Child Trust Funds

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Child Trust Fund access for people seeking to manage the finances of others.

It is a pleasure to use this debate to highlight the ongoing issue of disabled young people’s access to their child trust funds and to recognise the good will of the Minister and his Department, but to demand changes that would solve issues for the courts, CTF providers and, above all, the disabled young people and their families. We have the means to secure easy access to funds that rightfully belong to those young people—funds that could prove invaluable but which are being denied to them by a lack of information and processes that may be well-meaning in intent, but are Kafkaesque and off-putting in delivery.

It is a pleasure to move the debate under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I am delighted to see the Minister in the Chamber, as I know he is focused on the issue, as well as other hon. Members who have taken a real interest in getting a resolution on the issue.

I would like to pay tribute to my constituent Andrew Turner. Back in September 2020, Andrew found that his disabled son, Mikey, was locked out of his child trust fund. He simply wanted to buy an adapted bike with Mikey’s money, and Mikey’s life-limiting condition meant that time was of the essence. The child trust fund was Mikey’s only financial asset. That should have been the start of a simple process in which a loving parent who looks after his disabled son can use that child’s own funds to enhance the wellbeing of the child. Instead, Mr Turner found that he and thousands of others were required to go to court when the account matured. Such is the complexity that Mr Turner was independently advised that it would be easier and cheaper for him—I hate to say this—to wait until Mikey died, when a simpler process existed to reclaim the money. He was naturally deeply upset. He was also determined to do something about it, not just for Mikey, but others in the same predicament.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman. As I said to him before the debate, I want to give the Northern Ireland perspective. In Northern Ireland, the responsibility for the management of the child trust fund account for a child when there is no person with parental responsibility is transferred to the Share Foundation, which deals with inquiries until the child turns 18. Does he agree it would be a good idea if the responsibility went to relatives in the extended family, such as grandparents, to ensure that they can provide guidance within a familial setting in relation to finances? That would be a simple way of doing it—letting the grandparents or the extended family look after things.

[Sir Jeremy Quin]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will touch on the circumstances in Northern Ireland, but the fundamental point that unites many people in the Chamber is the desire to get easy access for parents to ensure they do not go through a court process, incurring fees, going through bureaucracy and requiring the support of GPs and social workers, to access what in many cases is an average of about £2,000. It is just too much bureaucracy and work when it is rightfully the asset of their child.

I know many people in the Chamber, not just the hon. Gentleman, take a close interest in the matter and have far more personal experience than me, as parents of children with disabilities. They know that parents of children with disabilities have so much to do. Often that involves struggling to get what is rightfully theirs from Government. That is one area in which Mr Turner felt that progress could be made. The good news is he found a groundswell of support from parents and charities. I would like to thank in particular Contact for its support and Renaissance Legal for its tireless campaigning. There is support from child trust fund providers and, indeed, from the Minister, and yet four years on, we are still nowhere near where we need to be.

I would like to set out the scale of the problem. I will set out what I recognise the Government have attempted to do to mitigate the problem and, lastly, what I believe they should do to go further and largely to resolve it for most families with disabled children. Let us be clear: it is not a new issue. It is very apparent and has been well rehearsed—not only as a result of my constituent’s brilliant campaigning. The Public Accounts Committee looked into the issue last year as part of its analysis of child trust funds. The PAC highlighted a wider problem with CTFs as a whole, but it drew particular attention to access for young people lacking the mental capacity to manage their own savings.

In these circumstances, a family or carer must gain legal authority to access funds that belong to the young person involved. To do so requires an application for a deputyship order to the Court of Protection in England and Wales. For England and Wales, the Ministry of Justice estimates that between 63,000 and 126,000 young people may not have the mental capacity to access and manage their matured CTF when they reach 18. All CTFs will mature between 2020 and 2029. Tens of thousands of young people will therefore be subjected to a prohibitively lengthy, costly and complex process simply to access what is rightfully theirs.

In relation to stand-alone CTF applications, there were just 70 court applications between September 2020 and May 2023, compared with about 27,000 accounts maturing over the same period. The Department, in its Treasury minute responding to the PAC, broadened the scope of applications to include not just stand-alone CTF applications but other assets. However, even on that basis, the number of applications for 16 to 21-year-olds between September 2022 and March 2023 was still only 312. Whichever statistic one chooses to cite, thousands of people are missing out on what is rightfully theirs, because we are not informing them of their rights, and if we do, the process is too complex and too costly for all but a few.

I know that the Minister is a decent man. He put aside time to meet Mr Turner and me on this issue, and I know that he has instructed the Department to engage. I know that he is keen to make it simpler for families and he has ensured that changes have been made. I acknowledge that the MOJ last year moved some of the application online, waiving the fees and creating a toolkit for parents. That is to be welcomed, and I believe it was introduced with excellent intent. However, the process still involves completing 12 forms, including the duplication of a number of forms, and 93 pages. This includes requiring time-pressured GPs or social workers to complete a 21-page mental capacity assessment, which not all are prepared to do. With all the pressures on the families of disabled young people and the associated cost of becoming a deputy, is it surprising that they do not prioritise accessing what are, on average, funds of about £2,000? However, that is £2,000 that could and should be used to the benefit of the disabled child.

I know that the Minister and his team wish to help further, and there is a means to do so readily at hand, already in use and absolutely capable of being advertised and delivered on. It could help to deliver tens of millions of pounds—actuarial analysis suggests up to £73 million—into the hands of those who desperately need it. I thank the chief executives of two child trust funds, OneFamily and Foresters UK, for talking me through their proactive approach, which puts their customers first. Those two funds account for more than half of all CTFs. Very commendably, those providers recognise the problem and are applying a common-sense and pragmatic approach to its resolution. That is in effect using the Department for Work and Pensions appointee scheme—a tried and tested system to enable families to manage their child’s benefit income. It provides adequate protection and is the obvious solution to unlock the savings of disabled young people.

Let us be clear: this is no free-for-all. The providers require evidence that the parent or guardian is a DWP appointee; they require identity checks and confirmation of the child’s capacity. This process is available only in relation to funds under £5,000, and complex cases may still have to go through the courts. However, it has enabled the providers to meet the needs of hundreds of disabled children. There is a problem. Despite following a DWP process, and despite the knowledge that were a DWP appointee to be acting fraudulently there would be far more at stake than a modest child trust fund, this sensible route is frustratingly not officially sanctioned. The financial institutions are commendably going on risk to allow access to the funds. They know that there are far more affected families out there, but as responsible, regulated entities, they do not believe they can advertise their willingness to help in this pragmatic way, which combines existing safeguards with swift access.

Those two leading institutions and others with a similar proactive mindset assist 900 families a year—a significant multiple of the number aided through the court route—but thousands still need support. I therefore have three requests for the Minister that would help to resolve this issue. Will he engage with the DWP to extend the appointee scheme and officially include savings held in CTFs? Will he engage with the finance industry to formalise what is already a successful industry process, and in doing so enable it to advertise that route so that families can take advantage of a simple scheme? Lastly, will he help families to secure basic information about their CTF provider if the account has been lost?

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for his superb speech. He has approached this debate in an extremely constructive fashion, with a common-sense, straightforward solution to the problem. We do not need to reinvent the wheel; we just need to apply common sense. Child trust funds are a wonderful advantage to many young people, but the most vulnerable are missing out. My right hon. Friend has outlined a way in which the Government can address the biggest part of this problem.

[Sir Jeremy Quin]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings me, brilliantly, to my conclusion. I agree with him. Movement on those three issues will prevent thousands of unnecessary court applications, and reduce bureaucracy and cost for the parents of disabled youngsters. Above all, it would put to work funds that could make a real difference to young people who could really do with a little extra help.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin) for securing this debate. I agree with everything he said. I hope there can be cross-party agreement today that we need to move forward at long last.

I also pay tribute to Andrew Turner and his family—particularly his son, Mikey—for the work they have done, but I am sure Mr Turner will agree that others have played a big role, including lawyers such as Philip Warford, journalists such as Jessie Hewitson, and Martin Lewis. Financial service companies have shown leadership, and Contact, other charities and families, many of whom are here, have campaigned. Their voices have come together, and I hope that the Ministry of Justice will listen.

I should declare an interest: I have a 16-year-old son, John, who has an undiagnosed neurological problem that means he cannot really walk by himself or talk, and has serious learning disabilities. He will never be able to manage his own personal affairs, let alone financial affairs. Although my wife and I, and many wonderful professionals, work to give him as much independence as possible, there is no way, when he reaches the age of 18, that he will be able to get the money from his child trust fund. I declare an interest, but I hope I have an insight into the issues that families face and the problems they have as carers. Just looking after their children on a day-to-day basis can be quite enough, without having to worry about lots of bureaucratic forms and having to go to the court of protection.

I have been involved in this debate for some time. I met Mr Turner in 2020, and I asked a question at Prime Minister’s questions on 21 October 2020. The then Prime Minister said:

“I will do whatever I can to help”—[Official Report, 21 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 1058.]

He made that promise nearly four years ago, and we are still here. Hopefully we can do a bit better today.

After that, I met the right hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who was then doing the current Minister’s job but is now Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice. I think I met him three times, and we discussed all the options. We have seen the work that has been done—the waivers, the so-called simplification of the forms, the digitisation—in an attempt to make this work. Sometimes, particularly when the Ministry of Justice proposed a consultation on the small payments scheme, I supported it. I did not think it was the best solution, but I was trying to be constructive, so I went along with it to try to make it work.

However, I am afraid that all the efforts have failed, demonstratively, by the statistics that the right hon. Member for Horsham and many others have shown. To date, the Ministry of Justice has utterly failed to solve the problem, so we need action. We cannot wait much longer. The number of young people and their families, and the amount of money, will just build up over time. The problem will not go away, unless one Minister—I am sure it will be the Minister present today—actually grasps it properly.

I set out initially believing that the DWP appointee scheme was the right one. Families are aware of it, and it has worked in Government and for much larger funds. The amount of money that a loved one gets through their disability living allowance or personal independence payment far outweighs the average amount from a child trust fund, but apparently it is not possible to use that scheme because of the difference between flows of money from DWP and savings and capital. For the life of me, I have never quite understood that distinction, but perhaps there is something in it. I will come on to what I think is behind the Ministry of Justice’s objections.

In the spirit of being constructive, two solutions seem to be on the table. One is the proposal for a new, one-off order solution, which the right hon. Member for Horsham talked about. A family would still have to fill in a form, but it would be a one-pager. They would still have to go the Court of Protection, but it would be a very simple process. I think it has been well thought through by campaigners, and different fund managers have been involved. I believe that Mr Turner wrote to the Ministry of Justice before Christmas. Unfortunately, he received an email from an official in December 2023, which stated that

“we are not able to consider any proposals for an alternative process for accessing CTFs at this time.”

That is not good enough, Minister. People are working hard to come forward with practical solutions within the remit of the Ministry of Justice, and officials are not even willing to see people who are trying to be constructive.

I think that the one-off order solution would work. The Minister might not be able to answer today, but I would like to ask him: would it require a change to primary or secondary legislation to get that solution working, or would the registrar of the Court of Protection simply have to change the administrative rules? It is probably as simple as that, and it would suddenly unlock the problem both for child trust funds and junior ISAs. That is one solution, which the MOJ would be in control of.

The right hon. Member for Horsham touched on another solution: working through the financial service companies, which have shown huge flexibility and taken risk upon themselves. That would not be an MOJ responsibility; I think the MOJ would have to talk to the Treasury. I think the Government have landed this problem in the lap of the MOJ and said, “You sort it out.” If the Minister went to the Chancellor or another Treasury Minister and said, “Look, we want you to say this, and we are happy for you to say it,” all the Treasury Minister would have to say is, “We are relaxed about fund managers of child trust funds or junior ISAs taking that approach, taking the risk upon themselves if anyone objects, and marketing, giving information and promoting the idea that people with DWP appointee status can use the funds and transact them on behalf of their loved one.” That would be what we might call a market solution, but from my insight into how government works, that would require the MOJ to give the green light to the Treasury to make that statement.

Those are two simple, zero-cost solutions to allow vulnerable people to get their own money. After four years of trying, I urge the Minister to wake up and smell the coffee. Why might the MOJ object? I will put myself in his shoes and the shoes of the officials to work out what on earth is going on. The first issue might be the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the Court of Protection and their underlying principles. When officials and Departments have jurisdiction over an Act of Parliament, they can get jealous about how it has worked and not want to see any change. I get that—we have been there. However, democratically elected politicians must challenge the principle behind the Act, to test whether it has been taken too far, because in law there are other principles that apply, including proportionality and reasonableness. Surely those principles apply here. We are talking about small amounts of money for very vulnerable people whose parents and carers ain’t got the time to go to court. They may phone up one person and ask, “Can you help me?” but if the financial service company or the court says, “Well, it is a bit complicated,” they just give up, because their young person is in pain, needs medical help and needs to go to the hospital. That is the reality of their lives.

[Sir Jeremy Quin]

First, on the specific point of proportionality, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the financial providers are talking about sums below £5,000, and the average child trust fund here is about £2,000? Secondly, tens of thousands of pounds would to through the DWP appointee scheme, which means that in comparison the child trust fund is a tiny amount of money. On the grounds of proportionality, the right hon. Gentleman is making an extremely good case.

[Ed Davey]

I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He might be interested to know that, while I am not an expert, I am told that principle 5 of the 2005 Act talks about the least restrictive option to achieve the best interests of the vulnerable adult. Can the MCA apply itself to itself, please?

I wonder whether there is another reason why the Ministry of Justice is sticking to the principle despite all the evidence and pressure. Perhaps it wants to get more people to go to the Court of Protection so that the judges there can help with the deputyships of those vulnerable adults as they turn 18. One can have a discussion about whether more families should ultimately go to the Court of Protection. However, when one reads the guidelines of the Court of Protection, it is clear that it rightly sees itself as a court of last resort for a family dispute about money or, more likely, for how a person should be cared for, who should be caring for them and where they should live.

Sometimes, if there is a dispute in the family, the court is necessary and the Court of Protection is brilliant at that. Sometimes, a vulnerable adult may have no loved one or family member, and then the Court of Protection rightly fills that vacuum. However, if families can come to an agreement among themselves, more often than not that will be better than having to go to the Court of Protection. We should make the Court of Protection available to more people. We could advertise and market it—people may want to think about that in due course.

My wife and I are old parents; my son is 16 and I am 58, so I am quite an old dad. I worry about when my wife and I die. My son does not have a degenerative condition, and he is going to live for quite a few years. Of course, we are thinking in due course of going to the Court of Protection or getting a family member such as his sister or one of his cousins to be there for him. The Court of Protection, as I say, has good reason to be there. No one is against it, but it should be used when it is needed.

Perhaps the Ministry of Justice thinks that it has no court backlogs and loads of judges who are just sitting there twiddling their thumbs, so we should give them more business. Come on! Please take the pressures off the system by adopting something simple. I do not like saying this, but there may be a reason why people in the judiciary and legal profession are keen to force people to go to the Court of Protection even when it is disproportionate. Perhaps it is vested interests. I really hope that that is not what we are dealing with, because it is not acceptable.

We are talking about people who are vulnerable, and parents and carers who are stretched to their limits. We are talking about small amounts of money. I urge the Minister to listen to us, and to go back to his Department and the Secretary of State and say that the officials and some of the judiciary from the Court of Protection need to be overruled on this. We need to act proportionately. We need to act in the best interests of thousands of young people who should have access to their own money.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeremy Quin]

I am grateful for the Minister’s candour. We have heard what he has to say. Like the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), I am keen to work with the Minister, and I know that he has put changes in train to improve the situation. I was pleased to hear what he said about mailing, and we will certainly work with him to see how it can be improved. I know that his intent is absolutely genuine and that he has genuine worries about ensuring that any scheme is safe for all, but this is about proportionality. There is a concern that thousands of young people may miss out because of the Minister’s genuine concern about what could be a very small number indeed.

I come back to the point about the DWP appointee scheme. If fraud is at work, which is always a risk when the Government are distributing or giving access to money in any form, there are far bigger fish to fry than the child trust fund. Trying to avoid that tiny risk prevents access for many thousands of people. We should be able to find a more effective yet secure way through. I urge him to keep reviewing the issue.

I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he will talk to the DWP about the process. I understand his point about primary legislation, but ultimately if primary legislation is required to ensure that we can right a wrong and get fairness, I am sure that it would not be a controversial bit of legislation—and what on earth are we here for? I look forward to ongoing discussions with the Minister and to finding a solution that works for all these disabled young people and their families.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Child Trust Fund access for people seeking to manage the finances of others.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

1. What steps the Government is taking to improve offenders’ access to education and employment.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

3. What steps the Government is taking to improve offenders’ access to education and employment.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

Reoffending costs society around £15 billion a year. We must support people’s rehabilitation through education and employment opportunities, both when serving their sentence and after. We launched the education and employment strategy in May, and our reforms will empower governors to commission bespoke, innovative education provision that meets the needs of their prisoners and links to employment opportunities on release. Our reforms will also engage and persuade employers to take on ex-prisoners via the New Futures Network. We have consulted governors and employers on proposals to increase the use of release on temporary licence to enhance employment opportunities.

[Jeremy Quin]

May I press the Secretary of State on the release on temporary licence scheme? What are the measures of success? How useful has it been in getting prisoners out of prison and into full-time employment on an ongoing basis?

[Mr Gauke]

It is useful, but I want us to do more of it. The education and employment strategy seeks to expand the use of workplace release on temporary licence— ROTL—to get prisoners who have earned it and who have been properly risk assessed out of their cells and into real workplaces. That will enable prisoners to build trust and prove themselves with an employer. If people do ROTL, they are more likely to be employed, and if they are employed, they are less likely to reoffend.

Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 6th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Maggie Throup]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. The absence today of Scottish National party Members is notable and might suggest they are not as concerned as we are about the security of our prison officers and of prisoners who want to be rehabilitated.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

I would not want my hon. Friend inadvertently to besmirch the reputation of some of our hon. Members: there are Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament here; I have seen them today.

[Maggie Throup]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was looking across the Chamber at the SNP Benches, not behind me; I know that we have representation from the devolved nation of Scotland here today.

In summary, this is a well-considered Bill that will improve the security of our prisons for both prisoners and prison staff. It will also strike a blow to serious and organised crime by dramatically reducing the amount of illicit contact between prisoners and the outside world. I again commend my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes for the way in which she has navigated the Bill to this stage and I am pleased to offer it my full support today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak) who, with his knowledge and campaigning on the fourth industrial revolution, brings much expertise on modern technology to the debate, as he demonstrated in his remarks.

It is also a pleasure to speak on Third Reading, having spoken on Second Reading and been on the Committee. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) on bringing the Bill this far, and I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Ms McVey) who initiated the Bill. I am pleased that since I rose to speak I have not had another phone launch a fightback, as one did on Second Reading. Those of us in the Chamber suddenly discovered what the “Find My iPhone” noise sounded like, as it bleeped away on the Back Benches, interrupting our proceedings. Mobile phones can, however, be a great tool and a useful asset in modern life. Unfortunately, they are no longer just phones. They can be the equivalent of a desktop computer, a communications device, store large amounts of information, process documents, and no longer even need a mobile network to work as in many cases they can operate via a wi-fi system. Even a fairly weak signal will allow phones to function fully, given apps such as WhatsApp. They can also make encrypted communications to a high standard, which can make it much more difficult for traditional methods of interception to deal with them. The Bill is, therefore, very timely.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), who is sadly no longer in his place, highlighted that in 2016, the latest year for which figures are available, 13,000 mobile phones were confiscated. The problem will only continue to escalate, not least given the way technology can be used to make devices smaller, to deliver easier access and the potential fusion between people’s bodies and technology that can now be achieved in a way that would have been unimaginable only 10 or 15 years ago. It is right that we are looking to update the legislation.

The Bill is not about prison governors having to play whack-a-mole trying to find a phone that has just popped up and getting it blocked. It is about blocking off networks that are operating, and taking advantage of the technology to ensure a zone in which phones just do not operate. If that is possible technologically, there should be a legal power to enable it, which is what the Bill will do. That is why it is vital we give the Bill its Third Reading today.

For Members who are regulars on a Friday, I do not plan to go to my usual lengths of detailed analysis. [Hon. Members: “More.”] I can hear their disappointment. It is strange to hear it from my hon. Friends—it is usually Opposition Members who demand more during my speeches—but today is not the day to set a two-hour record.

Today is about being clear about the target of the Bill. It will be interesting to hear how the Minister expects to work with the mobile phone networks to implement the Bill, and how he expects to work with those who provide other wireless communications systems that may be near prisons. For example, it would be no good knocking off mobile phone network signals only to discover someone has busily set up a wi-fi network covering the jail.

Phones can now fully operate via wi-fi, including for voice calls. Many of us have used the WhatsApp call feature, which is as simple as making a phone call. It will be interesting to hear about the work that will be done around jails, not just with the big mobile phone networks but to ensure that we knock out any potential wi-fi coverage, not least when a standard home hub can cover 100 metres, which shows the potential, and all the more so with mobile wi-fi technology.

This is a very welcome Bill, and it needs to happen. The law must try to keep pace with technology. Phones are advertised as able to beat body orifice scanners, which shows the lengths people are going to, and finding phones in prison will only become more challenging. This Bill is an appropriate fix and a proportionate move. Bluntly, there is no need for a person in prison to have a mobile phone to contact their family. There are legitimate ways of doing that via postal communications or the telephones that are provided.

[Jeremy Quin]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kevin Foster]

I will not give way, because I am just about to take my seat. I am conscious of the time and I know that others wish to speak.

There are ways for people in prison to communicate and to keep in contact, but we must also remember that prisons are about protecting the public and ensuring that people cannot run a crime network from behind bars. That is why I support the Bill, and I will be pleased to see it get its Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Courts]

I could not agree more. When the iPad was first introduced it was described as being a large iPhone that cannot make calls. We are almost now dealing with the reverse of that: a computer that just happens to make calls. Increasingly, that is a by-product that is not needed, because people might communicate by text message or WhatsApp—people can do absolutely everything. I recall thinking years ago, as basic phones started to include things such as photos and syncing with computers, that it would not be very long before that small device replaced everything else—we are well on the way to that now.

[Jeremy Quin]

My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak) alluded to the fact that people can use phones to take videos and smuggle them out of the prison system over the airwaves. That is dangerous to the discipline inside prisons. It makes it difficult for governors. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) share my concern on that facet, in particular?

[Robert Courts]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point and I entirely share his concern on discipline. I was about to mention photographs and a point that brings the one he made into sharp relief. When we first had phones with cameras on, the photographs were grainy and did not really show anything; they were not helpful as photographs. We now have extraordinary camera abilities with high-definition video. When those things are able to be operated from within a prison, people could photograph or video a prison officer and then harass them by sending that to someone who is outside. The prisoner could show exactly who that prison officer is, in order to humiliate them or blackmail them. That is a very serious problem.

It is also a serious problem that people can record something that is taking place in a prison. Another example of the obvious need for the Bill is that a prisoner can ring a contact on the outside and arrange for the delivery of drugs or other contraband, but this goes far, far beyond that. These extraordinary small devices provide the ability to run an entire business operation and those inside prisons have the ability to carry out an entire criminal operation. That has serious corrosive effects on the ability of prison officers to maintain discipline and to protect the public, as hon. Members have suggested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Courts]

Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. He has great expertise from his background at the Centre for Social Justice and is well placed to comment on that. I could not agree more. It is critical that prisoners are able to remain in contact with their family members and loved ones, and not just through calls. It is not simply a matter of providing telephony services. We need only look at the statistics: as I understand it, people are 39% less likely to reoffend if they maintain regular contact with their family members. The reoffending rate is around 50% within a year, so it is clear that we must address that, however we look at the criminal justice system.

[Jeremy Quin]

Given my hon. Friend’s work at the criminal Bar prior to entering this place, he has a lot of experience of this issue. In response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), he referred to the need for regular prison visits so that prisoners can see their families in a physical context, and I totally agree with all that, but as much as we would all like to see it there are many cases in which that becomes incredibly difficult to achieve, including because of the geography—where prisons are. Therefore, properly handled telephone connectivity is incredibly important. I may refer to this if I catch Madam Deputy Speaker’s eye and am given a chance to speak, but the costs, which can be up to half the prisoner’s wage for a 10-minute call to a mobile phone, are prohibitive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) said, that needs to be addressed.

[Robert Courts]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The cost of calls in prisons is certainly being addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes mentioned that, and I have no doubt that the Minister will, too, in due course, because the Government have undertaken that work.

I have raised all these points because we must distinguish between the need for communication, which we must have, and the having of mobile phones, which is not terribly helpful. Communication is required partly because we must reduce the reoffending rate—although I do not want to sound managerial—but also simply from the point of view of humanity. Yes, prisons are a punishment, but they must be humane. Say somebody has committed a crime that means they have to go to prison, but they are a single mother and there are children involved. Anybody who has represented someone who has that double heartbreak will realise that there must be a way to make sure, although we accept that they have to go to prison because they have to atone for what they have done, that families maintain contact with each other. A mother who is in prison should be able to make contact with her children outside, lest the children start to follow down the same road, which causes me great concern. We must improve the access to telephony which is permitted—I know that the Minister will talk to that in due course as well as prison visits.

I wish to make one or two more points before I resume my seat. A concern has been raised about co-opting private companies to assist the state. An Act of Parliament will be enacted. The Secretary of State will be making the regulations. It is important to remember that, as that provides the reassurance. The reason it is helpful that the technological burden is pushed to the providers rather than sitting with the prison governors is that it means that they are actively involved. That will help with the technological increases that we know will come in the years ahead, which means that we will not always be playing catch-up as technology advances.

My final point is about the understandable concern of residents who live near prisons that their service may be affected. If the companies that provide the services are involved, they will be involved in providing any solutions to any unintentional disruption in the much needed communication service for those who live outside.

I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the time to speak. I welcome this Bill and I look forward to its further progress.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are a couple of problems that I associate with the 2017 general election, one of which is the loss of the Prisons and Courts Bill. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) has taken up the opportunity for this valuable Bill, which plugs part of the gap that losing that Bill has presented. She is exactly the right person to do so not only because of the calm and collected way in which she has presented and promoted this Bill, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), but because she has the privilege of hosting in her constituency the Sussex county jail. I do not wish to reopen old wounds between her constituents and mine, but the county jail moved from Lewes to Horsham in 1540 and there was a long-running, 305-year campaign by the people of Lewes to have it returned. They finally succeeded in 1845. For those of us who worry that our campaigns take rather a long time to prosper, they need look only to the doughty efforts of the constituents of my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend proposes a simple and sensible move. Like her, I was shocked when I discovered that 23,000 mobile phones had been found in prisons in 2017. Those are just the ones that were discovered and apprehended. I, too, was looking for measures that could stop that flow of mobile phones into prisons. Indeed, I have used the opportunity of Justice questions to press my hon. Friend the Minister on the use of anti-drone technology around prisons. An excellent company in Horsham can bring down drones safely and prevent the use of drones to deliver drugs and mobile phones into prisons. The Minister was kind enough to meet me and pointed out that a combination of this excellent Bill and nets would be an equally effective way of stopping the problem, albeit less efficacious for the company in my constituency. I have not lost heart, though, on the Ministry of Defence, which will find its products very useful.

This Bill will, I hope and believe, reduce the abuse of mobile phones in jails. Jails are there to serve a purpose. At least part of that is to divorce criminal gangs from their leadership, to disrupt criminal gangs, to separate those individuals from society and to loosen the bonds of the criminal networks.

I am not going to discuss, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) did, “The Italian Job” or “The Man in the Iron Mask”. I am not naive. I do accept that, even prior to mobile telephony, there were still means by which criminal gangs were able to communicate through prison walls. However, we owe it to our constituents to ensure that, just as we use every form of modern technology to apprehend criminals, we also use that technology to ensure that they are cut off from their gangs and their networks when they are serving time. That view, I think, has widespread support across this House—judging by the intervention of the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), I am sure of it—and we need to do all we can to crack down on that illicit use of phones.

But this is not only about deliberate, illicit use for criminal purposes—it is also about those who are desperate to get hold of a mobile phone for entirely legitimate reasons and find themselves prey to gangs inside jails. Our hearts go out to people who, for whatever reason they are in jail, are desperate to keep in contact with their families on the outside. They then become prey to the criminal activity inside the prison by not only supporting the efforts of those smuggling phones into jails but supporting the wider use of those smuggling networks for drugs and other assets. Another aspect of this Bill is that it should help to prevent those individuals from being abused by other criminals when they are at their most vulnerable, behind bars.

Two big concerns have been raised about the Bill. They have been given an airing already, but it is vital that they are properly addressed. First, this is about not only reducing the supply of phones but reducing the demand for them. The Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Reform Trust—respected organisations—have both been very clear about the need to reduce the demand for illicit telephones by ensuring that other means of telephonic communication are available to prisoners. I slightly take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on one point, where I tried to intervene on him. It is really important, as I am sure he agrees, that we ensure that prisoners can have access to telephone calls. There are limited times in which those calls can be made.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, the cost of a 10-minute call to a mobile phone can be up to half a prisoner’s weekly wage, and a 10-minute call to a landline can be a quarter of their wage. They have to make certain that they can get to the phone, with multiple prisoners trying to do the same thing, and they are out of their cells for only a short period during the day. There may be problems at the other end; their families may not be available to take the call. Access is incredibly important.

[Kevin Foster]

I completely agree that there is a need for families to have access and for prisoners to be able to keep key relationships, but there is a difference between the completely unregulated communications that a mobile phone—effectively a computer—can provide and the much more specific ones that a family telephone service can provide.

[Jeremy Quin]

I thank my hon. Friend. I must have misinterpreted his earlier remarks.

Secondly, I understood from my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), when he was the Minister on the previous Bill, that a huge amount of work is being done by the Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) referred to the benefits that HMP Wayland has received from the roll-out of improved modern telephone services. Perhaps the Minister will pick up on that. I have been reassured by what the promoter of the Bill has said. I also understood that the Department, at that stage, was intending to re-tender the national telephony contracts. I hope that as a result of that re-tendering process the cost of calls for prisoners has been reduced.

My hon. Friend the Member for Witney and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate, who has three prisons in his constituency, raised the issue of constituents around the prison being certain that their telephone signals are not interfered with. I heard words of reassurance on that from the promoter of the Bill, and perhaps the Minister could touch on it as well. I would want reassurance that Ofcom and the mobile phone operators are being consulted to ensure that there are not adverse consequences for those living around prisons.

Having expressed those two concerns, which I am sure will be addressed, I look forward to this Bill continuing to make progress through its remaining stages.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

I thank all Members who have spoken today, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) for promoting this important Bill. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Ms McVey) who introduced the Bill in its original version, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) who brought forward the 2012 version.

This has been an astonishing tour d’horizon, and powerful speeches by an extraordinary number of hon. and right hon. Members have touched on fundamental issues concerning the purpose of prison. Members have mentioned the rehabilitative aspects of prison, as well as incapacitation, retribution and deterrence, but we must begin by thinking about the device of a mobile phone itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) powerfully pointed out, this device is not simply a telephone, and when considering this Bill we must consider its relationship to prison in general.

Prison is designed to isolate somebody from the public, and in contemporary society prison is effectively a punishment of segregation or isolation which includes the breaking of communication. The difference between being in a prison cell, as intended by the prison’s administration, and being in a cell with this device in one’s hand, is absolute. In a cell, someone without such a device can expect to be controlled by the regime in terms of access to media and communications. With a device in their hand, however, their entire life becomes different—they are no longer quite a prisoner; they are someone who can begin to become an active, involved individual who can reach out well beyond the walls of their cell. Relatively rapidly in the short time available, let me talk through what that actually means and how that feels in a prison.

Having such a device effectively means that someone can set an alarm, wake up, and use a torch to communicate with the drone outside their prison cell. They can use their device to pilot the drone to their window, and having had their drugs delivered, they can sit back and go on Skype or Facebook, or make a WhatsApp video call with their partner outside prison. They can sit back, watch a movie, go on Facebook, and fall asleep. When they wake up in the morning they can use the device for their personal fitness training, or begin trading shares and make a little money.

As their morning starts, perhaps after breakfast, they can begin to use their device more actively to run their criminal gang outside the prison walls—that is the moment at which they pick up their mobile telephone to call a business rival, intimidate a witness, or organise the importation of drugs or weapons into the country. Having done that, the device then becomes a weapon within the prison itself. It allows someone to go to another prisoner and say, “You owe me £35 for the drugs that I dealt you last week”, or to calculate a 50% interest payment, or the interest payment attributed to a particular cell. The device allows someone to take a photograph of an individual and send it to their partner. If an individual will not pay, the device allows someone to feed them Spice and, as happened recently, put them in a washing machine, video them, and load an image of them going round and round on social media.

This device can also be used for research—it permits someone to get online, find out what the man sharing their cell has been convicted for, discover something about the business they used to run or the assets they might possess, and establish their address and where their partner is located. The device allows someone to undermine the prison regime, or take a photograph of their prison officer and share it with a friend outside the prison walls, so that they can follow the prison officer home. This device allows someone to research the entire family background of their prison officer, and when they have finished doing that—perhaps in the evening when they are locked up again—they can begin using the device actively to commit crime.

Someone could use their device to hack into other people’s websites, or to access the dark web and start trading weapons or slaves on line. This device might then allow them to begin going on social media. They might not wish to, but they could retweet an ISIS video on this device. They could use this device, through social media, to simultaneously organise disturbances across 30 or 40 prisons at the same time, and time when those disturbances took place. Above all, what they would be doing through their continual use of this device, going on Facebook and Twitter, is continually humiliating and offending their victims. They have been locked away as a sex offender or a violent offender, and their victim is suddenly finding that they are on Twitter or Facebook sharing their views on the world, talking to their friends and generally behaving as though they are not in prison.

That therefore brings us from the device to the purpose of the Bill. This is where the contributions by hon. and right hon. Members have been so important. The first point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), which is what we have to begin with, is that this device undermines the effective functions of a prison. It undermines the authority of the prison officers. It undermines their ability to use incentives and the earning of privileges in order to control the behaviour of a prisoner. Basically, it means that a prison is less safe and less functioning, and is unable to perform its functions.

It was clear from nearly the dozen speeches we heard today that there were four quite different concepts of prison. Roughly speaking, my hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) focused on the rehabilitative aspects of a prison. My hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) focused on the function of prison in terms of incapacitation. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) focused on the importance of retribution within prison. My hon. Friends the Members for Havant (Alan Mak) and for Dudley South (Mike Wood) focused on deterrence.

I am simplifying—the speeches touched on many different aspects of the use of a prison—but by focusing on those four quite different purposes of a prison we can bring into clear focus the different ways in which this powerful device or weapon in the hands of a prisoner can be used to undermine the purpose of a prison. If we were to focus, as my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden, for Banbury and for Cheadle do, on the question of rehabilitation, then suddenly the telephone can seem a rather attractive way of containing the prisoner’s ability to communicate with broader society.

The argument that might be made—I would not be making it—is that this device is what prevents a prisoner suddenly dropping off the edge of a cliff when they leave prison and re-enter society. A prisoner who has been locked up for 15 years without access to this device and without access to social media has very little idea of the society outside the prison walls. A prisoner who has access to this device is able to continue family contact, is able to keep up with the world, is able to educate themselves, is able to take German lessons, is able to go on Wikipedia. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury explained in her speech, there is a sense—my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden touched on this as well—that there is not a great gap between the kind of use that many prisoners are putting this device to and the kind of use that we ourselves, our families and our children are putting these devices to in everyday life.

But—this is where the speech by the hon. Member for Croydon South is so important—this device flagrantly challenges the fundamental principle of prison, which is that of incapacitation. In the example of Craig Hickinbottom, in the example of escapes being organised from prison, this device leaps over the prison walls. The prison walls no longer become a method of incapacitating a prisoner, but instead become a fluid substance through which the prisoner can continue to intimidate society, run a criminal gang and operate, in effect, as though they were not incarcerated at all.

This touches on the question raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar and for North Cornwall when they talked about the retributive function of prison. If the point of prison is to ensure that the criminal is punished for the historical crime they committed, the question is this: is it adequate retribution to allow somebody to sit in a prison cell with this device? What do we mean by that? Clearly central to the question of punishment is the question of the deprivation of liberty, which involves the deprivation of communication. In so far as we are unable to punish a prisoner in other ways, and many of the other ways in which people were traditionally punished have been removed, an individual is now sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. In other words, the idea is that the individual goes to prison and the punishment is that deprivation of liberty. However, as hon. and right hon. Members have pointed out, the possession of this device could potentially undermine the fundamental principle of that punishment by giving a prisoner a range of liberties—the ability to speak to their family at a moment’s notice, the ability to go online, the ability to stream videos and music, and the ability to continue to live the life of an active citizen from within the prison walls—which is not consistent with the judge’s intention.

That brings me to the fourth purpose of prison, emphasised by my hon. Friends the Members for Havant and for Dudley South, which is, of course, deterrence. On the surface, the issues around deterrence and incapacitation would appear to be the same issue, but they are not. The question of retribution, in particular, involves the judge accurately calibrating the punishment to fit the historical crime. The question in relation to the mobile telephone is the extent to which the deprivation of the mobile telephone is in proportion to the exact crime that the individual has committed.

The question of deterrence is quite different. It relates to the notion of an exemplary sentence—in other words, deterrence relates not to the past and to the historical crime committed by the individual, but to the future and wider society. The question then is: does this mobile telephone and its possession represent for broader society something that would be expected by the potential criminal, and the deprivation of which would dissuade them from committing that criminal act?

Superficially, all the questions around mobile telephones seem as though they are just questions of technology, but they are not just that—they go to the fundamental purpose of prison. Again, it might superficially seem that we can just say, “Prison exists for all these things. It exists to incapacitate, deter, rehabilitate and to take retribution,” but this is not true in reality. If we look at the debates that happen within criminal justice, we are unable to resolve these fundamental issues, and the reason is that the principles, or assumptions, from which these things are derived are in conflict with each other. They can be in conflict in different ways.

It has been a great privilege to hear from so many learned Friends today—indeed, I would be delighted to take interventions from any of them—and they have managed to put their finger on deep philosophical distinctions.

[Jeremy Quin]

I would not describe myself as “learned”, either in fact or by courtesy. My hon. Friend is making a very powerful and interesting speech about the philosophy of prisons. It occurred to me, listening to him, how profoundly things have changed over the last 30 or 40 years. If we compare and contrast what an offender might have done in society 20, 30 or 40 years ago with the situation now, we see how markedly things have changed. I am thinking about people’s personal lives—their access to films, the internet and the way they conduct themselves. If we compare how people conduct their social lives now with 30 years ago, when social life was more community-based, it is clear that things have changed greatly, and that needs to be reflected in the prison sentences and jails.

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The questions around the telephone is what we expect in society as a whole and the relationship of a prison to what happens in broader society. What we see in our prisons is that in fact they ultimately mirror broader society. What was acceptable in the 19th century is not acceptable today. For example, in Pentonville prison 175 years ago solitary confinement meant total silence and the use of masks for 23 hours a day. Slopping out, which happened as recently as the 1980s—in other words, the fact that prisoners did not have lavatories in their cells—has ceased to be acceptable. Our views on whether prisoners should have showers in their cells might change in 20 or 30 years’ time.

Our views on how a mobile telephone relates to normal life will also change. Will a mobile phone begin to feel so fundamentally interwoven with our social life, our communications and the way we live in a 21st-century society that to be deprived of it will feel quite different in 20 years’ time from how it feels today, or how it might have felt 20 years ago?

Therefore, in trying to work out how to frame legislation and how to treat prisoners, we have to deal with social change at a range of different levels; we have to deal with changes in culture and society over time; and we have to deal with clashes of values between individuals that cannot be reconciled.

The interesting point raised by my learned friends who focused on the question of retribution in justice goes to the fundamental question of what we are entitled to do to an individual.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

That is a fundamental question, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend has asked it. It is, in fact, addressed both in the 2012 Act and in the schedule to the Bill. In the schedule, new subsection (4A) provides for the Secretary of State, in authorising the mobile telephone company—the mobile network operator—also to place an obligation on that operator not to interfere with the communications of individuals outside the prison walls, and to require the operator to take remedial action if any such interference should take place. That is a very good challenge.

My hon. Friends the Members for Torbay and for Witney also raised other issues, such as encryption and the potential setting up of a wi-fi network within the prison walls. That is not always easy. I assure Members that whenever we try to put wi-fi into a prison, we find that 150-year-old Victorian walls make it almost impossible to get a signal into it. On the other hand, criminals can often be extraordinarily entrepreneurial and ingenious in getting around problems that may defeat our engineers.

At the core of this, however, is not simply a question of technology. Let us return to the question of the four purposes of prison, and let us return in particular to the question of retribution. The key idea of retribution in relation to the mobile telephone is the idea that you are punishing a criminal for a crime that he committed in the past. As was suggested by a number of learned Members, that is a fundamental philosophical principle relating to the nature of the rights of that individual.

As Immanuel Kant pointed out, the individual should, as a matter of rational logic and a categorical imperative, be treated only as an end in himself, not as a means to an end. In other words, we should not be punishing individual A in order to change the behaviour of individual B. We should not even be punishing individual A in order to change the future behaviour of individual A. As Kant argues, the retributive punishment should be directed only towards the historical action of the individual, and should relate only to that historical crime. Kant is therefore arguing that neither deterrence, which is punishing individual A in order to affect the behaviour of individual B, nor rehabilitation, which is punishing individual A in order to affect the future behaviour of individual A, is a valid form of punishment.

Those Members who advanced utilitarian arguments were making a completely different set of points. Their arguments were, in fact, arguments about society more broadly. They were suggesting that what matters is not the historical action committed by the individual, but society as a whole, and the future consequences. They might well argue that what matters is not what the individual did in the past—that has happened, and there is no point in crying over spilt milk—but how we change society in the future. How do we ensure, through the punishment that we inflict on this individual, that this individual does not go on and reoffend? How do we ensure, through the punishment that we inflict on this individual, that others are deterred from committing a crime?

In that fundamental clash between a Kantian deontological world view focused on the rights of the individual and the dignity of the individual, and a consequentialist or utilitarian argument in which the individual may suffer for the greater happiness of the greater number, we have something that cannot be resolved in this Chamber, because such fundamental values and principles are beyond the ability of this Chamber to resolve. All we can try to do—through the media, through civil society, through Parliament, through legislation—is listen to these types of debate, understand them and articulate them, but we can never fully resolve them. That is why this legislation needs to be able to contain a powerful and enormous element of flexibility. As technology changes and this device—this mobile telephone that I am now holding up—becomes more powerful, as the ways in which 4G or 5G technology emerge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Alan Mak) points out, and as social attitudes towards punishment, crime and indeed social attitudes towards mobile telephones change, we need legislation that can keep up with that change. A day may come when some elements of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, where she emphasised the centrality and normalcy of this phone in our everyday family lives and especially in the lives of our children, may begin to predominate over the kinds of argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South.

[Jeremy Quin]

It has been said that one does hear Kant in the Chamber occasionally, but rarely so eruditely expressed; it is wonderful to hear the Minister’s philosophical discussion. He talked about the centrality of mobile phones; the centrality a lot of us were concerned about was the direct use of the mobile phone to direct criminal networks and criminal gangs on the other side of prison walls. On the strict practicalities of the use of mobile phones, will the Minister reassure me that this Bill will help prevent that very real problem?

[Rory Stewart]

Yes; in essence the point about the mobile telephone is that we need to understand it not as a telephone. It is of course a communications device and as such, particularly in telephonic communication, it can be used to control criminal gangs, but we must also take on board its full use, and understand that it is also a recording device, a way of accessing the internet, and a wallet in which money is contained and through which money can be transferred, and that it therefore can be used to intimidate people—to intimidate witnesses—to run criminal gangs and do all sorts of things right through to piloting a drone through a window. Once we understand that, we begin to understand that this device is a weapon, not a communications device, and what follows from that are all the things Members have raised in terms of criminality: the importing of illicit substances, the accessing of illicit entertainment, the making of illicit money, the running of illicit gangs, the extortion of money, the undermining of a prison regime, the committing of crime, its use for terrorism and for promoting disturbances, and create victims through social media.

All of which brings me finally back to the legislation itself. On the surface, this Bill seems very straightforward, and in fact of course, as Members have pointed out, the core of this legislation sits at proposed new subsection (2A) to the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2012:

“The Secretary of State may authorise a public communications provider to interfere with wireless telegraphy.”

The key point here is that it is addressed to the public communications provider rather than, as is the case in the 2012 legislation, to the governor of a prison or the director of a private prison.

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, clearly there is an issue. It is entirely appropriate that different police forces should have autonomous powers to be able to take these issues in the direction that they want. Different police forces face different challenges at particular times, then there is the issue of resources as well.

It is absolutely true that this is a growing issue. One problem is that, because police officers may sort of have got used to this behaviour, other emergency workers are now being treated in exactly the same way. Let me read one case from the east midlands last November:

“A man spat at a newly recruited police woman 24 times while under arrest in the back of an ambulance. The handcuffed man laughs as he spits at the officer who warned him he was being recorded on her body camera. He repeatedly targets her face as he sat on the bed next to a paramedic. The police woman was in her first year on the job when she became a victim of the vile attack.”

I think that every single one of us wants to send out an absolutely clear, unambiguous message from this House—I know that the hon. Member for Shipley does not like sending out messages, but sometimes declaratory legislation has an effect as well—that spitting at emergency workers is not on and that the full force of the law should be used against those who do it.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman: that is exactly what we do want to send from this House today. If he will forgive me, there has to be a slight torsion if I am to get in the point that I want to make, but it does follow the point that he has just made. I had an officer in my constituency who was giving first aid to someone whom he had to arrest, and he was spat at repeatedly while doing so—similar to the circumstances faced by the person to which the hon. Gentleman referred. When the case finally got to court, it was deemed that the officer had not been acting in his capacity as a police officer when he was applying first aid—that was beyond his remit—which seems to be an extraordinary situation to be in. As courts can look at our proceedings, may I invite the hon. Gentleman, as the proposer of this Bill, to confirm for the record that, in clause 2(b), we are seeking a wide interpretation of an emergency worker acting in the exercise of their functions as such a worker, as it is ridiculous that a court could rule on such a basis.

[Chris Bryant]

To be honest, when the law behaves in such a pernickety way as to be able to provide a ludicrous—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who has some legal expertise, is laughing at the idea of lawyers being pernickety. I know that that is sort of their job, but when we end up with loopholes being abused in such a way, the law ends up looking like an ass. It is therefore incumbent on us sometimes to draw legislation as widely as possible to ensure that all such offences are caught. That has been the deliberate intention of the Bill.

Incidentally, I hope that in drafting the Bill, with the assistance of Government draftspeople and ministerial help, we have managed to land on a piece of legislation that is more effective than the parallel legislation that exists in Scotland. Scotland may, in fact, want to look at our legislation and reshape its own law to reflect this.

--- Later in debate ---

“we are human, just like everybody else, and we have a job to do. If nothing else, just remember that I have got a family that I would like to go back to.”

[Jeremy Quin]

I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend is saying about his local PCC. I have spoken about this Bill to my PCC, the excellent Katy Bourne, and I know that both she and the local police federation are keen to see it progress and be put on the statute book. Like in his area of rural Worcestershire, in my district we think of ourselves as being in a very law-abiding and civilised place, but we had 28 assaults on police officers in 2016-17. He is highlighting that this is not just an urban concern; there are concerns about the safety of emergency workers right across the UK. Obviously the Bill does not deal with the whole of the UK, but it covers England and Wales, and I very much hope that he will continue to support the Bill and that we will get it on to the statute book in due course.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. One challenge we face in this place is that sometimes those of us who represent the more rural areas are perceived as representing some sort of rural idyll, where there are no problems and no concerns. That is far from the case, and we need to make sure rural areas are covered adequately too.

I will not try your patience much longer, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to say in conclusion that it is my hope and that of many others in this House that the passage of the Bill will send a clear message to emergency service workers about how deeply they are valued, and provide some reassurance that they do not need to tolerate abuse and assault while carrying out their duties. I hope too that the Bill’s passage will send a message to the public that emergency service workers are protected by legislation and that those who are violent towards them will face the full force of the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Quin]

I realise that this is a sensitive point. I have spoken to police officers who would like to have a higher tariff in these circumstances, but what the Minister is saying has pith, because there are other people—be they council workers, social workers or clergy—who go out of their way as part of their duty to do things in our communities that put them in a vulnerable situation. We would be sending the wrong message if we were to draw too big a distinction between our valued emergency workers and other members of society who also conduct incredibly valuable tasks.

[Rory Stewart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many people who do things on behalf of the public in their daily lives are entitled to protection, but not all of them are covered by the Bill. There is a more fundamental point that relates particularly to sexual assault. We want to make it absolutely clear that what really matters in such circumstances is the brutal, undignified nature of that assault on anyone, regardless of their profession. That is why we have to get the balance right in sentencing.

This brings me to new clauses 4 to 18, which relate to assaults on prison officers. As a Justice Minister, I have strong empathy with the intention behind the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. Prison officers operate in an environment that the public are rarely allowed into. They have a dangerous and stressful job—I will touch on that a little more in my closing speech—and are entitled to a much higher degree of protection, but too often they do not receive it. We therefore think it absolutely right for them to be included among the emergency workers and for the maximum penalty for an assault on a prison officer to be increased from six months to 12 months. Beyond that, we want to do more to protect prison officers, including through the use of protective equipment and the devices they carry. We want to encourage the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to bring more prosecutions for assaults on prison officers. However, for two reasons, we do not think that this particular ingenious proposal—that someone assaulting a prison officer should have to serve twice the length of the sentence currently set out under the Criminal Justice Act 2003—represents an appropriate response.

The first reason, which is philosophical, is that if an individual has been put in prison for their original offence, they should be punished for that offence, with a subsequent offence judged and punished separately. For example, if an individual has been put in jail for 12 years for the importation of a class A drug, their punishment has been designed to fit that crime. If they then assault a prison officer, they need to be punished for assaulting a prison officer. Their initial crime of importing class A drugs should not be used to punish them for assaulting a prison officer.

The second reason, which is practical rather than philosophical, is that under the new clauses, someone who has been put in jail for 12 years would automatically get a further six years in jail if they assaulted a prison officer. However, someone who had been put in jail for six months would, under my hon. Friend’s proposals, get a further three months in jail, yet the assault that those two individuals had committed would be exactly the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Quin]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who has done so much to push this cause over the last two years. I congratulate her on that and wish her well on her return to her flat—I trust it will be in good order when she gets back.

It was also a pleasure to hear the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), on Third Reading. He speculated about whether he was important to his constituents, but he is certainly important to this place, and he has done important work today. It is a pleasure to be here to support him, as it was to support him on Second Reading back on 20 October. In replying to the debate, the hon. Gentleman regaled the House with his story of being locked in a police van for his own protection by the police, who then unaccountably forgot about him. All I can assume is that no policeman will ever be so remiss again following the work done by him, the Ministers and all the House in helping to progress the Bill on to the statute book.

I am delighted that the Bill has made so much progress. The measure is supported firmly by my local police federation and by my excellent police and crime commissioner, Katy Bourne. Earlier, I did my district an injustice when I said that there had been 28 assaults on police officers in Horsham in 2016-17—there were 21. However, even one assault is one too many and we are sending a clear message this afternoon.

My interest in this issue was sparked before the debate came to this House by a constituent—a police officer—who wrote to me. He had responded to a call from a man who had been stabbed. On locating him, he found him with stab injuries in the neck, face and head. My constituent provided life-saving first aid, and while he was administering it, he was spat at, as was his colleague. My constituent was in full uniform—it was clear that he was a police officer—and he wrote to me, saying that due to the man’s

“aggressive nature and the risk of injury he had to be handcuffed so we could…administer first aid.”

It is a disgrace that anyone has to go through that, and we are sending a message today that such behaviour is never, ever acceptable.

I thought it was iniquitous that after that assault, although the assailant could go home from hospital, my constituent had to wait for weeks for tests to be taken and results to come in. I was sorry that clause 6 had to be withdrawn, but I understand why the hon. Member for Rhondda said that that was the case. I urge the Government to do all they can with education or vaccines to ease the situation for all our emergency workers who face these circumstances, but with that one proviso, I wish the Bill Godspeed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lee]

After Easter my victims strategy will be published, as promised, and within it there will be recommendations on legislative and non-legislative measures, part of which will be the legislative underpinning of the victims code.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

11. What steps the Government are taking to stop the use of drones over prisons.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

I first pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), for his extraordinary work on drones. We have done a range of work, ranging from Operation Trenton with the police, which took place in 2016, through to the conviction of over 28 individuals for drone-related offences.

[Jeremy Quin]

What particular extra support is given to those prisons with a high incidence of drone attacks? Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss potential improvements to the relevant legislation?

[Rory Stewart]

We have established specialist teams for prisons that have particular vulnerabilities to drone attacks. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss some of the legislative issues. I also believe that there is much more we can do on basic issues such as netting and grills, as well as focusing on high technology.

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, which addresses my point. We should consider anything that can be done to speed this up.

Like colleagues across the House, I pay tribute to emergency service workers in my constituency for what they do day in, day out on behalf of our communities. I cannot fathom how anybody could think it appropriate to verbally or physically assault somebody who is doing their job and trying to help them. As Members of the House, we are incredibly privileged to be able to see the work of our emergency services at close hand. That is an opportunity that not many members of the public ever get. We get a unique bird’s eye view of what is happening in our communities.

A few months ago, I went out on a “nightsafe” operation with local police officers in Corby. It was an eye-opening experience to see at first hand what they have to put up with—the volatile situations officers can find themselves in within a split second of a call coming in, the risks they face on a daily basis in fulfilling their duties. One of the big upshots of the Bill, apart from doing the right thing, is that the debate, not just in the House but out there in the country, will ensure much greater understanding among members of the public about what is going on.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned the House of Commons Library figures, but I think they bear repeating: 24,000 assaults on police officers in 2016-17; 7,159 assaults on prison officers in 2016-17; 70,555 assaults on NHS staff in 2015-16. Those are eye-watering figures that I do not think anybody in the country would have comprehended before we started a proper debate on this issue.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the promoter of the Bill, and in pointing out the debt we owe to our emergency services. The police officers my hon. Friend spent time with on the streets of Corby will be acutely aware, as are mine in Horsham, of the pressures on our justice system. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that the Bill allows provision for offences to be prosecuted through both the magistrates courts and the Crown courts to ensure that we get swift as well as proper justice?

[Tom Pursglove]

I absolutely share that sentiment. The Bill has done a public service in itself by bringing this concerning problem to the fore: it is a national outrage that people out there in the country should be aware of, and this debate has certainly generated that awareness, which I welcome. This issue shows the House at its best. All too often people see the House in a bickering and adversarial context that they find disconcerting, unacceptable and distasteful. Our emergency service workers are the best of British and do so much for our communities. Let us make the law the very best it can be and back them to the hilt.

Prisons Policy/HMP Long Lartin

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

Absolutely: our prison officers do a very difficult and challenging job, and when they are assaulted or threatened at work, we should follow the course of the law to its full extent. To do that—[Interruption]—if the hon. Gentleman would listen—there are a number of things we need to get right, such as collecting evidence, making sure that the local police force is on hand to investigate the crime, and then getting the courts to prosecute it as they should. We are working to ensure that those procedures are followed, so that when a prison officer is assaulted in their line of work, the full force of the law is brought to bear on whoever the perpetrator is.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

Clearly, the background to this disturbance will be investigated, but can the Minister outline what the Government are doing to prevent the use of drones to bring contraband into prisons?

[Mr Gyimah]

Drones are an emerging and serious threat to our prisons, especially as they carry an increasing payload as they develop. We are working with a number of drone manufacturers to use technology to stop drones, but we are also focusing on the law enforcement aspect. Before I became the Prisons Minister, there had been only one conviction of a person flying a drone into a prison. This year alone there have been 11 convictions of people flying drones into prison. That is because we are working with the Home Office forensics team, examining drones that fail, going after the perpetrators through the forensic work we are doing and ensuring that they face the full force of the law. It has become apparent that those involved in serious and organised crime are often behind such activity, and we are sending a signal that we will go after them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lee]

The underlying principle is that people are cared for and managed in the gender with which they identify, rather than that being based solely on their legally recognised gender. As I said earlier, the guidelines came about through interaction with various independent organisations, and staff are being trained in this area. I think some perspective is required here: we have a prison system that is traditionally male-female, and we are dealing with relatively small numbers, but, yes, I am keeping an eye on this issue. In particular, with regard to recent tragic events, I am also looking individually at each case.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

2. What steps the Government are taking to improve prisoner rehabilitation.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)]

The Prison and Courts Reform Bill will for the first time set out in legislation that the reform of offenders, as well as the punishment of offenders, is a key purpose of prison. We need to make sure the whole system is focused on getting prisoners the education they need, and getting them off drugs and into jobs, so that we can reduce the £15 billion cost of reoffending.

[Jeremy Quin]

I commend my right hon. Friend for the work she is doing in making prison governors more accountable. Will she set out the standards she is laying down so that prison improvements, and indeed offender outcomes, can be properly measured?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need standards so that we can hold prison governors to account on what they are achieving. We are going to start introducing those standards from April 2017. They will include measures such as prison safety, progress made in English and maths, progress on getting offenders into employment and measuring the time out of cell in prisons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

I understand that we have received thousands of responses to that consultation, and obviously we will be analysing the results. Once we are in a position to do so, we will bring further proposals to this House.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

T9. What is the Department doing to recruit high-quality graduates to forge their career in the Prison Service?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We have launched the Unlocked programme, which is like Teach First but for prisons, to encourage the brightest and best graduates. We have had a huge response, with more than 1,000 expressions of interest within 24 hours. I look forward to them joining our fantastic Prison Service.

Sexual Offences (Pardons Etc) Bill

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the powerful speech by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and the speech by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). I spoke after the latter when we both made our maiden speeches. He made a thoughtful speech then and has done so today. Above all, I compliment the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (John Nicolson) on his excellent speech. He brought personal experience, passion and even humour to a very serious subject. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) said, he may go down in history in association with this Bill. In any event, he has gone down in the annals of this place as the person who transformed Edwina Currie—no mean feat.

Like the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, I too was born in the ’60s, although clearly I am less well preserved. In preparing for this debate, I looked for the first time at the Wolfenden report, which was published some 11 years before I was born. The circumstances it describes makes it sound like a report produced in a previous century, as do the elaborate preparations necessitated by the laws of the time to allow gay men, in secret, using pseudonyms such as “Mr White” or “The Doctor”, to present evidence. The report is damning, but also so humane that it is a wonder that it took a further 10 years for English law to be amended in 1967. I find it incredible that it was not until 1980 that the law changed in Scotland, and still later in Northern Ireland.

[Joanna Cherry]

It is a matter of regret that the law did not change in Scotland until 1981, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that for many years prior to that the Crown Office had a policy of not prosecuting these offences.

[Jeremy Quin]

I was not aware, and I am grateful to be informed. It did seem extraordinary, and am pleased to hear that that was the case, although I know that the hon. and learned Lady will think that symbolism is also very important.

That it took so long is an indictment in itself, but the laws passed in here in ’67 started a long process that continued in 2015 with the Government’s welcome removal, in the Armed Forces Act 2016, of homosexuality as a ground for discharging a member of the armed forces. Changes in legislation, I hope and believe, have not only reflected a changing mood in the British people but, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said, helped to reinforce and lead a change in mood—a profound change for the better.

By background, I am a historian, if a much less professional one than some of those who grace the Benches on both sides of this House. I would like to say that studying British history produces nothing other than a cosy Whiggite reassurance of the inevitable progress of a great nation, with improvements in economic, social and welfare provisions, a shift in sensibility, a growing liberal acceptance of our differences, and the humane adaption of the law—well, up to a point. However, no one can read social history and not be appalled by the attitudes of our forebears so often entrenched in laws passed by this House. Nowhere is historic injustice more apparent than in the attitude that in every aspect of life, the state had a role, and indeed an obligation, to legislate for personal morality—an attitude that Wolfenden had to fight to change. That had direct inhumane consequences, such as the offences under discussion this morning, as well as indirect victims, perhaps most poignantly those affected by the bastardy laws.

I was shocked by the speech of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I was shocked not only by the fact that he was once a Conservative—that was a welcome revelation—but by what he said about Neville Chamberlain, whom I had always rather admired. Neville Chamberlain was the person who came to this House in 1920 with legislation, which was challenging at the time, to reform the Bastardy Acts. The fact that he took the inhumane step of attacking his own Back Benchers for being homosexual shocks me, and it was a case of double standards.

We can wonder what our predecessors were thinking, but it is perhaps more sobering to consider what our successors might think of us. The historical events that we are discussing lead to a genuine and difficult dilemma. It is the role of this House to overturn injustice, to condemn bad laws and to lead the way against prejudice, but my fear in the past has been that to attempt to address all the wrongs would be an all-encompassing and overwhelming burden for the House. Focusing too much on redressing the problems of the old might prevent us from being a forward-looking Chamber doing what is needful to build a modern country. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Hon. Members may be disappointed by what I say next. I had hoped that for those convicted of an historical offence, although it would not heal the pain of conviction or have a practical impact on the experience of having a criminal record, the knowledge that Parliament had abolished the offences would provide some succour. Two things have persuaded me that that is insufficient, however.

The first thing that has persuaded me is the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I recognise fully that no matter how antediluvian the legislation under which an individual was convicted, a proper process is required through which the historical record should be amended. The second thing is the royal pardon granted to Alan Turing in 2013 by Her Majesty the Queen. That royal pardon was said at the time to be an exceptional case for a truly exceptional man, and no one could disagree. Here was a man who could lay claim to being one of the founders of the modern technical age, and whose actions may well have shortened the war by two years, saving many lives—I had written tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of lives, but the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire has raised the stakes considerably and I have no reason to challenge the millions to which she referred. And yet the state that Mr Turing served so well confronted him with the choice of jail or chemical castration—a choice that, as the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) pointed out, may well have led to his tragic early death.

The royal pardon—a pardon I fully endorse—gives rise to an obvious dilemma. Many hundreds of exceptional men were convicted of similar offences, as were more men who were not exceptional; they were normal, average people going about their lives. How can one be pardoned and not the rest? It is one thing to say to anyone convicted of an offence that they have been subject to grievous historical injustice but they are not alone, for they are in honoured company, but as soon as we start removing the honoured company because they are somehow special, the argument falls. It was right and proper to recognise the injustice done to Alan Turing, so it must be right and proper to recognise the injustice done to others.

I was, therefore, pleased that the manifesto on which I stood—I was going to quote it, but my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire has already done so—made it clear that the Conservative party stood full square behind the principle of seeking reform in this area. I welcome the fact that that commitment is being made real in the other place with amendments tabled in Committee to the Policing and Crime Bill by the noble Lord Sharkey. The Government support those amendments, which substantially reproduce clauses 3(2)(c) and 3(3) of the Bill we are debating by amending the 2012 Act.

I am delighted that whether or not this Bill makes it on to the statute book, we will have the benefit of belt and braces. Some good will come of this debate. I again congratulate the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire on introducing the Bill. It is generous of him to use his slot to introduce legislation that would have an impact only on England and Wales, and which would therefore be less likely to have an impact on his constituents. That speaks volumes about his commitment to and passion for the subject.

I understand that, however well-intentioned the Bill, the Government believe it suffers from technical flaws and that in particular it may lead to pardons automatically being granted to individuals who committed acts that remain illegal. I appreciate that Bill’s proposer has attempted to address those concerns in clause 1 and clause 2(4)(c), which specifically state that offences will be excluded from the provisions of the Bill in the event that they remain an offence on the date that it becomes law. The Bill also makes clear the requirement for consent.

My understanding is that the Government’s concern that offences that would automatically be pardoned under the Bill may not have passed the tests required under the 2012 disregard provisions. I appreciate that the Government have a difficult path to walk and would not wish to send the wrong message from this place; I am sure that they would not wish to impugn those seeking a pardon because of some isolated cases. I appreciate that the Sharkey amendment, which itself could be amended in this place, may be a less symbolic or glamourous way of securing the changes that I believe nearly all of us want to see, but it may be the most effective. Having said that, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire produced a possible route for addressing the Government’s concerns in Committee. I look forward to the Minister’s winding up speech.

Cremation of Infants (England)

Jeremy Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Diana Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is very helpful to know that we have his support in that regard, and we will continue to see what we can do to change the mind of Hull City Council.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

I am a Sussex MP, so, again, I am a long way away from the hon. Lady’s constituency, but I know of another case—that of baby Jordan—in which a family was treated very similarly to the way that she has described.

One of the other advantages of having a local inquiry, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) referred, is that it enables many other cases to be considered. I fear that we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg here and that, despite the wonderful work of Radio Shropshire, many other cases have not yet come to light. I suspect that local inquiries would enable a lot of other people to be helped in the way that my hon. Friend described.