sure that prisoners can carry on with these regimes, whether in continuing important rehabilitative work or in making sure that our prisons are safe.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It is concerning that this action could lead to Tornado teams being withdrawn. Will the Minister confirm that contingency measures are in place to ensure that prison order can be maintained at all times?

[Mr Gyimah]

I am sure that our prison officers will always do their duty if there is disorder in prisons, even at this difficult time. We are obviously urging the POA to withdraw its bulletin, but we also make sure that we have contingency plans for times like this.

Attacks on NHS Staff

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

May I join colleagues in saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray? I hope that right hon. and hon. colleagues from across the House are familiar with my “Protect the Protectors” campaign, and I am truly grateful to the many who have lent it their support. As part of that campaign, I have lobbied for protections that would cover all emergency service workers and NHS staff. I will outline what needs to change and how we should go about it.

My campaign started last summer after I spent a Friday evening in August on patrol in my constituency with West Yorkshire police. I joined PC Craig Gallant, who was single crewed and responding to 999 calls. When a routine stop quickly turned nasty, I was so concerned for his safety that I rang 999 myself to stress just how urgently he needed back-up. Thankfully, other officers arrived at the scene shortly afterwards to help manage the situation. Although, amazingly, no injuries were sustained on that occasion, I saw the dangers for myself and understood just how vulnerable all emergency service workers are, especially when they are out on their own.

Since being elected in May 2015, I have spent time shadowing all the frontline services in my constituency to understand the work they do and the pressures they are under, and to inform my work here on their behalf, but I confess that I am also the daughter of a retired police sergeant and a nurse. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thanks very much. Both my parents were subject to abuse in their roles as public servants, so I feel very strongly about this issue. I have done shifts with the emergency services—the police, the fire and rescue service, and paramedics—and spent time with doctors and nurses in A&E. I also spent a Friday night with out-of-hours mental health services and I will spend a day with the local search and rescue team in the next few weeks. May I take this opportunity once again to pay tribute to the work that they all do? Behind their uniforms, they are incredibly brave and dedicated individuals who, regrettably, face risks almost daily that they simply should not have to face.

Our emergency services and NHS staff routinely go above and beyond their duties to keep the public safe, and the law must convey in the strongest possible terms how unacceptable it is for someone to set out deliberately to injure or assault an emergency responder or NHS worker. As we have already heard, NHS Protect figures show that there were 70,555 assaults on NHS staff last year—a significant increase on the year before. A report published just before Christmas by Yorkshire ambulance service revealed that its staff face violence and aggression weekly. There was a 50% increase in reported incidents of verbal and physical attacks on staff, with 606 incidents reported in 2015-16. Richard Bentley, a paramedic in Leeds, told the BBC that he had faced three serious assaults in five years. He had been bitten, head-butted and threatened with a knife.

I sought to do something about that unacceptable violence directed at our most dedicated public servants by drafting a ten-minute rule Bill, which I presented in the Chamber earlier this month. The Crime (Assaults on Emergency Services Staff) Bill would extend protections to all emergency service workers and—crucially in relation to this debate—would cover paramedics, doctors and nurses.

The petition, which was launched on 22 December by LBC presenter Nick Ferrari—I commend Mr Ferrari and LBC for their role in this campaign—calls on the Government to make it

“a specific criminal offence to attack any member of NHS Medical Staff.”

However, in consultation with several bodies representing all the emergency services workers with whom I have spent time, I agreed that it would make sense to seek to amend existing legislation to make assaulting an emergency service worker or NHS worker an aggravating factor in existing criminal charges, for several reasons.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. It goes without saying that assaults on NHS staff are appalling, but does she agree that our NHS staff want to know that any changes will make a meaningful difference to their safety and to enforcement? Given that the maximum penalty for assault of a police constable is six months, which is the same as the maximum penalty for common assault, I query whether a change in offence would actually make a difference. The key is enforcement. People want to know that if they are attacked, the police will come around, make arrests and throw the book at the people who did it.

[Holly Lynch]

I will come on to some of the problems that we identified with the stand-alone assault police charge, which led us to seek to amend existing legislation. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which I will come on to in more detail.

The petition states that for

“twenty years it has been a specific offence to attack a Police officer conducting their duties”

and refers to section 89 of the Police Act 1996, which deals with assault police charges. However, although that section sets a precedent for making assaulting a particular sector of public servants a stand-alone offence, it was precisely because of that legislation’s shortcomings that we sought to do things differently and more comprehensively.

Assault police charges are summary only, so are triable only in a magistrates court. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the maximum custodial sentence for even the most serious assault police charges under section 89 —so-called category 1 offences—is 24 weeks, with offenders more likely to receive a fine or community order. Even if someone is given a custodial sentence for a category 1 offence, the sentencing guidelines for section 89 offences propose three questions:

“Has the custody threshold been passed?…if so, is it unavoidable that a custodial sentence be imposed?…if so, can that sentence be suspended?”

To me, none of that reinforces the seriousness of the crime or, more crucially, acts as a deterrent. I have seen examples of repeat offenders who, due to the problems with the assault police charge, have effectively collected suspended sentences. I share that information simply to explain why I have arrived at my proposals, which I believe would make our emergency services and NHS workers safer in their roles.

My Bill would make offences including malicious wounding, grievous or actual bodily harm and common assault aggravated offences when perpetrated against a police constable, firefighter, doctor, paramedic or nurse in the execution of his or her duty or, significantly, against someone assisting such persons in the execution of their duty. It would therefore cover NHS staff more broadly, which my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) mentioned. The Bill would ensure that tougher sentences were available to the judiciary when sentencing someone convicted of assaulting an emergency responder or NHS worker. As I said, the sentences handed down to offenders convicted of such acts must reflect the seriousness of the crime and, more crucially, serve as a tough deterrent to dissuade others from even considering committing such violence towards NHS workers in the first place.

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Lady makes a really interesting point, but the maximum penalty for causing grievous bodily harm with intent is life imprisonment in any event, and judges have sufficient sentencing powers to reflect the gravity of the aggravating factor of the attack having been on a public servant. Given that judges already have certain sentencing latitude, how would she change things?

[Holly Lynch]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. It is perhaps just an issue of clarity and the weight that comes with such uniformed service roles. Perhaps the problem is as simple as someone who is particularly angry and comes into an A&E department and lashes out at an NHS worker, not understanding that deterrent. We must explore how to ensure that that deterrent is understood by people who arrive at A&E departments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) on securing the debate and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who made a powerful speech. The starting point, although it is perhaps obvious, bears emphasis. Assaults on NHS staff are appalling and people watching the debate will find it astonishing that they are so prevalent. The hon. Lady seemed to suggest that they are an occupational hazard, and that fact is as serious as it is appalling. Everyone in the House, as well as people beyond this Chamber, will share my consternation.

Another point that is obvious but bears emphasis is that the law must come down hard on people whose conduct is so despicable. However, it is important that the debate should not lead NHS staff, including those in Cheltenham general hospital in my constituency, to feel that what is proposed is mere window dressing. I imagine that they would want what I certainly want on their behalf: concrete action to improve enforcement and, picking up on a point made just now, to create a culture of zero tolerance. There may be any number of offences on the statute book, but without the resources to investigate them and the will to prosecute them, they are of no more than academic interest. We should focus resolutely on creating measures that will make a meaningful difference and inculcate the culture of zero tolerance.

I mention that because, as I said earlier, the offence of assaulting a police constable carries a maximum of six months in prison. That is the same as for common assault. I remind hon. Members that common assault is a battery where the harm that is caused is merely “transient or trifling”. If it is more serious than that, it becomes assault occasioning actual bodily harm, with a maximum penalty of five years. That can apply to a police officer or a person in the street, in the normal way. However, in my time in practice, when I was prosecuting offences of assault PC, the message that often came back from police officers was: “Our concern is that this offence is not taken seriously enough or prosecuted enough.” It was not so much that a defendant had been prosecuted for assault PC rather than for common assault; the question was whether assaults on police officers were taken seriously by being investigated and by charges being brought. It is the same in the case that we are considering. We must be clear: if we create a further offence, will it mean that the people in A&E think there is a better chance of securing justice? Shiny new legislation will not in itself achieve that. What is needed is the will and resources to make it happen.

That is the simple point that I wanted to make. Those who go out of their way to work in our public services, and who, notwithstanding the fact that they are abused, assaulted and jeered at, come back to show compassion, need to know that law and order are on their side. By all means let us consider creating another offence if that is what we want, but it should not be a fig leaf for the fact that there is something more important: when a member of staff in A&E has cause to make a complaint to the police that she has been spat at or abused, the police should turn up, arrest the individual and throw the book at them. As the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) said, ultimately the sentence must be a matter for the court, and in a fair society we would not have things any other way, and nothing we do here should diminish that key priority of enforcement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) for introducing this debate and all hon. Members who have spoken. I also extend my thanks to LBC for its campaign on the assault of NHS staff, which has raised awareness of the issue.

I will start with where we all agree with the petition: any attack on NHS staff is completely unacceptable. More than 1 million people earn their living in the NHS. They are committed to providing health services and work incredibly hard in a high-pressure environment. They should not expect or experience aggression or violence at work. Patients and members of the public should respect NHS staff and must not be abusive or violent towards them. I will begin by looking at what we can do to ensure that assaults on NHS staff are dealt with seriously, much in the vein of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) said. I will focus on prevention, better law enforcement and prosecution.

As with any kind of crime, the best and most important solution to violence against NHS staff is to prevent it from being committed in the first place, through measures to protect staff and by managing potentially risky situations before they escalate. Employers in the NHS are responsible for assessing the risk of violence to their staff, taking action to address those through prevention work and pursuing legal action when assaults do occur.

The NHS has introduced a range of measures to combat workplace violence, such as conflict resolution training and guidelines for lone workers. Again, as with any other crime, if NHS staff are attacked, the next solution is effective law enforcement. The NHS is working with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that even low-level violence is treated seriously and that offences are prosecuted. Rigorous enforcement of the current law sends a strong message about the unacceptability of violence and makes staff feel safer and more confident to do their job.

What effective law enforcement means in the large and complex situation of the NHS is encapsulated in the joint working agreement on tackling violence and antisocial behaviour in the NHS between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the NHS, signed in 2011. It sets out steps to improve the protection of NHS staff; strengthen the investigation and prosecution process by improving the quality of the information exchanged; and improve victim and witness support. That protocol is currently being updated—for instance, to include aide-mémoires for the police, the CPS and NHS staff. The revised version is due to be in place in the coming months.

There is, frankly, a lot more we need to know about the circumstances of attacks. We have heard a number of examples in this debate, but what we do not know about all of those is, for example, whether the person was actually prosecuted. Are we talking about cases where someone’s elderly grandmother with dementia wakes up confused and lashes out against an NHS worker? We need to do a lot more work on what is going on. Centrally, we do not know who the assailants were in all cases, whether they were patients or members of the public or, if they were patients, what they were suffering from and what was happening to them at the time of the incident.

To delve into that further, I would like to extend an offer to convene a meeting between my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, the Solicitor General and Lord O’Shaughnessy, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health. We can then explore how to better build the evidence base.

I will now look at the appropriate law enforcement response in more detail. First, there should be no hesitation in involving the police as needed. To support that, the joint working agreement or protocol sets out guidance and best practice on contact and liaison between NHS staff and the police, incident reporting, the police response to incidents, investigations and victim-witness communication. Before we look at having a specific law, we need to ensure that the protocol is working as effectively as it should.

The next stage of the law enforcement solution to attacks on NHS staff in the criminal justice process is prosecution. At that point, and throughout the process, there is a particular emphasis on the seriousness of assaults on workers serving the public, including in the NHS. All cases referred by the police to the CPS are considered under the code for Crown prosecutors. Under that code, prosecutors must first be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. If there is, prosecutors must then consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest. The relevant section of the code for Crown prosecutors says:

“A prosecution is…more likely if the offence has been committed against a victim who was at the time a person serving the public.”

The protocol states:

“In all cases, the fact that an offence has been committed against a person serving the public will be considered an aggravating factor. There is a strong public interest in maintaining the effective provision of healthcare services and the CPS should always consider whether the individual incident has further aggravating features that may influence a decision on disposal.”

If the evidence is there and the code is satisfied, the CPS will prosecute.

When an offender is convicted, sentencing guidelines specify that an offence committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public is an aggravating factor. Courts have a statutory duty to follow those guidelines and, as such, offenders who assault someone providing a service to the public could face a higher sentence than that imposed for assaults committed in different circumstances. In response to the petition, I have been in touch with the Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure that where these cases appear before the courts, the status of a frontline public sector worker is clearly drawn to the court’s attention as an aggravating factor.

[Alex Chalk]

May I thank the Minister for what he said about bringing that fact to the court’s attention? A victim impact statement can be provided to indicate the impact that a crime has had on the victim. It is critical the court understands front and centre that if the victim is a public servant, the court must treat the case more seriously and punish more severely as a result.

[Mr Gyimah]

My hon. Friend makes a forceful point. That is precisely what the engagement with the Director of Public Prosecutions is meant to achieve, and I would like to involve my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere in those discussions.

Prevention and effective law enforcement, through collaboration between the NHS, the police and the CPS, are the best solutions to the problem of attacks on NHS staff. This debate is about a specific criminal offence. As has been mentioned, there are already comprehensive provisions in criminal law for dealing with a wide range of attacks and assaults. The relevant offences include common assault; assault occasioning actual bodily harm, where the injuries are more than superficial; wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm; and wounding or causing GBH with intent. All those offences cover every victim, whatever their occupation. Depending on the particular offence and the seriousness of the criminal conduct, the penalties available to the courts range from a maximum of six months’ imprisonment, a fine or both for common assault, through a maximum of five years for ABH or GBH, to a maximum of life imprisonment for wounding or causing GBH with intent.

Given the current offences framework and sentencing guidance, which make provision for an increase in sentence to be considered where an assault victim is a public sector worker, I am not persuaded that there is a need to create a specific offence for this group of workers. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere pointed out, some specific offences of assault apply to particular occupation groups, such as police officers. As the Minister responsible for prisons, I am aware of the specific offence of assault against prison officers.

Prison Safety

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

On deliverability of the ambitious and welcome programme, does my hon. Friend agree that a healthy and safe ratio between staff and prisoners is vital and that ultimately we must grasp the nettle? There must either be more prison officers or fewer prisoners to get the ratio back into equilibrium.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is right. There is no other solution but to grasp the nettle. Some will assert that we should increase the staff, and they have to grasp the nettle that that means more public spending. I do not think most of the public are in the mood for that, but I think the public mood towards prison reform has changed markedly in the last 20 years. It has changed during my time in the House. It was apparent in debates during the last Parliament that people are, rightly in my judgment, much more open-minded now about the need for prison reform. No one is beyond rehabilitation—that is an exaggeration: precious few people are.

I spent 25 years practising at the criminal Bar. I dealt with some very nasty people indeed and some dangerous people, some of whom needed to be locked up and kept away. I also dealt with some stupid people. [Interruption.] I leave aside members of my profession or even the judiciary, but I dealt with some people who were stupid and got themselves into trouble because of that. I dealt with people who did not have an education or skills and who made certain choices. They got their lives into a mess through drugs, alcohol and disrupted families. I suspect that they make up the majority. Whenever I visit the women’s estate and talk to women prisoners, I find that the vast majority of one kind or another have certain issues in their lives—often mental health problems and related issues.

We cannot treat this matter in a simplistic fashion. Simply saying, “Keep the numbers up and just produce more staff” makes no sense to my mind as a Conservative given the need to keep public spending under control, because we would be giving a demand-led blank cheque; it also makes no sense in terms of the ambitious agenda for social reform that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Minister and I believe in.

It seems to me that the answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), based on his own considerable experience as a practising barrister and his having seen exactly the same people, is yes, we must grasp that nettle. It is pretty obvious to my mind that the answer is a greater emphasis on rehabilitation, education and reform, and that is why getting safety right is all the more critical.

I think that all or almost all of us share the same objectives, but the question now is about willing and providing the means to achieve them, and that is what our report was about. I hope that the Minister will tell me that the Government response was a measure of work in progress. I quite understand that when a new ministerial team come in, they need to reflect, take stock, review priorities and consider, in the light of the circumstances that they have inherited, the shape that they want progress to take, but if he told me that, it would be further reassurance that the progress will be genuine and speedy. The Secretary of State talked about reform proceeding “at pace”. Can we have a bit more flesh on the bones of what is there? We ask that in a spirit of complete good will towards the Government’s intentions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

When I was a Minister, I was sometimes portrayed unfairly in the press, so I shall adopt a practical approach: let us see what happens. But I do think it important that we do not, any of us, send any signals that reform is less pressing or less important. Were that to be the case, it would be disappointing and, I think, an error. I am conscious of the clarification that the Secretary of State issued after her appearance before the Justice Committee, and I will take her at her word on that, but we need the measures that we talked about to be brought forward swiftly. If Brexit means Brexit, to adopt a phrase, pace means pace, but pace requires detail in order for there to be credibility in how things are delivered. That is the approach that I take—we want to be constructive and assist the Government on what I think is the right path, provided that it is followed through consistently.

I shall touch on just a few more matters before I finish so that other hon. Members can speak—this is a well-attended debate. First, I have referred to the matrices showing that everything is going in the wrong direction at the moment, such as on assaults, self-harming and deaths in custody. All those figures are going the wrong way. The data are set out well in a report that is readily available in the public domain, so I shall not cite a raft of figures, because I suspect that that would not add a great deal, but the trend is clear.

Secondly, despite genuine efforts by NOMS to recruit staff, the number of new staff coming in is significantly offset by the lack of retention. The problem is that we are very often losing some of the most experienced officers—some of the coolest heads. When there are difficulties to do with safety, such as dangerous situations arising on a wing, one wants to have experienced prison officers around to deal with it.

The fewer there are, the greater the risk that things will escalate rather than being brought back under control, so there is a direct link between retention and safety, which we highlight in our report. That is one thing that the Government need to do more to address. We are not convinced that NOMS has a deep-seated understanding of what causes that lack of retention, why recruitment is increasingly difficult and what underpins both those factors, so we need more flesh on the bones of that.

Let me deal briefly with some other matters. Steps have been taken—again, let us recognise that—on the possession of knives and new psychoactive substances in prison, but I am not sure that we are fully on top of that issue, either, particularly in relation to those new substances. The issue is one of technology: the ability to fly in substances and a raft of other things with drones is enormous.

Of course, that brings us back to the circular issue referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham. If, as we have seen on our visits, people are locked up in their cells for 23 hours a day, and if there are illegal substances in prisons, prisoners’ ability to make use of them is all the greater given their close confinement and the growth of gang culture and peer pressure. The more that people are out of their cells and doing something purposeful, the better it is to combat the misuse of substances. That cannot be done sustainably with the current prison population, which is a very important issue.

The direction is right, but we need to be more vigorous and radical in tackling some of those important issues. That brings me back to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell): we are disappointed about some of the detail in the Government response. We called for the Ministry and NOMS jointly to produce an action plan on prison safety, addressing the underlying factors behind violence, self-harm and suicide. We said that that plan should include preventive and punitive measures, because those two things have to be in the toolbox of any prison governor. We also wanted objectives and indices. The Secretary of State is right to commit to a prison safety and reform plan—that is good—but it is the missing detail that people need to see urgently.

We asked for quarterly reports on progress on the plan, rather than the six-monthly reports suggested in the Government response, not as a matter of caprice but because we wanted the reports to coincide with the publication of the quarterly safety in custody statistics. Otherwise, frankly, they are pretty meaningless. The whole point of transparency and scrutiny is to have the two sets of figures together so that we can compare and contrast. That is why I urge the Government to rethink their response on that matter. The information is collated, and there is no doubt that it is available—I am sure it is available to Ministers on a regular basis. There is no practical reason at all why it cannot be made available in the way we suggest in our report. It is not an expensive or a difficult ask, in other words.

We are also looking for specific information on incidents of disorder in prisons, including the deployment of the national tactical response group; a more comprehensive set of data about staffing; and performance ratings for individual prisons. We do not know yet whether the previous Secretary of State’s league table initiative will continue, but certainly we want performance ratings for prisons. I accept that it is not always easy to make complete comparisons, but on safety it is, actually. We can compare data on safety even if we cannot do so for rehabilitation in a particular prison, so there is no reason why those data cannot be available.

The same goes for data on the average number of hours each day that prisoners spend locked in their cells—I stress that in particular. I mentioned this earlier, but the amount of time that people spend locked up is entirely linked to safety levels. Boredom, the abuse of substances, the internet and a raft of other things, and the peer pressure of groups of people locked up together in a confined space for long periods all contribute directly to a deteriorating safety environment.

[Alex Chalk]

Is it not also the case that meaningful rehabilitation does not take place inside a prison cell? It is only when people are outside their cells and engaging in courses—be they on anger management, substance abuse or whatever—that they can truly come to terms with the problems that may, in some cases, be the reason why they got into prison in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is always a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to follow the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), for whom I have a great deal of respect. As others have done, I commend our Chair of the Justice Committee, who does a great job in martialling sometimes disparate viewpoints on the Committee.

When I say “disparate viewpoints”, what I am really referring to is me. As on many issues, I tend to have a very different view of the world—particularly the world of prison and sentencing—from that of many of my colleagues, so I might put a slightly different viewpoint from theirs. That is not to say that I do not have a great deal of respect for their views and expertise on these matters; we just happen to draw different conclusions.

One thing that never gets talked about with regard to prison safety that I want to talk about, and that I raised with the Secretary of State on her initial performance before the Justice Committee last week, is the change brought in under the last Labour Government: it has done immense harm not only to public confidence in the criminal justice system, but to safety in prisons.

That Labour Government passed a law, and this is a welcome opportunity to make a public service announcement to the many people who are not aware that it is on the statute book. The law stated that everybody who had reached halfway through their prison sentence had to be released from prison, irrespective of how disruptive they had been and whether they were still considered a danger to the public. Those prisoners have to be released halfway through their sentence.

The law had nothing to do with any great rehabilitation revolution, or with making our prisons or streets safer; it was introduced because the last Labour Government got themselves into a crisis over prison numbers and could not meet the capacity. They were desperately looking for ways to reduce the prison population. Anything would do.

One method they used was letting everybody off 14 days before the end of their prison sentence. The second method was to say that people had to be, by law, automatically released halfway through their sentences. It does not take a genius to work out that that will have—and this has proved to be the case—a negative impact on safety in prisons.

If prisoners have a six-year sentence, become eligible for release after three but could still serve the whole six years, the chances are that there will be an incentive for them to behave themselves in prison, get their heads down, work hard and do the things that are asked of them; if they do, the parole board may well let them out of prison when the three years come up. If they know they will be released from prison after three years no matter how well or badly they behave, what on earth is the incentive to behave in prison? There is none at all. It does not take a genius to work out that that is pure common sense.

If the Government want to get to grips with safety in prisons—and, as a by-product, instil a bit more public confidence in the criminal justice system—they must deal with that issue. They must repeal that terrible law and say to prisoners once again, “You become eligible for release halfway through your sentence, but only if you are considered to be safe to release to the public and if you have been behaving yourself in prison.”

I remember when the last Labour Government introduced this law—the Conservative party was apoplectic. What have we done in our six years in government? Absolutely nothing. That is a disgrace—certainly for the millions of people who have gone down to the polling station to vote Conservative at a general election. Those people would expect a Conservative Government to deal with this, and I hope the Minister will not only address the issue in his remarks but will act on the situation in his time as prisons Minister.

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend is setting out his characteristically robust and principled position, with which I do not disagree. But even if that welcome repeal were to happen, is not the difficulty that it would lead to such additional pressures on the prison system that, frankly, we would not be in a position to absorb the extra numbers at this juncture?

[Philip Davies]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but he is looking at it from a perspective different from mine. My view is that we should not manage the prison population to fit an arbitrary figure that we have decided is the limit that we will allow in prison; we should imprison the people who should be in prison, and it is the Government’s job to build the capacity in the prison system to cope with those people. That is the bit on which the Government need to get a grip.

I was going to come to this later but, as we are on the subject, I will deal with it now. One area on which I happen to disagree with the Chairman of the Select Committee, although it pains me to do so, is the size of the prison population. We have to address the myth that has been perpetuated that the UK has a very high prison population. The fact of the matter is that we do not, and I will explain why. Yes, the absolute number of more than 80,000 represents a high prison population, but the UK is a very highly populated country so of course we have a high prison population. That is a meaningless measure.

If we look at the number of people in our prisons as a proportion of the population as a whole, we are not at the top of the table by any means, but I concede that we are above average. We are in the highest quartile but, again, it is a meaningless measure. The only meaningful measure of prison population is the proportion of criminals that we send to prison. In other words, for every 1,000 offences committed in the UK how many people go to prison? That is the most meaningful measure of whether we send a lot of people, or not many people, to prison. Comparing those figures with the figures for other countries across the world shows that we have a very low prison population. For every 1,000 crimes committed in the UK, we send some 18 people to prison. I challenge anyone to name four or five countries that send fewer people to prison, because they will be hard pressed to do so.

Our prison population is very low, so we have to end the myth that has been built up by these prison reform groups, which frankly just do not like anybody being sent to prison. We have to address the myth that has built up over the years that we have a high prison population. We send very few people to prison. Everyone knows that it is difficult to be sent to prison in the UK. People get community sentence after community sentence—the only people sent to prison are either very persistent offenders or very serious offenders. Courts bend over backwards not to send people to prison. We have to nail that myth.

Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said in his opening remarks, I do not think that public opinion is that we should have fewer people in prison. I do not think public opinion has moved an awfully long way. Clearly, my hon. Friend is much more expert than I about public opinion in Bromley and Chislehurst, and I bow to his superior knowledge, but I invite him to come up to Shipley. He can knock on the door of any 100 houses he wants to ask people, “Do you want to see more criminals or fewer criminals in prison?” I suspect that a number in the high 90s would say that they would like to see more criminals in prison, not fewer. I accept that Bromley and Chislehurst may differ, but I am here to represent Shipley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I apologise that—with your permission, Mr Stringer—I have to leave before the end of the debate so I will not be here to hear the closing speeches. Members of the Justice Committee, and indeed anybody who has met me for longer than 10 minutes, will know that very few things could drag me away from a debate on prison safety, but I am afraid a meeting about the Boundary Commission and boundaries is one of them. I thank hon. Members for their indulgence on that score.

Serving on the Justice Committee is an enormous privilege and most of the time it is a pleasure. However, as is clear from the passion of Members’ contributions today, it is not always a pleasure, because we have heard some very disturbing facts and figures about safety in our prisons. I am not a stranger to the Prison Service, having conducted litigation on its behalf for many years—it is nice to see some former clients in the Box today. I know that the Prison Service is staffed by many dedicated individuals, who work hard to ensure that people in their custody are safe, and to rehabilitate them. I also know that the spotlight has never shone so brightly on what is happening inside our prisons.

Although our predecessor Committee felt that the Government and the National Offender Management Service had underplayed the seriousness of the situation, our Committee does not now feel that is the case. This year, the former Prime Minister and former Member of Parliament for Witney gave strong leadership in his speech on prisons. Both the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and the former prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), were aware of and open about the appalling state of prison safety.

The reform programme is bold and motivated by all the right reasons. In our report we praise the considerable efforts made by the Ministry of Justice and NOMS to alleviate the situation, but political will is very far from being enough. The previous Secretary of State’s response to our review was characteristically robust; he acknowledged the extent of the problem and found an extra £10 million to deal with aspects of it.

It has to be said that, in its short time in post, the new prisons team has made it clear that it is fully live to the issues. In its response to our report, it says that prison safety is the Department’s top priority. The new Secretary of State told us last week that the position was unacceptable, and the Department has confirmed that legislation will be put in place to continue the reforms set out by her predecessor.

So with all this light, why is the situation getting worse? In my view, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) was right: the ratio of staff to prisoners is critical. I also agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter)—despite the boundary changes, I will not call him the hon. Member for Wormwood Scrubs.

This is not a time for a debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) about whether the size of the custodial population matters, but it is clear that unless we are going to pour new resources into our Prison Service, we have to reduce numbers if rehabilitation is to be effective. I do not say that through a wish to be soft on criminals; rather the opposite. It is in all our interests for those in prison to be changed to stop them offending again. If the upshot of that is that tough diversionary sentences have to be used as an alternative to prison, effort should be put into piloting them. Restorative justice, as the Committee said in a previous report, may well have an important part to play.

[Alex Chalk]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of our problems as a society is that we have not quite solved the problem of how to generate a community penalty that is sufficiently robust that gives members of the public genuine confidence that it is a proper punishment? As soon as they feel that community penalties are a proper punishment, there will not be such an imperative to send so many people to prison.

[Victoria Prentis]

My hon. Friend is right. He will remember that, on our excellent Justice Committee trip to some restorative justice schemes in the United States, we saw some really good new alternatives to prison that we are extremely keen to see taken up and piloted here. They may well be part of the solution, but public opinion will have to be brought along with us. If results can be shown to be good, I am confident that public opinion will come along too—even in Shipley.

I do not see how it is possible to run safe prisons, let alone rehabilitative prisons, with insufficient staff. Prison officers have only limited time to give to supervision and to building up the relationships that we know help people to change. It is often difficult to find sufficient staff to move prisoners to the classrooms for desperately needed education. We have heard examples of wings where only one officer is now on duty when there were previously two. A body-worn camera, while welcome, is not the same as two sets of eyes. There is concern that lack of patrolling perimeter fencing is making it too easy to smuggle contraband.

We applaud the Department’s efforts to recruit more staff, but experienced officers take years of training and greater efforts must be made to retain them. The former prisons Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), has covered that issue fully; I emphasise his point that it is the net gain in numbers that should always be considered when looking at staffing levels.

The second reason, in my view, for the continued decline in safety is the exponential increase in the use of new psychoactive substances. The prisons and probation ombudsman says that 61% of prisoners use them regularly and that they have overtaken tobacco as the currency of choice inside.

During an excellent session at Reform earlier this summer, a prison officer told us about an inmate who had been found unconscious in his cell. Four officers went inside to assist him and all four of them needed hospital treatment for secondary inhalation. These drugs are not cannabis as some Members of the House may have known it; they are cannabinoids and they are very dangerous mind-altering substances, which are doing extraordinary damage to our prisoners.

The Government have criminalised possession of these substances, but a great deal of resource needs to be put into testing these drugs and searching for them if we are ever to hold back the tide of them. Blocking mobile phone signals, which we now have the ability and the powers to do, is surely a good step to consider, while we fight the organised providers of these drugs. I hope that the body scanner being trialled in Wandsworth works and that this device can be rolled out very speedily to other establishments. The Committee looks forward to hearing further details about it.

As others have already said, it is now for the new team of Ministers to put the flesh on the bones of the reform programme. I am grateful for the taster that we have had of that programme in the Government’s response to our report. In my view, prison reform is not a place for dogma, and there is considerable consensus across the House and on our Committee about what needs to be done. Forgive me for saying so, but we have a captive audience and it should be possible to pilot the best schemes, and to assess quickly the extent to which new ideas work. Historically, a shameful lack of data have been produced by the Ministry of Justice, but slowly that issue is being addressed. Nevertheless, the new ministerial team needs to be very vigilant about it.

To add to the list of those reforms currently under way, which are set out in the Government’s response, I would also suggest focusing on improvements to assessment on entry to prison, and asking new prisoners about previous head injuries and traumatic experiences surrounding bereavement, all of which are proven, as we know, to indicate a greater propensity to self-harm. Those prisoners who are recalled should be properly assessed, however many times they have been inside prison before, as we know that they are particularly vulnerable.

Busy prisoners are safer prisoners, and real resource must go into both education and employment. Almost half of prisoners lose touch with their families, yet it has been shown that those prisoners who maintain family relationships through visits demonstrate a 39% reduction in reoffending. Better visits, Skype and in-cell telephones should be seen not as “nice to have” luxuries for lily-livered liberals or prisoners but as a useful tool in the fight against future crime.

Of course, all these ideas need testing and evaluation, and the Daily Mail and Shipley will not like them all. I accept that it is difficult to push through major reforms at the same time as managing a dangerous and—quite frankly—unstable situation, but unfortunately the Department does not have time on its side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question but he will be disappointed with my answer: I will not make a firm commitment on staffing numbers in this debate.

I will also make a general point: no one factor is driving the changes in our prisons. Staffing is one aspect of that, yes, but there are a number of safety issues across the estate, and we are still seeing the violence in prisons, with different cohorts, regimes and staffing, levels so we should be cautious not to suggest that somehow staffing is the problem. For example, dealing with the scourge of mobile phones in our prisons has a technological answer; it is not a staffing issue. To deal with the problem of violence comprehensively, we need to look at all the different issues driving it.

Even in the debate today, a number of reasons for the rise in violence have been posited. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley talked about the tariff structure and fixed-term recalls, and some people have mentioned staffing or mental health. What that highlights is that if we are to solve the problem, we need to look fundamentally at what is going on in our prisons. We cannot underestimate the scale of the challenge, and I cannot overstate the Government’s absolute commitment to deal with it.

[Alex Chalk]

What does the Minister say in response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies): that incentives for good behaviour among the prisoner population are insufficient? Does the Minister think that that is part of the issue?

[Mr Gyimah]

I will come on to the incentive structure in a moment, but I will deal first with the point about staffing.

Any discussion of staffing should acknowledge the brave and invaluable work that prison officers, staff, volunteers and governors do every day. I am determined to see that they, just as much as those in their care, are safe and properly supported. The recruitment and retention of staff in prisons is a high priority and, as I have said, part of the necessary response to the problems. For example, at prisons in the south-east that have presented persistent challenges, we have launched targeted recruitment campaigns to attract and retain the right people. We are ensuring that prison officers have the skills necessary to deal with such issues, which is why training for our prison officers has been increased from six to 10 weeks. We are also examining additional ways to retain high-quality and experienced staff.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire made an important point about the task required of prison officers today—it is about not just numbers or training but what the job is. That is an important point, because we do not want prison officers simply to be turnkeys, locking people up and letting them out. We want them to have a key worker role, building closer and more professional relationships with prisoners. As my hon. Friend knows, that is very much part of the offender management model that we are looking to roll out across the prison estate.

I turn to some of the key threats that have been highlighted in the debate. The House is aware that the dynamic within prisons has changed, contributing to the rises we have seen in levels of violence, self-harm and self-inflicted deaths. In fact, what we see in prisons is a magnification of what we see in society more broadly—in particular, the proliferation of psychoactive substances, and the evolution of technology such as metal-free phones and drones, which enables drugs to be brought within our prison walls.

The Chairman of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, mentioned the £10 million investment to deal with prison safety issues secured under the previous Secretary of State. That has been distributed to the prisons that are experiencing the worst levels of violence. Over the coming weeks and months, we will provide more information on how that is working for our prison system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury put very well the point that psychoactive substances are having a serious and significant impact on the safe running of our prisons. That view is commonly held, and many in the Chamber are aware of it, as is the chief inspector, Peter Clarke. For the communities inside prisons, however, such substances have dramatically changed the dynamic. There is the impact on an individual’s behaviour as a result of taking the drugs, and the impact on driving an illicit prison economy. The power of drugs such as spice and mamba cannot be overestimated. They are dangerous, mind-altering drugs that fuel unpredictable and violent behaviour.

What have we done? The varying ways in which substances can be smuggled into prisons—as tobacco, or even sprayed in liquid form on to paper—contribute to the challenge our professional staff face in keeping such harmful and damaging drugs out. We are, however, taking decisive action to tackle that ever growing threat, and we have introduced new legislation to combat the use of drugs and psychoactive substances in prisons.

The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 has made these drugs illegal, and we have introduced new criminal offences for the supply and possession of psychoactive substances. In addition, the Serious Crime Act 2015 introduced a new offence of throwing anything into a prison. As a result, those who smuggle packages over prison walls, including of psychoactive substances, can face sentences of up to two years.

Homicide Law Reform

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of reforming the law on homicide.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, on this auspicious day. I wish to make crystal clear that the debate is about the law of homicide, not fratricide.

Putting that to one side, the real point is that the law of homicide is a mess. That was put more elegantly by the Law Commission in its 2006 report “Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide”, in which it said that the law of homicide is

“a rickety structure set upon shaky foundations.”

In essence, the problem is that the law lacks a rational or defensible structure. It does not chime with common sense—and in this area of the law perhaps above all others, it should.

As long ago as 1874, a Select Committee stated:

“If there is any case in which the law should speak plainly, without sophism or evasion, it is where life is at stake; and it is on this very occasion that the law is most evasive and most sophistical.”

That remains the case more than 100 years later, and that will not do. In the words of the Law Commission, the time has come to

“promote certainty…in a way that non-lawyers can understand and accept.”

But the problem is far more serious than mere opaqueness. The problem is that the law of homicide creates injustice—injustice to defendants and injustice to society—and that is something that we in this House must always stand ready to confront and resolve.

What is the solution? It is very simple: to split the current offence of murder into two categories, one of first degree murder and another of second degree murder. Manslaughter should remain as before, albeit more tightly circumscribed.

What, as a matter of law, is murder? It is committed when someone unlawfully kills another person with an intention to kill that person or to do them serious harm. That second element is really important. It means that someone who reasonably believed that no one would be killed by their conduct is placed in the same offence category as the contract or serial killer. That, in a nutshell, is the problem.

Let me give an example. Imagine a retired colonel living in my constituency of Cheltenham. He is aged 65, has lived an utterly unblemished life and served his country with great distinction, and is known for his charitable work. He is upstanding in every way. He lives with his wife, who has Parkinson’s disease and for whom he is the sole carer. A neighbour moves in next door who has a string of convictions for antisocial behaviour. Every night, he holds noisy parties that go on into the small hours. Endless polite requests from the colonel are ignored. Endless local authority noise abatement notices are ignored. So, after the umpteenth such party, with his and his wife’s already poor health suffering, the colonel goes round at 3 o’clock in the morning to remonstrate with his neighbour. He takes with him—this is important—a cricket bat in case there is a violent confrontation. The neighbour, who is very drunk, becomes abusive and the colonel, overcome with anger and frustration and at the end of his tether, says, “Right, that’s it. Let’s see how you party when your big toe is broken,” and strikes the neighbour’s foot with the cricket bat. The neighbour falls back, hits his head on a crate of beer standing in the hallway and is knocked unconscious. The colonel immediately calls 999 and tries to resuscitate him, the police and ambulance arrive and the colonel tells them exactly what happened, but the neighbour is rushed to the local hospital, diagnosed with a bleed on the brain, and dies.

The post-mortem report reveals that the deceased’s toe was broken. When interviewed, the distraught colonel admits that he lost his temper. What happens in this case? The only charge that the law allows for is murder. That means that the only sentence that the judge can impose, despite the colonel pleading guilty at the first opportunity, is life imprisonment, because he intended to do grievous bodily harm by breaking the toe. It is because he took a weapon to the scene—the cricket bat—that the starting point for the minimum term that he must serve is 25 years’ imprisonment, and because the offence is murder, he must serve every last day of that term. In effect, the colonel goes to prison for the rest of his life—25 years. He has a mandatory life sentence.

That is unjust. Although it is clear that a person who kills in such circumstances should be guilty of a serious homicide offence, it is equally clear that because he did not intend to kill, the offence should not be in the top tier or highest category. The current law does not chime with common sense. Academic research into public opinion tells us that, but frankly, we do not need academic research; we need simply to consult our common sense. The particularly daft thing—I hope that that is parliamentary language—is that when Parliament passed the Homicide Act 1957, it never intended a killing to amount to murder, which at that time was a capital offence, unless the defendant realised that his or her conduct may cause death. The law of murder was widened because of an unexpected judicial development immediately following the enactment of the 1957 legislation—the case of Vickers, which is about interpretation of the expression “malice aforethought”. In my view, that colonel should be guilty of second degree murder.

The injustice is further underscored when we add the potential for what are known as secondary parties or accessories to be convicted of a murder. Imagine that before the colonel had set off, his frail wife had told him where the cricket bat was stored and in frustration said to him, “Now, go and use it. Teach him a lesson.” She, too, could find herself facing the punishment and disgrace of a murder conviction and the same 25-year minimum term. She should of course be guilty of an offence, but again, she should be guilty of second degree murder, with the judge having the discretion not to impose a mandatory life sentence.

This issue is particularly topical because the Supreme Court has looked at the case of Jogee and more tightly circumscribing accessory liability—the so-called prosecutor’s friend—but still we are left with a situation in which the unsatisfactory law of homicide leads to manifest injustice.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend has in his mind what the range of sentences should be for second degree murder.

[Alex Chalk]

Certainly, on any view, life imprisonment must remain the maximum sentence—that is the maximum in the United States for federal offences where second degree murder is charged—but the key point is that the judge should have discretion. The Sentencing Council has done a terrific job of laying down guidelines—not tramlines—and the courts have shown themselves to be well able to dispense justice.

The case for reform becomes even clearer when we consider manslaughter, another homicide offence. Whereas, as I have indicated, the law of murder creates injustice for defendants, the law of manslaughter creates injustice for society. What is manslaughter? It can be committed in one of four ways, but just two of those are relevant for these purposes: unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter. The latter largely speaks for itself for these purposes, but let me explain what happens when a killing is the result of a defendant’s unlawful act—that is, one that all reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm, albeit not serious harm.

Take this example. The defendant barges into a nightclub queue in Cheltenham. He has a string of criminal convictions for assault and criminal damage. In the queue, he is being drunk and obnoxious. He is insulting women for what they are wearing and telling them to get out of his way. The victim is the mother of two children. She works at nearby GCHQ and she is on a hen do. She politely asks the defendant to move to the back of the queue. His response is to say, “You silly cow; you need a slap.” He then strikes her repeatedly and hard to the side of the face with his open hand. She falls back, hits her head on the kerb and is knocked unconscious. The defendant runs off. The victim later dies, and the post-mortem shows that she suffered bruising—albeit no fracture—to her cheekbone and the fatal injury was caused by the impact on the kerb. The police arrest the defendant, who denies everything, but CCTV proves his guilt.

Under the law at present, that defendant can be charged only with unlawful act manslaughter, because the harm that he caused falls short of grievous bodily harm. The net effect is that he will be convicted of an offence that carries a far lesser stigma than murder and for which there is no mandatory requirement for a life sentence, and if he gets a determinate sentence, he will serve only half of it. Is that thug, I ask rhetorically, less culpable than the retired colonel or his wife? The only distinction is that the colonel intended to break a toe and the thug intended to commit a marginally less serious assault. In my view, that is a distinction without a difference—it is a distinction that is completely lost on the general public and, frankly, on me.

So, what needs to happen? This is not some academic exercise. Those two examples are not entirely artificial and they expose fundamental injustices. The first, as I have indicated, is to the victim, in the case of the colonel, and the second is to society in the case of the pub queue thug. The solution is clear: we need an offence of first degree murder that would encompass intentional killing only. I recognise the Law Commission, in 2006, wanted to add

“killing through an intention to do serious injury with an awareness of a serious risk of causing death.”

That is fine, and I understand it, but in my view it is a complexity that unnecessarily detracts from the simplicity of the proposal I put before the House.

An offence of first degree murder would simply and coherently communicate to the public the particularly heinous nature of the crime of taking life and would attract the special condemnation and opprobrium that that deserves. To paraphrase Colonel Tim Collins’ famous eve-of-battle speech in 2003, anyone convicted of such an offence would truly live with the mark of Cain upon them. That offence should also, as at present, attract a mandatory life sentence.

Under my proposal, second degree murder would encompass killing through an intention to do injury that is more than merely transient or trifling. In plain English: it would encompass killing through unacceptable violence and thuggery. That would include the colonel and the pub queue thug—people who committed a significant assault on others but who did not intend to kill. That category of offence would not require a mandatory life sentence. Instead, judges would be free to do justice, weighing in the balance all of the aggravating and mitigating factors. For clarity, that would not include the case of the most minor assault. Think of someone creeping up behind a person, playing a trick on them and flicking their ear as a piece of horseplay. That is technically an assault, of course, but is obviously very minor. If that person fell over and died that should remain as manslaughter.

So, where does that leave manslaughter? Manslaughter would remain predominantly focused on cases of gross negligence. That is, offences in which there has been no unlawful assault or intention to kill, but in which the negligence has been so dreadful as to become criminal. The advantage of that is that people get it; people would understand that—it chimes with common sense.

Those are not outlandish suggestions. Other jurisdictions—most obviously the United States—have two categories of murder. For murders in the US over which the federal Government have jurisdiction, life imprisonment is only mandatory for first degree murder. For second degree murder the mandatory sentence is described as

“a term of years to life.”

So why now? Because it is long overdue. The current distinction between murder and manslaughter is almost certainly more than 500 years old. No further general category of homicide has been developed in the intervening period, despite the fact that society, values and knowledge have changed out of all recognition.

The need for modernisation was obvious to our Victorian forebears. In this place, William Gladstone himself indicated his willingness to rationalise the law but nothing came of it—it keeps getting put off. That approach led one cynical criminal lawyer to remark at the beginning of the 20th century that the hope of a criminal code being enacted by Parliament that would address the problems of the law on homicide was as remote as

“expecting to find milk in a male tiger”.

We cannot keep putting this off. Modernising this key area of law is, to borrow the words of the Law Commission

“an essential task for criminal law reform.”

It is time for this generation to take up the challenge and to create a law that is truly fit for the modern age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think most of my constituents will be pleased to know that the average length of the minimum tariff given for murder has gone up. I suspect that if I were to do a straw poll of my constituents, most of them would be shocked that the average minimum tariff for the crime of murder was so low. I suspect most people in the country would be shocked that the average minimum tariff for murder was as little as 13 years in the first place. This is one of the great disconnects that we have with the general public at large; they expect murder sentences to be much tougher than that.

One of my notes of caution, therefore, for my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham is that his proposal might be used as a mechanism to try to weaken sentences for murder. That would fly in the face, I suspect, of what the public want to see. If somebody’s agenda is that penalties for murder at the moment are too harsh and this is a way of weakening them, that would be a terrible development. One of my notes of caution is that this does not get hijacked for all the wrong reasons by some of the penal reform groups that seem to have a view that nobody should be sent to prison at all. That is my first note of caution.

My second note of caution, and the reason why we need to tread carefully, is that in the cases that my hon. Friend alluded to, most people would accept that somebody’s life had been taken with some form of malice aforethought. At no point should we belittle the fact that somebody has had their life taken away with malice aforethought.

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend is making some very helpful and important contributions. What he says is absolutely right, but whether it is the retired colonel who goes round to his noisy neighbour or the pub thug, under my proposals they would both be convicted of second-degree murder. That would mark society’s condemnation and give the judge power to sentence.

[Philip Davies]

I agree with that point; as I said at the start, I do not necessarily disagree with my hon. Friend. It is just worth making the point that in all the cases he referred to—hypothetical or not—somebody’s life had been taken, with some degree of malice aforethought associated with that. It would be dangerous if we did not give at least some recognition to that fact when considering these things. I certainly would not ever want to get into a situation where we seem to belittle one form of murder in order to form a distinction. We need to make it clear that both are terrible offences in their own particular ways.

If what my hon. Friend envisages is, perhaps, tougher sentences for first-degree murders in order to draw a distinction, I would welcome that. I think that there are many people in the country who, as it happens, think that life should mean life when it comes to murder, as it so often does in the United States of America, but very seldom does in the United Kingdom. If that was what he had in mind, I think he will get a great deal of support. If he was trying to use this as a Trojan horse to reduce sentences for murder, I suspect he would get very little support from the public. Knowing him as I do, I do not think he has that kind of agenda; he genuinely wants to make sure that the law is fit for purpose and is not brought into disrepute. He does a fantastic job in Parliament in pursuing that agenda, both in the House and on the Justice Committee.

This is something we need to debate further; there is not a clear-cut case one way or the other. I will retain an open mind—people who know me well know that that does not happen very often. All I ask of the Government and of the official Opposition is that they also keep an open mind and discuss all the implications of any such change in the law. My hon. Friend’s case is a very good one and is certainly something that I can envisage happening at some point in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

This has been a helpful debate. I introduced the topic to see whether there was an appetite for discussing it, and it seems that there is. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) made some important points. He is absolutely right to say that in respect of this offence, perhaps beyond any other, there must be clarity, consistency and logicality. Members of the public must be satisfied that the law reflects common sense.

My hon. Friend’s point about the need for sentencing power to be transparent is also a good one. It is particularly relevant in the issue of homicide. If someone gets a life sentence and is told that they have a minimum term of 15 or 17 years to serve, that is the period that they must serve, yet if they are convicted of an offence of grievous bodily harm and the judge sets a determinate sentence of 15 years, they will in fact serve only half of that.

[Mike Penning]

Or less.

[Alex Chalk]

Yes; a maximum of half. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley made an important point, and there is a further agenda to put forward.

To return to my central point, if we could divide the law of murder into first and second degree, those charged and convicted of first degree murder, which would be the most serious crime in the criminal calendar, would be convicted of something that would earn—if that is the right word—the opprobrium of society. People would understand that someone guilty of that offence intended to take life. I respectfully endorse the point made by my right hon. Friend the Minister that we need particular clarity on issues involving the taking of life.

What attracts me to the idea of second degree murder is that we could then lump in—if that is not too inelegant—all the other offences that deserve society’s condemnation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley indicated, because life has been taken through an unlawful act. If we grouped those offences under second degree murder, we would not need a mandatory life sentence, but if the judge thought—on the facts of the case—that that was required, that is precisely what could be imposed. Taking into account how the law has moved on in respect of Jogee and of our modern mores and understanding, it seems to me that this is a reform whose time has come.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of reforming the law on homicide.

Safety in Custody and Violence in Prisons

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Alex Chalk.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

My question was already ably asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis).

[Mr Speaker]

What an extraordinary and novel development—an hon. Member who does not indulge in superfluous repetition. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of winning a medal. It is an extraordinary development, and very welcome, I am sure.

International Women’s Day 2016

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

It is a delight to speak in this debate and to follow on from the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) about the male contribution. Anybody who reads the Hansard of last year’s debate will see that no male MPs made speeches, but some made interventions, so it is great to see so many men taking part in today’s debate, because this issue affects all of us. It affects our wives, sisters, daughters and grandmothers. None of us in this House would accept it if our daughters were prevented from reaching their true potential, if our wives were paid less than a man doing the same job, or if our mothers were discriminated against. We must all work together to ensure that we bring fairness and equality to Britain, and this debate is an important part of that.

It is important to consider the aims of International Women’s Day, one of which is to root out bias in the workplace. Of course, this place is a workplace, and I am delighted that there are now 191 female MPs, which is a big improvement on the 141 in the last Parliament, but we have much more to do. It is fantastic that almost 30% of Members are women. That is the highest number ever and a fantastic step forward, but we cannot be complacent and take our foot off the gas.

I am incredibly delighted that 68 women are part of this Conservative Government. One of the reasons for that was the work of Women2Win. I want to pay tribute to some formidable women, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and Baroness Jenkin of Kennington, who, along with the late Baroness Ritchie of Brompton, did a huge amount to develop Women2Win, which brought in new women, gave them confidence and helped them to deliver. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who did a great deal to continue that work.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that having more women in Parliament is in the national interest and that it will improve the tone and tenor of debate and, dare I say it, the quality of our legislation?

[Andrew Griffiths]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is no surprise that when we widen the gene pool and get more women and diversity around the table, we make better decisions.

In the time I have left, I want to talk about something close to my heart. Engineering has a turnover of more than £1 trillion, which is a quarter of all UK enterprises, yet 64% of employers say that there is a shortage of engineers. That shortfall will lead to there being 55,000 fewer engineers by 2015 than the UK economy needs. Women make up only 9% of the engineering workforce. That is a scandal, and we need to do more to address it.

Police Grant Report (England and Wales)

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is very kind.

As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the police protect us, and the Government have indeed protected the police. I believe that the settlement strikes the right balance between ensuring that police forces are properly funded and can plan for the future, and maintaining the impetus and the tempo of reforms.

When I was listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), it struck me that it would be helpful to put the settlement in context. Back in 2010, this country was truly staring into the abyss. Youth unemployment had doubled, and Britain was the basket case of Europe. [Interruption.] I hear the scoffing of Opposition Members, but the important point is this: the impact on public services would have been felt if the Government had not introduced some degree of order. Let us remember what the position was like back then. People were talking not just about trimming the police force, but about the wholesale meltdown of some of our key public services, and that is precisely what has not happened.

On 25 November the Chancellor announced that police spending would be protected in real terms over the spending review period, when the precept was taken into account. No police and crime commissioner will face a reduction in cash funding next year, and funding will have increased by up to £900 million in cash terms by 2019-20. As has already been pointed out, counter-terrorism funding will increase in real terms to £670 million in 2016-17. We have moved from a time when the country and policing faced disaster to a time when we have a strong funding settlement that will give proper funding to our most important services.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Chalk]

Very briefly.

[Mr Jones]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has to sit down when I stand up.

[Alex Chalk]

Sorry.

[Mr Jones]

I know that the present Government find it difficult to distinguish between revenue and capital, among other concepts, but the hon. Gentleman has said that no one will lose cash. Durham, for instance, has an “outstanding” force—the only one in the country—but that force must take £3 million out of its budget this year because of wage increases and other pressures. “Flat cash” does not constitute an increase.

[Alex Chalk]

As I have said, it is important to put the settlement in context. Back in 2010—[Interruption.] May I deal with the point? In 2010, the country was bringing in about £600 million in tax revenue and spending £750 million. If that had not been addressed, the country and policing would be facing meltdown, but policing is now on a sound footing to protect the people of our country.

Speeches are sometimes as interesting for what is not said as for what is said. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington did not mention, even as one of his own apocalyptic scenarios, the kind of cut that he would himself have countenanced. At the Labour party conference in Brighton, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) declared that savings of up to 10% could be found. He said that that would be doable. That is not what is happening under this Government. Funding is now on a sustainable footing and capability is being enhanced.

[Jack Dromey]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Chalk]

I will not take any more interventions.

Let us look at how that capability is being enhanced. Specialist capabilities in cybercrime are being improved, as is firearms capability. Modernisation and reform are also taking place because, as Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has set out, there are further efficiencies to be made. Whether in respect of decent funding or improving our capability, this settlement will enable us, even in difficult times, to protect our police, build capacity, drive reform and deliver for the people of this country.

Question put.

Prisons and Probation

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Sadly, I cannot support the motion on the Order Paper, but I agree with parts of it. As the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) said, we have high rates of violence, self-harm and drug use in prisons, which I agree puts pressure on our NHS. I agree that no staff member should have to go to work to face threats to their safety. Who is not concerned with rehabilitation? The question concerns what we do about it.

I want to focus on prisons. Let me begin by reading a short passage to the House:

“The justice budget is far too high. Over the course of the last two decades, the vision for the justice system has been a maximalist one: expanding the reach of the system into people’s lives; expanding state interference through…legislation; expanding the numbers of people entering the courts and, ultimately, entering prison. The justice budget therefore could and should be cut substantially, but it must be cut in the right way.”

Hon. Members could be forgiven for thinking that that is a quote from a Conservative manifesto or a right-leaning think-tank, but they would be wrong. It is the opening paragraph from the 2015 spending review submission from the Howard League for Penal Reform.

I believe that we have a golden opportunity in this country. We have a new Government, a reforming Justice Secretary—my goodness, did he not prove that today?—a tough financial environment and a third sector crying out for a different approach. It is therefore good that the Prime Minister said the following in his party conference speech last autumn:

“We have got to get away from the sterile lock-em-up or let-em-out debate, and get smart about this”.

He was quite right.

Our aim has to be to reduce the incidence of crime and the factors that pull people into the criminal justice system in the first place. Is our reason for doing so money? Yes, it is about money and the need to find big savings in the Department, but it is also about effective government. I believe—this is not often said in the House—that it is also the Christian thing to do. Nearly half of all inmates go into prison with no qualifications. Many of them come out with none. All the problems that may have led them to that life remain unchanged, including, as the Secretary of State said, drug addiction, mental health problems and childhood abuse. Prison is literally locking poverty into our country and we as a society are paying the bills.

What is the intellectual basis for that? I have never been more sure that prison reform is compassionate Conservatism in action, both financial and social. That is why I would argue that criminal justice policy is not solely about the Ministry of Justice; it is as much about our education and welfare reforms. In my opinion, prison is the ultimate state failure, so a smaller secure estate is a smaller, cheaper and more effective state. That should be a cause that all Conservatives can rally around.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are going to reduce the strain on our prisons, it is essential that we devise community penalties that are more robust and, frankly, more onerous, so that they can command the respect of the public, who rightly expect crime to be punished?

[Steve Brine]

I will come on to that. The community courts that I saw in the United States were a good step towards that. My hon. Friend will find that the Government are very interested in what is happening over there.

The Ministry of Justice is currently a demand-led Department—demand for prison places and probation services is fed by the criminal courts, which are in turn fed by the police and prosecution services, which are in turn fed by the incidence of crime. My view is that we should seek to place the penal system on a more sustainable footing by seeking to reduce demand on the system, particularly in respect of prison numbers, rather than pursuing the old, tired predict-and-provide policy.

If austerity did not force our hand, we should do it anyway. Austerity did not lead to the Right on Crime initiative in Texas, but we should look to it. The Justice Committee of the last Parliament, of which I was a member alongside the current Leader of the Opposition, visited Austin and Houston, where we met Republican state representative Jerry Madden, who is no fluffy liberal—he describes himself as a typical Texan Republican. He told us this:

“30% of the people in prison today we’re scared of - 70% we’re just mad at. We need to lock up the 30 and get a whole lot smarter about the 70.”

I think he is right. Let me be clear before anyone gets excited: this is not about throwing open the doors, but about slowing down the rate at which prisoners come in by providing less costly and more effective alternatives to sentences.

Custody should not be the only means through which society expresses its disapproval. Treatment should be a way of doing that, too. The Texan focus would therefore be to give judges options and to finally tackle the underlying causes of repeat offending. Madden made what must have been a welcome call on the Texas Governor of the time to recommend that he halve the budget earmarked for new prisoners and spend the rest on treatment instead. The drug courts that followed are one of his most striking creations. I spent an afternoon in Houston in Judge Denise Bradley’s STAR drug court in Harris County observing this new justice in action. Every one of the young people coming before it has been in prison before and is now a non-violent reoffender, which is why they are back.

Drug courts are a tough alternative. Offenders live in halfway house-style premises, but they hold jobs and maintain links with their families and, most importantly, their children. Every two weeks they come back to court for a kind of progress report. It is working. Recidivism rates in Texas are falling fast, so it is very welcome that the Government are exploring how we can bring these courts here to England and Wales.

There will always be serious offenders who need locking up and need to stay there. No one, neither here nor in Texas, is arguing any differently, but there are the others and we cannot afford the ongoing rate of state failure that they represent. I agree we should close the old Victorian prisons, but we should not just build more like-for-like. To be clear, I absolutely am saying we should reduce the prison population significantly. The Government should look again at older prisoners, the fastest-growing group in the estate, return to the 82 recommendations from Lord Bradley on the over-representation of people with mental health problems, and look again at Jean Corston’s work on women prisoners.

The Justice Secretary said, in his first major speech last summer, that there is

“treasure in the heart of man”.

I believe he is right. I believe that, like me, he is an optimist about the human condition. My right hon. Friend will know that Winston Churchill said:

“there is a treasure…in the heart of…man”—[Official Report, 20 July 1910; Vol. 19, c. 1354.]

at that Dispatch Box when he was Home Secretary with responsibility for police, prisons and prisoners. We have a much more fragmented system these days, but the basics have not changed. We can lock ’em up and spend a fortune biting off our nose to spite our face in the long run, but it is time to try something different.