Sentencing Bill

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He has raised this issue on behalf of his constituents with such assiduity and so conscientiously, with me personally and, indeed, in the House. He is absolutely right to do so: that crime was truly abominable and utterly atrocious. At its very heart, this part of the Bill caters for precisely those sorts of offences, where there is murder accompanied by sexual or sadistic conduct, so that in such circumstances, when the offender hears the clang of the prison gate, that will be the last time that they breathe free air.

Let me turn to the very worst offenders who kill in the most appalling circumstances. Clause 1 creates a new duty for the court to impose a whole-life order in cases of the murder of a child that involve the abduction of the child, murders involving sexual or sadistic conduct, and murders carried out for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. There will be judicial discretion in exceptional circumstances. The clause will also impose whole-life orders for the murder of a single victim that involves sexual or sadistic conduct, so that murderers like the killers of Sarah Everard and Zara Aleena will never enjoy the freedom that they cruelly denied their victims. The measures will ensure that severe punishments are available for those who commit the very worst crimes.

In my statement to the House on 16 October, I set out the Government’s intention to legislate so that rapists and serious sexual offenders serve their whole custodial terms. Again, the Bill makes good on that promise. Clauses 2 to 5 and clause 7 will mean, when implemented, that those convicted of rape or serious sexual offences will now serve every single day of their custodial term in custody, without the possibility of their case being referred to the Parole Board. That means that the custodial term handed down by the judge on the day they are sentenced will be exactly how long they initially spend in prison. They will then have a period on licence in the community after their custodial term ends. This will ensure that their victims get the justice they deserve and the public can be protected.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

All the offences in clause 2 have a maximum life sentence, so the proposed new power to require offenders to attend sentencing hearings would apply. However, will my right hon. and learned Friend look at extending that power? It would not cover other serious crimes, including serious sexual offences such as the sexual assault of a child under 13, as happened in a case in my constituency, where the offender hid in his cell. He would not be compelled to come to sentencing under the powers we are proposing.

[Alex Chalk]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising that appalling case. It is important to note that in respect of this Bill and the provision to require offenders to serve the entirety of their sentence, clause 2 relates to section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, on causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, so that is covered.

On my hon. Friend’s separate point about attendance, we are very clear, following the cases of Lucy Letby and others, that it is a grievous affront to victims and families for defendants who have been convicted, after a fair trial, not to face the music, in simple terms. They need to be there in front of the court so that they can hear society’s condemnation expressed through the sentencing remarks of the judge, and so that the peace that has been denied their victims should be denied them as well. They need to understand that condemnation. My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about the scope of the requirement for people to attend court; it is a fair one and we should certainly discuss that.

I turn to the second aim of the Bill: to cut crime. Ultimately, that is how we protect the public. As it stands, the situation is that, too often, offenders are locked up for short periods at exorbitant cost. The experience makes them worse, and they end up committing further offences as a result. Clause 6 will introduce a presumption to suspend short sentences of 12 months or less, directing the courts to hand down a suspended sentence order instead.

The fact is that almost 80% of convicted offending every year is reoffending; much of the crime in our country is committed by someone who has had at least one brush with the law. The criminal justice system is meant to punish wrongdoing—of course it is. But, in the interests of society, it is also there to rehabilitate wrongdoers and set them on the right path so that they do not reoffend and make more victims of crime in the process.

If we want to protect the public and cut crime, the most effective thing we can do is intervene to break the cycle of offending—punish, of course, but rehabilitate too. To do that we must properly examine the evidence available to us.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon]

In recent years the Government have invested an extra £141 million in criminal legal aid, which should expedite a solution to the situation.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

13. If he will make an assessment of the impact of changes in sentencing guidelines on causing death by dangerous driving on the length of sentences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Bacon)]

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 increased the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving from 14 years to life imprisonment. In June 2023, the independent Sentencing Council published revised sentencing guidelines for motoring offences, including for causing death by dangerous driving. It is too early to assess the outcome of those changes, but we regularly publish sentencing statistics on gov.uk. The Sentencing Council also monitors all guidelines in accordance with its statutory duty.

[James Wild]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his position. It is over a year since Parliament legislated to increase the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment. However, three members of my constituent Summer Mace’s family were killed in a horrific incident, and in June the offender got only 10 and a half years. That is totally inadequate. As RoadPeace has shown, far too many sentences are too short. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss those sentencing guidelines, so that we can ensure that they reflect what Parliament actually legislated for?

[Gareth Bacon]

I was very sorry to hear of the death of Paul Carter, Lisa Carter and Jade Mace in January 2023 in a collision caused by Aurelijus Cielevicius, and the devastating consequences for their family and friends. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned hard on this issue, and I read his Adjournment debate earlier this month. Sentencing is entirely a matter for our independent courts, based on the facts of each case. In July 2023, after Cielevicius was sentenced, the revised Sentencing Council guidelines for causing death by dangerous driving came into force, following the increase of the maximum penalty introduced by the PCSC Act 2022. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further, should that be helpful.

Prisons

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I very much share that concern. It is all very well for people to say that they are in favour of making these removals, but their actions have to follow their words. I am afraid that, all too often, that is not what we have seen from Opposition Members, as my hon. Friend rightly points out.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I think the Minister said that offenders sentenced to over a year would be considered for deportation. Is it the case that there is a duty to remove those offenders and that that would also apply to anyone with EU settled status convicted for over a year—they would be returned to their home country and barred from coming back to the UK?

[Damian Hinds]

Of course, the rules are as per the broader immigration rules and people’s citizenship rights. What we need to make sure is that, at the earliest opportunity, we are making that move and deporting those eligible foreign national offenders to their home country. We estimate that this change will add around 300 foreign national offenders to the early removal scheme’s eligible caseload at any one time. In addition to that scheme, as I mentioned, we have prisoner transfer agreements, including our new agreement with Albania, which came into force in May last year. We are looking to negotiate further such agreements.

We are a Government who are unashamedly tough on crime. By removing more foreign national offenders earlier in their sentence, we will be saving the taxpayer money, banishing criminals from our shores, and ensuring we have sufficient prison places to keep the worst offenders locked up for longer.

Powers of Attorney Bill

James Wild Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on getting it to this stage and on securing cross-party and, importantly, Government support for it. I look forward to supporting its passage today. Although this Bill may not have attracted the same level of attention and celebrity endorsement as the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, which I was pleased to support, it is none the less important. It makes provision on lasting powers of attorney and proof of instruments creating powers of attorney.

A lasting power of attorney is a vital legal tool that helps people to plan for their future. It lets the donor choose another person—the attorney—to support them and make decisions on their behalf if they lose the mental capacity to make them for themselves. That might be because of an illness such as dementia, for example, or a terrible accident. The Law Society says:

“LPAs are arguably one of the most important legal documents a person will make, because they delegate such wide-reaching powers over their life.”

For a friend, a relative, a partner or a solicitor, that is an incredible and immense responsibility to take on.

LPAs were introduced in 2007, through the Mental Capacity Act 2005, to balance the need to improve safeguards for the donor with the need to make it easier to secure an LPA. The 2005 Act also created the Office of the Public Guardian, which, as we have heard, is responsible for registering LPAs and taking action where there are concerns about an attorney. LPAs were introduced more than 15 years ago and, given the progress of technology and our move away from paper-based record-keeping, the case for change is clear. With LPAs, MCAs and OPGs, we are not short of TLAs—three-letter acronyms—today.

I am pleased that the Bill will bring much-needed modernisation to the process of making and registering lasting powers of attorney, making it easier for individuals to obtain certified copies of powers of attorney. It will create for customers a simpler and faster system that is more resilient to disruption. The modernisation will be made possible by enabling changes to the process to make and register an LPA, by introducing the requirement to verify identity as part of applying to register an LPA, and by streamlining how people can object to registrations. The Bill will also enable different processes and evidence to be accepted depending on whether registration for an LPA is made digitally, on paper, or with a mix of the two. I am pleased that my hon. Friend set out so clearly that the paper-based option will be retained. That is something that Age UK in particular has raised, and it will benefit my North West Norfolk constituents.

The Bill will mean that people find it simpler to create their LPA while, importantly, being protected—through regulations that are enabled by the Bill—from abuse of the powers that are offered. The public will also be better protected from fraud, and the OPG will be able to run a more streamlined process that delivers better value for its fee payers. The fee is currently a relatively modest £82, which is noteworthy given the level of responsibility involved. Overall, the measures will allow more individuals to retain control of their lives by planning for the future.

In 2001, the Ministry of Justice ran a consultation setting out the case for change in the light of the number of LPAs since their introduction. In 2014, for example, just over 390,000 LPAs were sent to the OPG for registration. By 2019, that number had more than doubled to just under 920,000. Increasingly, people expect to be able to access Government services online. It is striking that in 2019, the OPG received 19 million sheets of paper in the form of hard-copy LPAs, and posted out a similar amount. That is not a sustainable or sensible practice to continue.

LPAs are particularly useful for people with dementia. Statistics from the Alzheimer’s Society show that about 900,000 people live with dementia in the UK, and that figure is expected to rise to 1.6 million by 2040. Figures from Norfolk County Council show that in 2019, about 11,000 people with a dementia diagnosis were registered at practices in Norfolk and Waveney. By 2030, that figure is expected to double. Indeed, in King’s Lynn and west Norfolk, dementia prevalence is expected to increase by nearly 24% between 2019 and 2030. The Bill will help to ensure that the process for registering LPAs keeps pace with that expected increase in dementia, while we also, importantly, put medical funding into research to help to treat that condition.

I welcome the digitisation of the process, which will bring many benefits to improve access and speed of service, but we must ensure that there are robust and well-thought-through safeguards. Poor decision making by an attorney could mean the loss of all of someone’s assets or someone being put into a care home, or it could have other serious consequences. The balance between ease of use and protection has to be properly struck, but I am pleased to support the Bill to help to deliver much-needed improvements to the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It is an honour to speak on this Bill, brought forward and championed so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), who spoke very cogently on the subject.

I am incredibly glad that this Bill has had full support from the Government during its passage through Parliament. After all, it is a wholly sensible Bill and will bring lasting powers of attorney into the 21st century. In fact, it builds on some sensible recommendations that the Office of the Public Guardian and the Ministry of Justice identified in their recent work on modernising LPAs.

I recently heard from a constituent of mine, Tim, who works as a volunteer for the Paperweight Trust, a charity that provides free services to those needing guidance on legal, financial and welfare issues. Tim is an expert on this subject, so I was interested to hear his observation that the Office of the Public Guardian is taking much longer to process LPAs. Based on his experience, he told me that, for many people, the complexity and accessibility are a constant worry when it comes to this kind of documentation.

Therefore, I want to make some observations. First, how will this Bill seek to address the problems that Tim has highlighted, and will it make a difference? The Bill will deliver two important changes to legislation around powers of attorney and add to the work in the report led by the Ministry of Justice. It will reform the process of making and registering a lasting power of attorney to make it safer, easier, and more sustainable. It will bolster safeguards and explicitly permit a third party to object to the registration of a lasting power of attorney, a very important protection. Moreover, it will modernise the process of filling in a lasting power of attorney, a move that—in my view—is very long overdue.

Secondly, it will widen the group of people who can provide certified copies of powers of attorney to include chartered legal executives. From my point of view, that is most welcome, and works to correct a historic omission: it will mean that chartered legal executives can certify alongside solicitors, which I hope will mean that we can speed up the process, because there will be more professionals involved in it. I say to my hon. Friend who is taking the Bill through Parliament, the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, that these reforms are most welcome. Of course, digitalisation offers the opportunity to create a more efficient service for creating powers of attorney; however, that process needs to put protecting older and vulnerable individuals at its heart. To that end, I emphasise the need for any digital system to place a premium on accessibility. I hope that we will hear from the Minister on that point.

[James Wild]

So far in this debate, we have all talked about how we are going to be moving to a far more digital system. Unfortunately, the record of the public sector—and in fairness, equally, the private sector—in delivering IT systems has not always been as stellar as we might want. Having been on the Public Accounts Committee for two years, I can certainly attest to that being the case. Does my hon. Friend join me in looking forward to the Minister explaining in his comments where we are in the process of developing this digital system, which, according to the explanatory notes, will only cost £3 million? That is a relatively small figure, so I hope that it is all on track, but does my hon. Friend agree that that is very important?

[Nickie Aiken]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight those issues regarding the digitalisation of the whole process. We all know that Governments, no matter their political persuasion, do not always have the greatest record in improving digitalisation of this kind, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that point. As we all know, he is an able Minister, so I am sure that he is already ahead of the game and knows exactly what he is doing to improve the speed of that digitalisation while keeping it within budget.

The premium on accessibility will be absolutely key for people who are not too familiar with the internet; given that 25% of over-65s do not use the internet, that is a point that we have to make, though as we get older, we are more used to using the internet. A woman who is in her 50s, like I am, is very used to using the internet now. [Hon. Members: “Never!”] I thank my hon. Friends for their kind comments. Likewise, any approach to a multi-channel system needs to work just as efficiently as the digital option.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

I agree 100%. We know the progress of conditions such as Alzheimer’s and dementia can be slow or rapid, so it is important that we make the process as quick as possible to give the person at the heart of the decision making the reassurance that their family will do everything in their best interest. It also gives the family the reassurance that they have the power to make sure their loved one is as comfortable as possible in their last years.

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend is being generous in taking interventions. Conversations about lasting power of attorney are very important, but does she agrees it is also important that more people talk about writing a will so that their financial affairs are in good order? It is on my to-do list every year, and I will do it very soon, but I have not got around to it. I encourage others to do as I say and not as I do.

[Nickie Aiken]

I absolutely agree. We never know what fate has in store for us, and I urge my hon. Friend to put writing his will and arranging a lasting power of attorney at the top of his list, and I promise that I will do the same. I urge everyone in this country to discuss with those closest to them whether they should arrange a lasting power of attorney for each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Baynes]

I thank my hon. Friend for an excellent intervention, as always. She makes an extremely important point. Many constituents come to me in Clwyd South, as I am sure they come to other hon. Members, to ask for assistance in accessing such services. I agree that maintaining a paper route alongside a digital route is extremely important.

I do think, however, that the covid pandemic has changed how people embrace interactions with organisations and public services. That is reflected in user feedback that the paper-based process is cumbersome, bureaucratic and complex. I have to say that in the brief two months that I was a Minister I had a lot of interactions with the Office of the Public Guardian, and there are big backlogs in the granting of powers of attorney and lasting powers of attorney. I am sure that the Minister is addressing those backlogs with great efficiency and vigour, but I certainly think that the cumbersome, bureaucratic and complex nature of the process is a real issue. If the Bill can bring greater efficiency to the dispatch of business, it will make a big difference.

[James Wild]

From his experience with the Office of the Public Guardian, does my hon. Friend know whether its senior managers have bonuses and performance measures that are linked to delivering the target of a 20-week processing time? That target is so important to so many people, particularly those who are in a vulnerable situation.

[Simon Baynes]

I think it is for the Minister to comment on that point, and I would not wish to tread upon his territory. However, from what I saw when I held the position, I am sure that the OPG is chasing the backlog with the greatest efficiency it can muster. One problem, which goes to the heart of the Bill, is that when people work from home, as they did at the OPG during covid, a paper-based system creates huge delay and problems. People can work on a digital system on their laptop at home, whereas with a paper-based system they really need to be in the office. The delay is perfectly fair and understandable in the light of the covid pandemic, which had a particularly acute effect in this case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow for the second time today my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes). As warm-up acts go, it really is quite unfair to follow somebody so articulate and so well-considered twice and try to look good by comparison.

I wish to pay tribute to, and thank, my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for introducing this Bill. I have had the pleasure of participating in the Science and Technology Committee and various other endeavours with him. I know that he takes very seriously any endeavour in which he participates, and this has all the hallmarks of his usual excellent work.

The Bill is pragmatic—it is pragmatism at its finest—as it addresses the key issues and gaps in the current LPA application process through a combination of good sense and innovative technology. I was struck by the fact that the Bill passed its Committee stage on St David’s day and it is having its Third Reading on St Patrick’s day—happy St Patrick’s day, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that its next stage will be closer to St George’s day than it is to St Andrew’s day, because we cannot wait for this much longer.

The measures in the Bill will help to reduce administrative burdens and minimise the likelihood of application errors which, as we have heard, can be tortuous and drag the process out for far too long. Most importantly, they will ease the burdens on applicants and their loved ones who find themselves in these unfortunate circumstances. As we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and for Clwyd South, sometimes these situations can move extremely quickly. When someone is going through a complex and tortuous process, the emotional burden can make it too much to complete the process, leading to the very worst of outcomes.

The Law Society considers these to be some of the most important legal documents that people will ever sign. To that end, I welcome the provision to allow chartered legal executives to perform certification. That will provide more choice and will be much more affordable for people. One of the perversities of the process is that sometimes people feel that they have to commission a solicitor to go through the process and that can be expensive. Someone on a modest income may have financial assets to protect, such as a house, and the wellbeing of a loved one to consider, but may not have the disposable income to get a solicitor. It is wrong that some people may be effectively priced out of the system, and the Bill will go a long way to removing some of the barriers that people have to accessing it.

A case in which that happened came across my desk not long ago. A constituent wrote to me about his experience of a delayed LPA process. During the height of the covid-19 backlog in 2021, I was contacted by a man who had been waiting for more than five months for a decision on his LPA application for his 91-year-old mother who was suffering from dementia. Weary of the process and the delays, my constituent hired a solicitor to complete the application. He had been assured that it was filed correctly. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) flagged a similar case. My constituent waited months for the application decision while his mother’s mental health deteriorated and she was no longer able to manage her finances or health-related arrangements. It then turned out that an error had been made in the process by the solicitor, the forms had all been returned and the process had been in abeyance. My hon. Friend mentioned that he had encountered a similar situation when undertaking this process for a loved one, and he is himself legally qualified. That is how mystifying the process can be. I too have a legal background and have taken a cursory look at what the process involves: it scares the living whatsits out of me. As my constituent’s mother’s dementia became more severe, she had no concept of the value of money or how to pay bills, and was acutely vulnerable to cold callers and scammers, but there were no protections in place for her.

My constituent and his mother are not the only ones dealing with the delays. I am acutely aware that people up and down the country are waiting for certainty. We have all had the conversation—people put off the decision, as they do in making a will, because they do not like to think about their own mortality. They are always waiting for the next time. When my dad was diagnosed with cancer, fairly late, none of these things had been done because everybody thinks that they will live for ever and will get around to it tomorrow. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), “Get that will sorted asap!”

[James Wild]

I am happy to confirm that I will have a conversation with a solicitor to draw up that will next Friday.

[Chris Clarkson]

Being a good friend of his wife, I am sure she will be very pleased and putting roller skates at the top of the stairs after that date—[Laughter.]

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made the interesting point that in some circumstances people do not recognise or accept Scottish lasting powers of attorney. As he probably knows, I got my legal education at Dundee, which is one of the few universities that dual-qualifies its students, so I have a particular interest in ensuring that the two jurisdictions work as closely together as they can. The reality is that most people, when relying on a legal instrument, do not really care whether it is a solicitor in Glasgow or Manchester; they just want to know that their loved one will be looked after. Similarly, people move across the border and have family on both sides. I would welcome a conversation with the hon. Gentleman outside this debate about how we can streamline the process to ensure that this place and the devolved Administrations have some sort of framework to allow it to work properly. I appreciate that there is a legislative consent motion for the Bill.

Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Bill

James Wild Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 3rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I join in congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) and for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), and all those involved in bringing forward this important piece of legislation. I look forward to it completing its passage today.

I am pleased to support the Bill, and the Government’s work in tackling reoffending rates, which have decreased over the last decade. The kernel of the Bill is to avoid the release of an offender on a Friday or the day preceding a bank holiday, by bringing their release date forward by one or two working days. Currently, the Criminal Justice Act 1961 provides that offenders who would otherwise be released on weekends, bank holidays or public holidays, are to be released the preceding day. That is meant to ensure that offenders can access services and accommodation on their day of release. As we have heard with stark examples, in reality, getting that timely support on a Friday is simply not practical due to early closing hours and the number of prisoners who are released.

The status quo is clearly self-defeating, as failure to access services can increase the risk of reoffending, which is something that we all want to reduce. We have heard about the importance of access to accommodation, which, in turn, is vital in helping people to access employment and training to support their rehabilitation. I am pleased that the Bill delivers on a key Government commitment in the prisons White Paper from 2021. The White Paper also set out how the Government want to rehabilitate criminals and reduce offending through work and training.

In particular, I support the partnerships that the Government are requiring prisons to have with businesses, to help train people and offer jobs on release. Prisons in the east of England have partnered with well-known businesses, such as Lotus and Bernard Matthews, as well as the manufacturing and construction sectors, to do precisely that. We know how important that is; offenders who get a job after coming out of prison are less likely to reoffend, but only 17% manage to get a job within a year of release. We need to put a lot more effort into increasing that number. I also welcome the Government’s progress on subsistence payments. In 2021, following a 26-year freeze, the Government increased the amount that is given to people on release for immediate essentials; that was increased in line with inflation last year, although it is still only £82.39.

We should recognise that the Bill involves people being released earlier than they would otherwise from their prison sentences. Our constituents are rightly concerned to see people serve the sentence they have been given, which is why I was pleased to support Government legislation to ensure that people serving the longest for the most serious offences serve more of their sentence. Clearly, on balance, there is a clear benefit to our constituents in releasing people a day or two earlier, although we need to have robust policy guidance and eligibility criteria to ensure public protection. I warmly welcome the Bill and look forward to it completing its passage.

Community Payback

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I am already an avid follower of the Twitter feed of the Minister for Crime and Policing, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), so I have already seen his regular payback of the day posts, which I highly recommend, showing the tree planting, the painting and decorating, the restoring of parks and the other schemes that are happening. Anyone can nominate a local project, and I am encouraging my constituents to make sure that they do so.

Like others who have spoken in this debate, I was surprised when I saw the motion on the Order Paper, as there are already plans to deliver 8 million hours of payback—2 million more than happen now. Perhaps Labour Members were also surprised, given the poor attendance for their own debate. Where are the Liberal Democrats? Do they have nothing to say on crime? There is no one here from that party.

Increasing the hours is important, because community payback does what it says on the tin. It is about offenders making amends in the area where they committed their crimes, doing something positive for communities that they can see. To deliver that increase, and other efforts to reduce offending, the probation service has launched a campaign to recruit trainee probation officers in Norfolk, which I hope will be successful. As others have said, it is a rewarding career to help people turn their lives around.

Another element of the Government’s community sentence scheme that I support is electronic monitoring or tagging. Last week, the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, looked at that programme. Across the country today, 15,000 people are tagged, including those subject to community orders and offenders released under licence from prison. In due course, the Committee will report on the programme and some problems with the IT system, but I was struck by the impact of tagging on alcohol monitoring. Among community-based offenders and offenders on licence with an alcohol abstinence requirement, there was an overall sobriety rate of 97.2% and 95.6% respectively. There is a big prize here, given that alcohol-related crime costs society £21 billion a year and plays a part in nearly 40% of violent crime. Reducing it must be a priority and tagging has an important role to play. Based on the success of the programme to date, it is being expanded, with up to 12,000 offenders due to be tagged over the next three years.

Part of the extra £183 million to be invested in tagging by 2025 will go into a technology innovation fund. I welcome the fact that that will include focusing on what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing has referred to as the holy grail—an effective tag to monitor for drug use. Tags are also used in domestic abuse-related cases to better protect victims and their families. By adopting new technology, there is the potential to protect the public and deliver better value for money.

Payback and tagging are part of the Government’s focus on standing up for victims; recruiting more police, with over 200 additional officers already recruited in Norfolk; and ensuring offenders face tough penalties while getting support to reduce reoffending. In contrast, the Labour Party voted against tougher sentences for the worst crimes, voted against increased police funding, and voted against giving the police powers they need to protect the public. The first job of any Government is to keep people safe, and this Conservative Government are committed to cutting crime and reforming the justice system so that it serves the law-abiding, decent majority.

Approved Premises (Substance Testing) Bill

James Wild Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 21st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rob Butler]

That is exactly the point I raised earlier when I mentioned the key being rehabilitation. I will come on to talk a little about exactly what will happen if somebody fails a drug test once the Bill is implemented, should it end up passing today and making it through the other place.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend says he will come on to the consequences for people failing a test. However, what if someone refuses to take a test? What actions could happen in that circumstance?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) on successfully bringing the Bill forward to this stage. I welcome the fact that it is concise and precise legislation. Indeed, it is probably short enough for the former right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Kenneth Clarke), who did not have time to read the Maastricht treaty, to skim.

The Bill is about public safety in approved premises—hostels in communities—that provide temporary accommodation for people who have been released from prison but are considered to present the highest risk to the community, so that they can get additional residential supervision, rehabilitation and support. As has been said, such premises also support people on bail as well as high-risk offenders serving community sentences.

I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury that, regrettably, the number of deaths among approved premises residents has increased in recent years, with much of that driven by the scourge of drugs. With more than 2,000 bed spaces, it is important for there to be a comprehensive drugs strategy for the approved premises estate.

Aside from being illegal and damaging for individuals’ health, taking drugs also undermines rehabilitation efforts, which may therefore lead to more offending. My North West Norfolk constituents want action to be taken to deal with that. I welcome the Bill and the proposals to put in place a comprehensive framework for testing. Importantly, it is consistent with the one that operates in prisons.

It is a sad fact that the Bill has needed to ensure that a much wider range of drugs is included, so it covers prescription drugs, medicines and psychoactive substance. I welcome the fact that by including prevalence testing, and putting it on a firmer statutory footing, we will be able to track emerging trends so that they are identified and to react more quickly to changes in drugs use.

I know from debates on Second Reading and in Committee, and from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury earlier today, that the critical issue of the consequences of failing a drugs test has been considered. In the first instance, it is important that the staff talk to the individual, point them to substance misuse organisations and make a plan to help them to stop taking drugs. He may have some current data on how successful those efforts are after failed drugs tests, but ultimately, if they are unsuccessful, there should rightly be consequences, as he said, with police involvement or recall to prison if they have breached licence conditions.

Once again, I turn eagerly to the commencement clause. The Act will come into force only when regulations are laid, rather than on the day on which it passes. I am sure that the Minister will assure me that those regulations are well developed and will be brought forward rapidly once the Bill is on the statute book.

It is a modestly sized Bill, but drug use is a major problem that drives crime in our communities, whether that is theft to fund a habit or violence or other criminal behaviour when people are off their heads on Spice or other substances. It will help to deliver our commitment to the people who put us here to make their streets and communities safer, so I am pleased to support it today.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

James Wild Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 2
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Bill delivers on our manifesto commitments to tackle crime. Let me start with protection for those on the frontline. The new police covenant will bring increased focus to the issues of physical protection, help and support for the families of officers. I know from my time in the Ministry of Defence the galvanising effect that the reporting duty in the Bill will have, just as the duty introduced for the armed forces covenant had.

There has been an unacceptable increase in assaults on emergency workers. In Norfolk alone, 659 police officers were assaulted last year. Doubling the sentence for such attacks will better reflect the risk that the police, firefighters, paramedics, prison workers and others face.

Protecting young people is an important part of the Bill. I support including faith leaders and sports coaches in the provisions relating to sexual activity and positions of trust. Extending the offence of arranging a child sex crime will close a gap in criminal law. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the role that Facebook played in providing information that was crucial to securing a 25-year sentence for a serial paedophile in my constituency. However, with the National Crime Agency and senior police officers warning that Facebook’s plans for encryption risk serious child abuse offenders going undetected, I urge Facebook to rethink.

If we are to increase confidence in the justice system, it is important that sentencing reflects the severity of crimes, and I welcome minimum terms for repeat offences, including burglary, drug and knife crimes, unless exceptional circumstances apply. Very serious violent and sexual offenders should rightly serve longer sentences.

There has been much focus on the clauses relating to public order, and rightly so; the right to protest is an essential part of our democracy. I share concerns about the policing in Clapham, and I welcome the independent review. However, the powers in the Bill are not about that; nor are they about the temporary covid restrictions. They are there to deal with deliberate tactics that have led to disproportionate disruption. Some call the blocking of ambulances, closing of bridges and people gluing themselves to trains legitimate protest. My view is that those actions undermine the careful balance between the rights of protesters and the rights of people to go about their daily lives. I recognise that there are concerns, and those provisions will be considered further in Committee.

Finally, there is strong concern about dog theft in North West Norfolk, as elsewhere. Pets are part of our families, and the emotional hurt that the loss of a pet can cause is immense. I hope that during the passage of the Bill, the Government will bring forward measures to increase penalties for that crime.

Tonight, I will back these measures in the Bill, and others to support rehabilitation and more effective community sentences to tackle serious violence. Anyone who votes against this Bill is voting against measures to make our streets safer.