Prisons and Courts Bill

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

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

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I do not have an argument with that at all. The argument for making our prisons work for the public as a whole, for the victims of crime and for prisoners is not just moral and political, but economic. We push hundreds of millions of pounds into the criminal justice and prison systems, and what do we do with that investment? We produce failure. If the prison system was a business or a factory, and if I, as the managing director of that business or factory, pushed millions and millions of pounds into the process, but the things that I produced broke or failed 65% of the time, I would get the sack or my investors would go elsewhere. That is the economic argument. It happens to be bolstered by a moral argument and a political argument that we need to do better on prisons, but I do not resile from the fact that the money that we spend on prisons is not well spent, because it does not produce a lower rate of reoffending, or teach people to read and write so that they can get jobs.

Some 95% or 98% of the 85,000 people currently in prison will come out. I have sat as a judge for 20-odd years. I have put plenty of people into prison for perfectly good reasons, but if they come out of prison still addicted to drugs, still mentally ill, still unable to read or write and still incapable of getting a job, and if they then reoffend because they have no other ambition but to do what they have always done, which is to commit crime, what I am sensibly doing with the public’s money? Not much. It seems to me that there should be a perfectly straightforward economic consensus. Forget whether I am a lily-livered liberal—[Interruption.] Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and I belong to the same political party and, although he is rather more expert than me, we both take an interest in racing.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend is making an important point, but to achieve a compromise between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), does he accept that if we were more successful at rehabilitating low-level offenders—I think that my right hon. and learned Friend is correct about that—it would leave more space for us to lock up more serious offenders for longer, thereby satisfying the public’s need for more severe sentences for very violent and serious crime?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson).

I have been disappointed to hear prison being disparaged so much in this debate, as prison is actually a pretty successful place. According to the Ministry of Justice’s own figures, the longer people spend in prison, the less likely they are to reoffend. The Ministry’s latest figures, released in November 2016, show that although 60% of those released from a sentence of less than 12 months go on to reoffend, only 37% of those who serve a sentence of between 12 months and four years, 24.7% of those who serve a sentence of four to 10 years, 15.6% of those who serve a sentence of 10 years or more, and 11.4% of those sent on an indeterminate sentence go on to reoffend after release. Prison is clearly not the problem because the longer people spend in there, the less likely they are to reoffend. Perhaps the problem is that they are not spending long enough in prison. That seems to be the lesson from those figures.

[Kit Malthouse]

I have some sympathy with part of what my hon. Friend says, but does he accept that those statistics ignore the nature of the offence? For instance, quite a lot of people are serving very long sentences for murders—crimes of passion—that they may have committed only once in their life and are unlikely to go on to commit again, whether they go to prison or not.

[Philip Davies]

The problem with that is the example of those who serve less than 12 months. If my hon. Friend looks at the figures, he will find that it is very difficult to be sent to prison for a first offence and a short sentence. People who are eventually given short prison sentences have been given community sentence after community sentence, which have not worked. The reason that these people end up in prison on a short sentence is that the courts eventually say, “We have no other option but to send you to prison because every other intervention we’ve tried has failed.” The reoffending rate for the cohort of people who end up in prison after community sentences was 100%. The fact that they have a reoffending rate of 60% when they leave prison is a greater triumph than was shown by community sentences for that cohort of people who end up in prison.

[Kit Malthouse]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I do not have time to give way to my hon. Friend again.

The Bill contains provisions to toughen up the current position on the use of mobile phones. I am sick to death of seeing pictures of smiling criminals from within prison cells, surrounded by all kinds of creature comforts and ill-gotten gains courtesy of the use of mobile phones in prison. More concerning is the use of phones to intimidate or threaten victims, or to ensure the continuation of crimes, so I welcome the steps the Government are taking to deal with that scourge.

I have some concerns about extending the use of video links in certain cases, and I am certainly not comfortable with people using video equipment in all kinds of venues that are not courts. I shall listen to the points made by those promoting such technology, but sometimes, in the interests of justice, saving a few pennies should not be the overriding factor. We need to be very careful that, in trying to protect victims, we do not affect the scales of justice and end up with a situation where it is difficult for defendants to have a fair trial. Having a fair trial should be paramount, just as it is essential to deal appropriately with those found guilty. I am not overly keen on the sound of the online conviction process, so I will be listening with interest to the types of offences it might cover. The Magistrates Association also has concerns about this, and I hope they are considered carefully.

I am concerned about the abolition of the local justice areas, which organise magistrates and their work within geographical locations. I understand that some work can be done in different areas, but there is something to be said for the argument that justice should be dispensed locally. I hope we do not end up with a situation whereby all kinds of cases are being heard randomly all over the country for no good reason.

I have a bit of concern about judicial appointments and the drive for diversity. Surely we should just be interested in recruiting the best people. It should be irrelevant whether they are men or women, black or white, Christian or Muslim, gay or straight. Who cares about any of those things? We want the best person for the job, irrespective of their gender or race. Surely that is what equality means in this day and age—not just giving somebody a job out of tokenism because they happen to tick a particular quota box. Let us stick to appointing people on merit alone, and ignore every other irrelevant factor about them.

In my brief contribution, I want to focus on what is missing from the Bill, which is more important than what is in it. I would like the whole sentence given by the courts to be served. People should certainly should not be automatically released halfway through their prison sentence, as is the case at the moment. That was a scandal when it was introduced. The Conservative party was apoplectic when the last Labour Government introduced it, but we now seem to think that it is wonderful to release people automatically halfway through their sentence, irrespective of how badly they behave in prison. I will certainly table an amendment at a later stage in the passage of the Bill to ensure that any prisoner who assaults a prison officer cannot be released automatically halfway through their prison sentence. We must have some proper punishments for assaulting prison officers. The least that prison officers deserve is that kind of support.

One reason for the breakdown of order in prisons is that prisoners know that no matter how badly they behave, they will be released halfway through their sentence. All that is given for assaults on prison officers is extra days. As I indicated in my intervention on the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who has done a great job and should be commended greatly for all her work on defending prison officers and police officers, the average number of extra days given to a prisoner for assaulting a prison officer was 20 days in 2010 and 16 days last year. That is completely and utterly unacceptable. I am sure that the Prison Officers Association would welcome the Government saying that if a prisoner assaults a prison officer, their opportunity for automatic early release halfway through their sentence will end, and that their position will be judged on whether they are safe to be released out into the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am learning to love my place in the pecking order in this building: first, because I get to hear splendid debates such as this one in their entirety, and in particular the thoughtful and moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway); and, secondly, because by my maths, I have an hour in which to speak—[Interruption.] Oh, dear; well, perhaps half an hour. I hope that Members are all sitting comfortably.

Four years as deputy mayor for policing taught me everything I needed to know about the dreary cycle of despair that our criminal justice system had become. The endless merry-go-round of the same people going through the hands of the same organisations year in, year out turned me into a “convicted” penal reformer, so I am extremely pleased to welcome the Bill.

My four years at City Hall left me broadly with two frustrations, which I will share with Members because I think that they have some bearing on the Bill. The first is that while there have been attempts at rehabilitation in the criminal justice system—presumably not as ambitious as the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor—too often the effort and money were spread far too thinly. The jam in a finite world was spread very thinly across the youth estate and the adult estate to the extent that the marginal difference that the funding or any programme might make was hardly noticeable. The research into rehabilitation programmes attempted in the criminal justice system over the past 30 years shows that not many of them have made a difference above 2% or 3%, and much of that has often been explained away by the characteristics of the people they have been dealing with. While this Bill is extremely welcome and I approve wholeheartedly of the bias towards rehabilitation in part 1, and although I know that much of the radicalism of the Lord Chancellor’s programme is in the White Paper, I urge her to think carefully about where she puts her resources.

In my view, the earlier we spend the money, the better. We get much more bang for our buck by spending money on offenders aged between 18 and 25 than, sadly, by spending on somebody over 25. The truth about crime is that generally people either grow out of it or become habituated in it. That is why the bulk of offenders tend to be under 25, hence that is where we should be spending the money. If we had endless sums, we would obviously spread the money, but we do not, so I urge the Lord Chancellor to spend it in the way I propose.

My second frustration was the paltry sentences that were often handed out for very serious crimes. Individuals in London who were convicted of quite serious non-fatal stabbings would be given four years and then would be out after 24 months. That really is a disgrace and, as we learned in London, such a sentence is certainly not a significant deterrent to the commission of those kinds of crimes. The truth is that people were being given those sentences and let out that early because of the pressure on the system and the numbers in it. Time and again I would get the message back that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service were nervous about putting cases in front of the courts because of the pressure on prisons, and often because the youth estate was struggling to take the people it should be taking, particularly given that it often had to separate individuals because of gang affiliations.

That means that we need to clear out some space. In short, my view is that we are locking up far too many of the wrong people, but not locking up the right people for long enough. Lots of clever, smart technology-based disposals are available these days for low-level offending, such as tagging and testing. We should be pushing hard and much more enthusiastically to put those measures into effect in this country so that we can clear space in our prisons, meaning that longer sentences can be served by those convicted of serious offences, particularly violent crime.

On part 2 of the Bill—the courts section—I welcome the reforms, and particularly the use of technology, because we know that there are broadly two deterrents to committing crime: first, the probability of getting caught, which is down to the skill of the police; and, secondly, the certainty and swiftness of sentencing. Criminals who are caught and then put before the courts swiftly, and who are certain in the knowledge that they will be convicted and of what their sentences will be, are much more likely to be deterred. Anything that brings about swift and certain justice is therefore to be welcomed.

Overall the Bill is heading in the right direction, but there are three areas in which I would like the Secretary of State to consider welcoming amendments from me. The first is about the probation service. I have long held the view that we will make very little progress on the rehabilitation of offenders outside prison until the police get involved. For my money, probation should be an arm of policing. Offender management in the community should be done by the police. That would be more effective, because they have personnel in those communities 24 hours a day, and they are already monitoring many of the offenders.

Such a change would also yield enormous savings. At the moment, there are double estates, double chief executives and double HR departments, and all the people—probation officers and police officers—are often sitting in the same meeting talking about the same individual. Giving the probation service to the police and letting them manage offenders in the way they are supposed to be managed would be a huge step forward. Let us consider the health service. If we separated GPs into a different department from hospitals, everyone would think we were mad, yet we put the police and the management of criminals coming out of the secure estate into different departments. Bringing probation back would be an enormous improvement. It would signal a step change in offender management on the streets that would make a huge difference, and it would also save money.

The two other amendments are of less significance, but they might help the Lord Chancellor with her budget. The first is to do with coroners courts. I do not know how she voted on this matter, but I am a proponent of assisted dying. I have supported it for a long time, and I think it is the next great liberal cause for this country. However, there is a wrinkle in the law that causes unnecessary distress to those who travel overseas for the purpose of seeking assistance to take their own life. At the moment, if the family of the deceased return from Switzerland with their ashes, there is no inquest and they can scatter them in privacy. If, however, they wish to repatriate the body of the deceased, the coroner has an obligation to open an inquest because the death is deemed to be uncertain. There might well be an autopsy, and a criminal investigation would follow, although a prosecution would not, because the Crown Prosecution Service has already given guidance that it will not pursue the prosecution of people who have travelled overseas for the purpose of assisted suicide.

An amendment to the Bill allowing coroners the same discretion as they have in this country for those kinds of deaths, if they were satisfied of the purpose for the individual travelling overseas, would allow people to bring the body back for burial in the UK. That would save the coroners courts time and money, because several hundred people have now been involved in such cases, and it would also avoid enormous distress for families who naturally want to fulfil the wishes of the deceased, but fear an inquest and prosecution, and therefore opt for cremation overseas. Such a provision would be a small adjustment to remove an inconsistency in the law relating to prosecution by the CPS and what coroners are obliged to do, and it would relieve a huge amount of distress.

The third amendment that I hope the Lord Chancellor will consider relates to charging for alcohol and drugs testing. She might be aware that, some years ago, I managed from outside this place to get alcohol abstinence orders on to the statute book. There was a huge battle in this House and the House of Lords, but in the end we beat the then Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who objected to people convicted of alcohol-related offences being compelled to be sober for three or six months. Anyway, we got this on to the statute book, but the Government would not agree to offenders being charged for their testing.

In similar schemes overseas, offenders are charged for their testing. In the US, for example, they pay $1 a test—about £1 a test—and that changes the psychology involved. It means that offenders who undergo testing of their sweat, urine or breath take more responsibility for their own sobriety. They are investing in their own freedom. By undergoing the testing, they are avoiding a prison sentence, which means that they can maintain contact with their families and keep their jobs, but they have to remain sober for three or six months. Having to invest a small amount in those tests means that, psychologically, they are taking responsibility for them, and it also means that the scheme is self-funding. Under such a system, police and crime commissioners, who have not taken up this disposal with alacrity, despite the fantastic results when it was tried in Croydon, would have the business case to do so, because it would be a source of funding for them.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the immediacy of consequences has contributed to the success of such schemes overseas? In other words, if someone fails a test, they are immediately taken back into custody.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I was at City Hall, we found that this disposal had taken off like wildfire in South Dakota—the judges loved it; it was enormously effective; recidivism rates were incredibly low; and the compliance percentage rates were up in the high 90s. This is all based on the notion that justice is swift and certain if an offender contravenes the rules of the scheme, and that offenders take responsibility for their own punishment and feel invested in it. Every time they reach for a drink, they have to decide whether they want to stay out of prison. As a result, the disposal has been enormously successful and is spreading across the entire United States. We have the power here; it just needs the small adjustment of allowing the police or courts to charge offenders a nominal amount for testing—money that they were spending on booze or drugs—which would allow them to invest in their own rehabilitation and therefore make some progress.

I welcome the Bill. It is a refreshing step in the right direction of breaking the dreadful merry-go-round with which I lived for far too long.