Prison Capacity Strategy

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I could not agree more. The Labour party is being honest with the public about the situation that we inherited. We are publishing our plan to be transparent about how we will deliver, and we will commit to doing that annually to ensure that the public are never again left in the dark about the state of our prisons.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

Since this Government introduced their early release policy, we have seen criminals who should be in jail out on the streets enjoying themselves with champagne, with one even thanking the Prime Minister personally. Instead of letting those dangerous people out of jail, it would be much better to sort out the remand backlog and the increase of 7,000 in the number of prison places taken up by people on remand. Instead, the Government are capping the number of sitting days. The Minister says that the number of sitting days is adequate. At what point will the number of prisoners in our jails waiting on remand be returned to the pre-pandemic level? What is the date by which that will be achieved?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I have outlined the actions we are taking to tackle the remand population in our prisons. We are dealing with the inheritance that we received from the previous Government. We have increased Crown court sitting days and increased sentencing powers for our magistrates courts. We will publish our plans in due course, and we are being transparent with the House. The Lord Chancellor will be in front of the Justice Committee next week, and I am sure she will be happy to answer those questions then.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

The Bill asks us to make a profound and irreversible decision on the principles of our health service and end of life care. With end of life care funded too often on a shoestring for many, the Bill takes our focus to ending life, not improving living as life draws to a close with terminal illness. I believe it poses significant risks. Our wider societal and cultural norms will be changed forever. Those who refuse to acknowledge that prospect now do so with the benefit of things as they are now. My point is that this concept changes immediately today if this Bill is passed.

The safeguards may sound rigorous on paper, but the strained state of our NHS means that many patients do not have a consistent relationship with a named doctor. We are attributed to health centres nowadays, not named doctors. Someone’s consideration of this decision could depend on which doctor they see—one who raises assisted dying as an option, versus one who refuses. That is a deeply troubling prospect. The ideation of assisted dying will become a ballot. We know our GPs have a range of views on assisted dying, so we cannot deny that who someone ends up seeing with their terminal illness might be how they end up. That could be at the doctor’s, possibly in the presence of a loved one who is under strain and in need of respite themselves, and the first suggestion is the beginning of a journey towards, yes, assisted dying. That is before we consider the forces of marketing and commercialisation, and the industry that will spring up if the Bill proceeds and is sewn into our NHS.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Frith]

No, I will not.

It is possible that we cannot imagine being the victim of coercion, or that as MPs our agency is so baked in to our experiences of living, that we cannot envisage a scenario where those who already claim to feel unseen are directed towards meeting their end sooner than it otherwise might have been. Our casework from constituents is already full of people struggling to access the rights that we have enshrined in law—access to justice, health, education support, the disaster in our special educational needs system—and of victims often of state neglect or state coercion, and the failure of safeguards that were once supported on paper and passed into law.

Disability rights groups and advocates have raised their voices, wanting us to talk about the dangers of normalising assisted dying. For many the Bill represents not a choice but a principle shift that undermines the value we place on protecting the vulnerable. It falls to us as the strongest to stand up and vote against the Bill. Passing the Bill today will not improve palliative and hospice care. My belief is that it will forfeit it. The end of life is complicated; end of life care often is not complicated enough. On reflection, my mother-in-law deserved a frank, trusted conversation about the risk of secondary illnesses and amputation that would follow with the automatic cancer treatment that she was given in her final months of life. We should expect more agility from our NHS, and while dying is the ultimate binary experience, end of life care should be more sophisticated and more personalised. Shortening those expectations with a system that endorses assisted dying would forfeit that too.

Finally, as legislators our responsibility is to protect the most vulnerable and consider all eventualities. We disagree on slippery slope arguments, but if the Bill proceeds it will be a moment of no return, and that is why I am not prepared to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

This is a humbling subject to speak about. I put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for bringing this important issue before the House.

I have witnessed at first hand the cruelty that a terminal diagnosis brings. As the son of a single mother, my grandparents were like second parents to me. Each struggled with their own incurable cancer diagnosis. At Christmas dinner in 2019, my nan, who could no longer eat and was clearly in a great deal of pain, turned to me and said she was “ready to go”. “It’s time now,” she added. That night, I reflected on how, as a society, we shy away from discussing death. We park it away and prioritise more immediate, palatable subjects, but it impacts members of our communities day in, day out— from terminal diagnoses to medical treatment and, ultimately, their final days. This really matters to me.

In my maiden speech, I pledged to campaign for people to have greater control in their final days and to afford those with terminal diagnoses the right to end their lives in dignity. This is not an argument against palliative care—some wonderful Macmillan nurses made my nan’s final months as comfortable as possible, and I absolutely agree with the many Members who have raised the issue today that we need to do more to support our palliative care sector—but good palliative care and a dignified end of life are not mutually exclusive.

Nor do I seek to control those who have strong religious beliefs. Those who believe that only God can take life have the complete freedom to wait for that moment. But that is their choice. [Interruption.] I am not taking any interventions. Many have legitimate concerns about safeguarding. Of course, the most vulnerable should not be coerced into making a decision. However, this Bill introduces specific offences for this. Indeed, combined with sign-off by two independent doctors, judicial oversight and a period of reflection, this means there would be robust mechanisms to protect the most vulnerable.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Bedford]

I am not giving way.

These details are vital, but so is our humanity. Being with my nan in the warmth of her home, as she was surrounded by her loving family after months of excruciating pain and no hope, I knew there and then that she should be able to choose her time to say goodbye to her family. Like so many others, she had had enough. An understanding and compassionate society should not stand in the way of her right to choose.

Members can see the profound impact this has had on me and my belief in the importance of end of life care and choice. It has enabled me to understand a crucial distinction at the heart of this emotive debate. This is not about shortening life; it is about shortening death.

I urge those Members who support the principle of this Bill, but who are concerned about the specifics of the safeguards, to support it on Second Reading. Further debate can be had in Committee, if hon. Members feel that changes are required. This Bill provides the choice to shorten death, which is a right that an empathetic and considerate society should afford its citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I acknowledge the importance of this debate and thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for bringing it forward. Although I will be voting against the Bill, I still think this is an important discussion to have, not least because many of my constituents believe that it is the right thing to do. Of course, there are also many who feel that it is not the right thing to do. We have shown the very best of what Parliament can do here today.

I came to my conclusion not because of some sort of zealotry or evangelism. I completely acknowledge that there are people who go through very difficult situations where they lose their normal faculties and are in immense pain. However, we need to be clear about what we are discussing today: we are talking about wholesale change to how the state deals with death. That is really important. The Bill would place people, society and the medical profession in a number of scenarios, and put at great risk some of our most vulnerable people. That is part of the reason I will vote against it today.

The slippery slope arguments are valid in terms of the risk the legislation produces. We are talking about medicalising death, placing an undue burden on our health professionals and legitimising a role for the state in the death process.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will not give way at this moment.

I have yet to be convinced that the legislation has sufficient safeguards in place. On slippery slopes, take Canada as an example: there, someone does not even have to have a terminal or fatal illness now; mental illness will be an acceptable reason for assisted suicide in 2027. Even though it did not start that way in Canada, that Pandora’s box has clearly been opened, and we risk embarking on that route today. The hon. Member for Spen Valley has said that there is almost a guarantee that this situation will not change, but she cannot guarantee that future Parliaments will not change the goalposts on this matter. The slippery slope argument is about exactly that: when we embark on this journey, that is where we may end up, as the goalposts start to move.

I am conscious of time, so I will end my comments shortly. We have had lots of conversation about the private Members’ Bills process, and the hon. Lady cannot guarantee that there will be sufficient scrutiny and safeguards. We have not had enough impact assessments or public consultation, and there has been very limited time to look at this piece of legislation. We are at serious risk of passing something that will do immense harm. I worry that in the future we will look back at this, after there has been abuse or coercion of some of the most vulnerable people, and we will come back to the House to discuss the damage that we have caused today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I would happily give way to anybody on the Opposition Benches if they would like to take up the invitation to offer an apology, but I do not think one will be forthcoming. I certainly do think that one is required given the state of the prison system that we have inherited, but it is our job to make sure that that never happens again. That is why we will be launching a review into how the current position was allowed to come to pass. The Conservative party ignored all the warnings, putting political gain ahead of the country’s best interests, and it will fall to this Government to fix it.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

The Government have rightly found prison places for those involved in the recent disorder, but they have done that by continuing their early release policy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that those guilty of manslaughter are among those able to get early release, and will she explain to the House why people guilty of manslaughter should be released early?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I think the hon. Member is guilty of wilful ignorance. He will know full well that the prison system that we inherited was on the point of collapse. The fact that some prison build that was already in course was able to be brought on line a little earlier to help us get over the crisis of the summer is testament to the people working at the frontline to make sure that those prison spaces were available, but we are still short of prison capacity. Prisons are still at over 99% capacity, and that is the legacy left by his Government. He will know that we have important exclusions to the SDS40 policy, and he will know that the offence and the sentence are both taken into account. I will not give a running commentary on exactly which sentences and which offenders are affected, but he knows what exclusions are in place.

Sentencing Bill

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

This is a formulation that is well understood by the courts. It applies, for example, in respect of possession of a firearm contrary to the Firearms Act 1968, as was. I once defended a young woman, 16 years old, who was in possession of a firearm—although, in fact, she was not. Her boyfriend, who had subjected her to coercive and controlling behaviour, had said, “You have to hold on to the gun, because I think the police will come and find me.” She had the gun in her house, but she did not touch it or do anything with it. The police came, raided her house, found the gun, and said, “There is a mandatory minimum sentence of three years.” She had never committed an offence in her life: she was of completely good character. Should the judge have sentenced her immediately to three years’ custody—it would have been at least five years if she had been 18 or over—or should he have considered that there were exceptional circumstances? In that case he found that there were, and that is the sort of case in which that might apply.

The evidence is clear. More than 50% of those who are sentenced to less than 12 months will go on to commit another offence within a year of release, and the cost to taxpayers of keeping someone in custody for that time is a staggering £47,000 per year, per prisoner. In the case of offenders who are given suspended sentences in the community—those are still custodial sentences which go on to their records as sentences of imprisonment—the reoffending rate is much lower, at about 24%. This type of community sentencing can have tough conditions attached to it, such as tagging, strict curfews—incidentally, we have extended the maximum period for which a curfew can apply to 20 hours out of 24 —and exclusion zones, which are designed to protect the public and keep offenders out of trouble. A requirement to receive treatment for addictions or mental health problems can also help offenders to address what are so often contributing factors to their offending. Critically, as this should be about punishment as well, that can also enable them to stay in work and participate in community payback, such as picking up litter, removing graffiti and otherwise repaying their debt to society.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Just before the Secretary of State takes an intervention, I wish to remind hon. and right hon. Members that if they are going to intervene on a speaker, it is polite to stay to the end of the speech—as well as to be there at the beginning. I believe that the Secretary of State was about to give way to Neil O’Brien.

[Alex Chalk]

Yes, I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Neil O’Brien]

Are we really comparing like with like here? The statistics produced by the Ministry of Justice compare the effect of community sentences on reoffending from the start of the community sentence, but the end of the prison sentence, therefore completely ignoring the effect on reoffending of the actual prison sentence itself. Surely if we want to understand the effects of short prison sentences on the community, we must take into account the actual effect on crime of the prison sentence itself.

[Alex Chalk]

I have looked very carefully at the extremely rigorous analysis that my hon. Friend has provided. Having sat down, wrapped a wet towel round my head and looked at the stats, here is the position. Somebody who completes a custodial sentence and comes out is, for that 12 months thereafter, more than 50% likely to commit an offence, but for somebody who completes a suspended sentence order and comes out, the figure is around half that for the 12 months thereafter. [Interruption.] I just want to finish the point. This is not something that is peculiar to England and Wales; as I have observed from the data. this is a pattern that is seen in Australia, the Netherlands, France and Northern Ireland. In simple terms, it is because, with the technology that we have now, there is a sword of Damocles hanging over someone’s head. If, for example, the trigger for their offending has been that they drink too much and their index offence was that they thumped someone in the queue in Gartree in Leicestershire, by putting on that alcohol tag they know that if they breach that tag by drinking—I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) who rolled out those alcohol tags—it means that they can expect to be breached and brought back before the court where they can then go to prison. It is a sharp sword of Damocles that hangs over them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

I will make a bit of progress and then I will take an intervention.

Requirement to receive treatment for addictions or mental health problems can also support and address what are so often contributing factors to offending, as I have already indicated. So, what is going wrong with some of these short sentences? One explanation is that when offenders are sent to prison for short periods, there is not enough time for our prison staff to work with them to tackle their addictions, improve their employability, manage their behaviour, and reduce their risk of reoffending. They are often more likely to meet hardened criminals keen to direct them ever further on the road to ruin.

It is important to look at the evidence through the lens of the new technology that is available to us—modern solutions that can support a modern sentencing approach, which were simply not available in our criminal justice system 10 years ago. Other nations have spotted that and we should too, which is why we are doubling the number of GPS tags available to courts to ensure that offenders comply with strict conditions imposed to curtail their liberty.

[Neil O'Brien]

My only concern about the reply my right hon. and learned Friend gave me a few moments ago is that we are no longer making a comparison with the same cohort. In a previous analysis by the Ministry of Justice, we had a like-for-like cohort and we looked at the period from the end of the prison sentence and the start of the community sentence. Will he agree to rerun that analysis with a matched cohort, this time with a like-for-like comparison beginning at the start of the prison sentence, so that we have that incapacitation effect and can have a fair comparison?

[Alex Chalk]

I am certainly happy to look at the data, but whichever way we slice it, the central message is unassailable. Essentially, those who have a sentence of imprisonment that is suspended are less likely to offend—because of the sword of Damocles effect, as I have called it—than those who serve short custodial sentences. Of course I will look at the data, and I would be grateful for my hon. Friend’s assistance in doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I shall be supporting the Bill without hesitation tonight, and I hope to do so without indulging in some of the party political knockabout that has bedevilled debate around sentencing and prisons for too long. Frankly, our political system has failed the justice system over many decades, so let us try to step back and put the Bill into context, because context is sometimes lacking in these debates.

For the first time ever, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 set down five statutory purposes of sentencing: the punishment of offenders, the reduction of crime, the reform and rehabilitation of offenders, the protection of the public and the making of reparation to victims. There will always be a balancing act between those statutory purposes, and the way in which the balance falls will vary, perfectly properly, according to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. As with all sentencing, that must ultimately be decided by our independent judiciary. It is perfectly proper that Parliament sets the legal framework within which the judiciary operate—that is a matter of public policy—but the application of those balances to an individual case will ultimately be decided by the judge or the magistrate, and we have a highly experienced Court of Appeal to put the judge right if he or she gets it wrong in a very small minority of cases. That is part of the checks and balances of our system.

It is equally clear to those of us who serve on the Justice Committee and those of us who, like the Lord Chancellor, have spent the whole of our working lives in the criminal justice system and the criminal courts of this country—both prosecuting and defending—that courts do not, and do not pretend to, sentence in a vacuum. Of course judges are aware of public opinion, so engaging in debate about sentencing policy is legitimate and justified, but we also owe it to the public to do that in a temperate, considered and evidence-based fashion. All too often, I am afraid, we get a bidding war as to who can have the toughest rhetoric around sentencing policy, but toughness has very little to do with delivering impacts on the ground. It is against that background that I think the proposals in the Bill are a sensible package.

Let us look at what the Bill does and does not achieve. The Justice Committee carried out a very detailed piece of scrutiny, and we have published a report, “Public opinion and understanding of sentencing”. In seeking to put some context into the debate around sentencing, we did not just leave it to the views of expert witnesses or our own views as politicians; we made a more extensive effort at public engagement than any Select Committee before us. For example, we commissioned a public polling exercise. Some 2,057 adults in England and Wales were asked about their knowledge of, and views on, sentencing. We also used Involve, a well-established participation charity, to facilitate a deliberate engagement exercise, and we had some 25 adults in England and Wales meet over three half-day sessions to discuss the aims and objectives of sentencing.

The public—perhaps no one can blame them—get very little information about how sentencing works and how the justice system works, so their information is very patchy. As an example, only 22% of respondents were aware that Parliament is responsible for setting the maximum sentence in law for a criminal offence. So if we are to have a proper debate about sentencing, that must be done from a properly informed basis.

We found that the public’s opinions, although sometimes having that lack of information about how sentencing works, showed a certain degree of consistency and common sense about what the objectives of it were. People certainly wanted to see the public protected. They also wanted to see justice done to the victim, and reoffending prevented. Those, again, are all parts of the balance.

It is interesting that when members of the public were asked in the abstract about sentencing, their views on sentencing were much harsher than when they were asked about the facts of an individual case. Some time ago—some Members may remember this—the Ministry of Justice had an online tool called “You be the Judge”. That consistently showed that when people were asked in the abstract what they thought a sentence should be, they would say, “Whack—go hard!” But when the facts of the case and circumstances of the offender were put to them—the very balance that the sentencer must always use—they adopted a much more nuanced approach. Once the public have the proper information, they are not simplistic in their views in the way that some politicians and some of the media like to suggest, so we owe them that proper and informed debate.

The other interesting point that arose was that the public think that prison sentences are much softer than they actually are. A majority of the people we spoke to actually thought that those sentences had got softer or lighter in recent years, whereas the evidence clearly demonstrates that exactly the reverse is true. Sentences for indictable offences have grown significantly over the last 10 to 15 years. We actually imprison more people as a percentage of those convicted of serious offences, and we imprison them for longer. That places very real pressures on our prison system. We must therefore be honest with the public about what the trade-offs are in this regard.

As the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, said when he gave evidence to our inquiry, judges are aware that public opinion has hardened in relation to offences of a sexual nature and violence. That is reflected in what the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State is proposing to do in the Bill. The public expect that those who are dangerous will get longer sentences. I have no trouble with that at all, but, equally, £47,000 a year is an expensive amount to be spending. It is money well spent on the dangerous people—as the Lord Chancellor may have once said, imprisonment is really for those we are rightly frightened of; those who are a threat to us. But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, many of the people we have in prison at the moment are there because of many failures in their lives. Those are sometimes self-inflicted, or sometimes a result of circumstances beyond their control that have led to poor mental health, illiteracy, poor education, alcohol and drug addiction, break-up in family relationships early in their lives and chaotic lives. All those things lead many of the people in prison—perhaps the majority—into prison.

That chimes with my own experience in 30 years at the Bar. I prosecuted and defended in serious criminal cases, as the Lord Chancellor has, and I have met some thoroughly evil people in my time; so, I suspect, has the Lord Chancellor—[Interruption.] I hasten to add that that is purely at the Bar and in the courts. I have also met an awful lot of people who came into that category of mixed-up people with failures in their lives. We need to be more nuanced, and in fact I think the public recognise that, when it comes to a sensible approach to sentencing.

I am a little surprised that some colleagues in the House have accused us of being a bit soft in relation to some of these matters. There is nothing soft about the Lord Chancellor’s experience. Dare I say to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and other Members that the Lord Chancellor has locked up more dangerous criminals, or had a hand in doing so, than anybody else in the House? He need take no lessons from anybody about being tough on criminals. He has done it every working day of his life and has the greater credibility for it. [Interruption.] Terrorists, murderers—you name it. He has actually done the job, rather than pontificate about it from the green leather Benches. Against that background, we ought to give credibility to the proposals.

What, then, do we need to do? It is not a question of harsher sentencing or softer sentencing. That is a sterile debate. What we really ought to be talking about is smarter sentencing. That means locking up dangerous people for as long as necessary and being honest with the public about the cost, but it also means finding better and cleverer ways to deal with those who can be rehabilitated. Not everyone can be, but the majority probably can be. Given how overcrowded our prisons are at the moment—old, Victorian and with too many people in them—it is impossible to do the rehabilitative work necessary to turn lives around. We simply cannot get the education done, and we cannot get the drug and alcohol treatment courses done sufficiently to get people clean. We cannot enable them to come out and get a job, because we simply have too many people in there at the moment. That is not serving the purpose of imprisonment very well at all.

I might make one point in passing to the Lord Chancellor. I referred to the statutory purposes of sentencing at the beginning of my speech. Interestingly, there are no statutory definitions of the purpose of prison. Perhaps we should look at that as the Bill progresses. It might concentrate the mind as to what Governments and Oppositions constructively want to do and what we want as a society from the prison system that costs us so much. We might take that forward constructively—I hope on a cross-party basis—as the Bill goes forward.

Against that background, I want to turn very briefly to the measures in the Bill. Whole-life orders have been discussed. There is a balance to be struck, but my one concern—the Lord Chancellor will know it—is what is the incentive now for a person charged with murder, who is going to get a whole-life order, to plead guilty? That is a trouble because we all know that for a victim to relive an experience in court, or for a family to have the death of their loved one relived in court, eked out over many days, is a real trauma. Therefore, the discount for a guilty plea is an important part in the justice system. It not only speeds up the trial, but above all it relieves victims and their families of a trauma. I would be concerned if we inadvertently created a reduction in the number of people pleading guilty. It is not a high number for offences of this kind compared with other types of offence, but we should bear in mind any unintended consequences.

It seems eminently sensible to extend the home detention curfew arrangements, not least because when they were brought in they related to four years’ imprisonment. Because of sentence inflation—sentences have got longer—the percentage of the prison population sentenced to imprisonment of four years or less and qualifying for early release has diminished. What we are doing, in effect, is catching up with sentence inflation by making release on home detention available, which is eminently sensible. The truth is that if people can make it work earlier, it is all the better. The sooner we can get people reintegrated into society, the easier that will be. Our reports in the past have urged that more be done to ensure that people come out of prison with a place to live and an opportunity to get work. Release on home detention will ease that transition. At the moment, there can be something of a cliff edge. People come out with their discharge grant and very little else—they are on their own. That is why periods of post-sentence release are very valuable, and this is a sensible way to do that.

Finally, let me turn to the presumption in favour of suspending sentences of less than 12 months. The first thing to say is that it is a presumption. Ultimately, it will still be for the judge or magistrate to decide. It is perfectly reasonable as a matter of public policy to say that unless there are exceptional circumstances, short sentences shall be suspended. Ultimately, though, there will be cases in which the judge will, perfectly properly, decide that that is not appropriate.

Let me give one example. References were made to cases of domestic violence; clearly that is something we can look at. A very different case that is often raised with me is that of perverting the course of justice, when someone, for example, tells a lie about who was driving a car when they got a speeding ticket—something not wholly unknown even in this place. The person who gives the lying evidence to the court about that undermines the justice system, and it has been felt that the clang of the prison gates is necessary in those circumstances. There are not many of them, but that is exactly the sort of circumstance in which the presumption would not be used, as well as the other ones that are set out. The provision in the Bill does not change that, but it does mean that generally people would not be sentenced immediately.

The other important difference, to which the Lord Chancellor referred, is that we now have far better control over people when they are on suspended sentences than we did in the old days. The use of suspended sentences has dropped off greatly: I think that now only about 4% of sentences of imprisonment are suspended; it used to be much more. Now that we have much more effective tagging, curfews and alcohol treatment orders, I think we could use them more effectively, because they are a better means of control. So I think the approach is sensible.

On the reoffending statistics, I have to say that I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) in his intervention, but when I looked at the stats it was pretty clear that they consistently show that there is a lower level, by about four percentage points at the very least, and that that applies whether the sentence is three months, six months or nine months.

[Neil O’Brien]

Just to clarify the point, the statistics that my hon. Friend cites show that for those who were given a short prison sentence, the reoffending rate after they left prison was 75.6%, compared with 71.5% for those on a suspended sentence, but for somebody who has been in prison for, say, one year, their reoffending rate over that year while they are in prison is zero, so the right comparison is between zero and 71%. If we include the effect of the prison sentence rather than ignoring it, as the Ministry of Justice’s 2019 research does, there is an astronomical difference between the reoffending rate in toto over one year for those who were given a short prison sentence versus those who were not. There is a complete misunderstanding of what the statistics show us.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am sorry to have to say that my hon. Friend is just plain wrong on that, because that assumes that there is an incapacitation effect, as is sometimes said—

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

When they are in prison, yes.

[Sir Robert Neill]

But equally, there is perfectly good evidence to suggest that there is an incapacitation effect of properly worked through and imposed sentences in the community as well, so it is not a zero incapacitation effect the other way round. Plus, there are the other damaging things that are done in prison in terms of the inability to turn lives around, and the majority of people are going to be released.

The other problem, which is not picked up in my hon. Friend’s stats—I do not criticise him for it, but it is a fact—is that short sentences are clearly demonstrated to disrupt community ties. That is important because the three things that are generally said to be best to prevent reoffending are a steady relationship, a home or roof over your head, and a job. If anyone has those and they get a short sentence of imprisonment, the likelihood is that they will lose their flat and their job, and it is much more likely that the relationship will break up, and they then come out in a worse place to avoid reoffending than they started in.

There is, then, good sense in the policy. Of course, we can always examine the stats, but there is a good public policy reason for the change, because it actually reduces reoffending, and if it reduces reoffending, that is in the public good, because fewer people reoffending means fewer victims of crime, and fewer victims of crime is in the public interest and is a sensible use of money. I say that as somebody who has never been a soft touch when it comes to these matters in my professional life. I say it in a hard-headed fashion as somebody who spent their life doing this, and I know that the Lord Chancellor has come to the same conclusion.

I urge Members to support the Bill. It strikes the right balance. These issues are always difficult and sometimes emotive, but I hope that I have demonstrated that balance on the basis of the evidence that I have picked up as Chair of the Select Committee, and I hope we can find common ground on which to take the Bill forward. We have had a very piecemeal approach to sentencing policy over the years, under Governments of all persuasions; we probably need a more holistic approach. The Bill does sensible things and I hope the House will support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

I strongly welcome many aspects of the Bill, particularly the whole-life orders. They would have completely changed the treatment of Colin Pitchfork, who is widely remembered by my constituents for the rape and murder of two children. The reforms in the Bill will ensure that such people never see daylight again, and quite rightly too.

I strongly support the measures in the Bill to toughen up on sexual offences. They are long overdue and reflect the public mood to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) referred. The reforms in the Bill build on successive waves of reform over recent years, including the very welcome move to end early release at the halfway point. There is much to welcome in the Bill, and I admire much of the work of our brilliant and learned Lord Chancellor, one of the most learned people to have occupied that role.

However, there is one aspect of the Bill with which I have a serious problem. I will, of course, vote with the Government this evening—I have always voted with the Government to date, and I hope that I never find myself doing anything other than that. The issue that I am concerned about is the presumption against sentences of a year or less. There is a pragmatic argument that I am ready to hear on this measure, which says that we must do this simply because we need the places. The argument that I cannot accept is that this can make the public safer.

Let me walk hon. Members through the logic. The Ministry of Justice has conducted a study and has matched different offenders into two cohorts. They are like-for-like: people with a similar background who have done similar things. The claim that there is 4% less offending comes from looking at those two cohorts: those who have had a sentence of less than 12 months in prison and those who have had a suspended sentence. It is claimed that there is 4% more offending from those who have had the prison sentence. However, that looks at one year from the start of the suspended sentence, but from the end of the prison sentence.

If we take an offender who has a one-year prison sentence and if, instead of looking at it from the end of that year, we look at it from the start, the comparison is with someone who cannot harm the public because they are in prison. Therefore, instead of comparing the 75.6% reoffending rate after those offenders leave jail with the 71.5% reoffending rate from the start of community sentences, we should—I heard the promise of the Lord Chancellor that he would do this analysis for us, and that is very welcome—compare that 71% reoffending rate of those on suspended sentences with the zero reoffending rate of those who are locked up for a whole year, or the much lower rate of those who are locked up for part of the year. Most normal members of the public would think, “It is very surprising that we would be safer if people who commit serious crimes are out there wandering around in the community, rather than if they were in jail.” Of course it is not intuitive because it is wrong. I am prepared to hear a pragmatic argument, but this junk analysis cannot stand. It is utterly bogus and an abuse of the statistics. It is unbelievably unacceptable.

I am ready to hear a pragmatic argument about prison places. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said, sentences of less than one year are not for trivial offences. These days, a person has to go some distance to get sent to jail. Many of those offenders, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) said, will have had many previous cautions, suspended sentences and community sentences. In a published paper on super-prolific offenders that I wrote a few years back, I laid out the staggering number of community sentences and suspended sentences. People were getting their 50th and 51st community sentences. This is soft justice, and it does not work. It is a danger to the public. Sometimes a short prison sentence is the right thing.

To rehearse what these people have done: 17% are in prison for violence against the person, 2% for sexual offences, 2% for robbery, 20% for theft, 9% for drug offences, 7% for possession of weapons and 9% for public order offences. These are really serious crimes, and the public do not think we are being too harsh; they think we are being too soft.

Let us put the saving on jail places—the one argument for this that I can accept—into context. Short sentences are absolutely not driving the upward pressure on prison places, quite the reverse. The proportion of people in jail on a tariff of one year or less has fallen from 13% in 2008 to just 6% now. It has halved, so the increasing number of people not getting short sentences has been driving down the prison population.

The estimate in the Government’s impact assessment is that this measure will save, in the central scenario, 600 prison places. Let us compare that with some of the other factors in play. Since 2019, the number of people on remand has risen by about 6,600 prison places, which is 10 or 11 times larger than the saving we are making, and that is because of delays in the courts. I hope we will look at that again.

To put it in further context, the number of foreign national offenders in our jails—foreign national offenders comprise about one in eight of all the people in our jails—has risen by about 1,200 prison places since 2019, which is twice as large as the saving we are making through this measure. In fact, the saving of 600 prison places is much smaller than the 1,900 additional places that the Ministry of Justice brilliantly created between last autumn and this summer through things like the rapid deployment cells.

If we look at it in that context, it cannot be impossible for us to find a better alternative to this measure. I understand that there are exemptions, and that those on orders will not be subject to this measure, but the problem is that many people with many previous convictions are not on an order.

By reading between the lines of the Lord Chancellor’s statement, I detect a willingness to look at this again for knife crime offences, and I hope we will have a much more wide-ranging review of the policy because, ultimately, I do not believe for one second that it can make the public safer, that it is what the public want or that there is no alternative. We have already shown that we can move quickly to increase the number of prison places.

We could look quite radically at things like jury trials to speed up our courts and the archaic practices that are causing the huge growth in remand that is driving us towards these decisions. We could look again at what we can do with rapid deployment cells to get more capacity. I am happy to look at anything, whatever it takes, but I do not believe this measure is at all desirable, even though it is part of a Bill that contains many things that are desirable.

I hope that the Lord Chancellor and the Government will look at this again and that, by Third Reading, we will have a better Bill that every Conservative Member can wholeheartedly and proudly support.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly]

Frankly, it allows our independent judiciary and magistrates, sitting throughout the country, to make decisions based on the individual circumstances of the case. I think it still allows them to impose an immediate custodial sentence in the vast majority of circumstances. I have read out the legal test, which can be applied any which way we want.

[Neil O’Brien]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong to steer our independent judiciary away from this? Many people in the judiciary complain like mad if we suggest higher sentences or greater automaticity. They say, “No, we must have judicial freedom and independence.” Should we not be giving them the same for short sentences? Also, does he agree that sometimes a short prison sentence—say, a year—can give a community great respite from an individual who often causes huge terror and misery in that community?

[James Daly]

I agree. That is why such sentences exist and have been used for the past 30, 40 or 50 years. Since the ’90s onwards, prison sentences have gone up on a steep curve, but what can we do if someone shoplifts repeatedly? This is the other fantasy about people in the grip of drug addiction who are shoplifters. There is a common sense approach: “Let’s put in place a rehabilitative order.” But they are not in any position to apply for that rehabilitative order. If we let that person out of custody, they will commit a criminal offence.

The Minister wants to wind up, so I will bring my remarks to a close. The only point I am trying to make is that, for me, the legal test that goes along with the suspension allows the courts in 99% of cases to still impose the sentence they think is appropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Although the female deaths in custody rate is lower than that of men, every single death is a tragedy that we must do everything we can to prevent; and likewise with self-harm. We have improved the support available to women in prisons. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we believe that in many cases a community sentence or community support is better and more effective than prison. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the announcement we made a few weeks ago about the health and justice plan that we are currently working on to improve health and support for everyone in prison—not just female offenders, but obviously including them.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

Recent Ministry of Justice research shows the increasing concentration of crime in the hands of a few prolific criminals, but written answers that I have received in the past few weeks suggest that too few are being jailed. Will my right hon. Friend look to review the sentencing of prolific offenders?

[Mr Gauke]

This is one of the rare occasions when I have to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend. For prolific offenders of minor crimes, it is my view that a non-custodial approach is the right one, but we need to ensure that that works effectively. That is why I have announced reforms to probation. One problem we have at the moment is that such offenders get a short custodial sentence, which only disrupts lives but does not allow any opportunity to do any work on rehabilitation.

Bailiffs: Regulatory Reform

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) on securing this important debate; she spoke incredibly well. She referred to the treatment that my constituents received at the hands of bailiffs. Let me add a little about their experience by quoting from a letter they wrote:

“My wife & I (both retired) were woken up by loud banging on our front door at 7.22am. When I answered the door I was confronted by two men who announced that they were bailiffs… The first we knew of the matter was when they…turned up at our door… We were…in shock…at the threat of a tow truck arriving at our door to remove our car and that we were to be humiliated by our possessions being publicly removed from our house… Later that day my wife and I sought advice from our local Citizens’ Advice Bureau... The CAB advisor informed us that we could have refused the officers entry…and that we could have signed a Statutory Declaration of ownership covering goods not belonging to our son which should have prevented our property being taken in lieu for my son’s debt. At no time did the officers inform us about this… My wife and I have never broken the law. Both my wife and I used to work for the prison service. We have both since we retired, been active as local volunteers… I…find it reprehensible that two pensioners should be coerced, albeit politely, into having to hand over their pension savings for something that they are not in any way culpable for. Nor can we believe that British law supports the kind of action we have experienced.”

They are absolutely right. It is clear that the law needs to change and that we need to go beyond the 2014 reforms, and I am glad that the Government have announced the call for evidence. I praise the campaigning work of Citizens Advice and the debt charity StepChange. I think six main things need to change.

First, we need an independent regulator, and I welcome that being raised explicitly in the current review. When I took up my constituents’ case, I was astonished to find that there was no independent regulator, given that there are industries such as the parking industry in which far less serious things happen but in which there is a clear independent regulator. Debt collectors who are not bailiffs and do not have bailiffs’ powers have a regulator, so this is a historical anomaly that needs to be fixed.

Secondly, once the regulator is set up, it needs to improve the process. Part of that is about communication —if my constituents had been informed about the debts at an earlier stage, they could have nipped the whole problem in the bud—but part of it should also be about the offer of an affordable payment plan, as several hon. Members have said. Affordable payment plans have become the norm in most types of debt collection and for most utilities, because we know that vulnerable people are much more likely to pay if they are offered a structured plan rather than getting a big demand all at once. As it happens, my constituents are bright, articulate, hard-working people, but even they felt totally humiliated by the process. Imagine how those who are more vulnerable feel.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only right that homeowners should be notified of the fact that a bailiff is about to attend? Of course, we should recognise data protection concerns as well.

[Neil O'Brien]

Absolutely. That point brings me on to the third thing that needs to change: people need to be told what their rights are. My constituents never were. If someone is arrested, they are told their rights; the same thing should happen if a bailiff visits.

Fourthly, there must be a clear and simple complaints procedure through the new independent regulator, backed up with swift fines for bailiffs who break the rules. Fifthly, there must be controls on fees. My constituents’ son’s original debt was increased by half again, and we have heard about the tragic case of Jerome Rogers, which is incredibly moving. I was shocked that a publicly funded institution had initiated the debt collection against my constituents. As hon. Members have said, the incentives in the industry are to seize as much as possible in order to do as much business as possible, and there is no link between fees and ability to pay. Finally, the new regulator should improve training standards for bailiffs, as some have only a few hours of training. That is truly shocking.

A great injustice was done to my constituents, who are hard-working, law-abiding, public-spirited people. We are lucky to have a very able Minister guiding the Government’s response to the call for evidence. Every single day in this country, vulnerable people are being maltreated purely as a result of a historical anomaly. I know that she will want to put that right as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

The hon. Lady powerfully represents her constituency’s interests. The issues around procurement are complex, but I will look carefully at the case. However, it is important to bear in mind that we also have a duty to get value for money for the taxpayer and ensure that we are purchasing affordable goods.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

14. What recent estimate he has made of the number of rogue bailiffs.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

16. What steps he is taking to tackle rogue bailiffs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

We are determined to protect debtors from aggressive behaviour by enforcement agents while balancing that against the need for effective enforcement of debts. We launched a public call for evidence on 25 November to help us to understand the extent of the problem, and it is open until 17 January.

[Neil O’Brien]

A constituent of mine, John Stevens, lost thousands after he was threatened by bailiffs in connection with his son’s debt, which arose through no fault of his own. My constituent was never told his rights, and there was no independent regulator to which he could appeal. Given that 40% of people contacted by bailiffs are threatened or intimidated, will the Minister take action following the call for evidence to right those wrongs?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent and I am happy to discuss the matter further with him. The 2014 reforms require bailiffs to send a letter before they visit to set out where a debtor can go for advice, but we want to ensure that that mechanism and others are working. We are asking that question in our consultation, so I encourage his constituent to tell us more about his experience in our call for evidence.

Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords]

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

It is an honour to take this Bill through its final stages. I should like to start by addressing some of the key points raised today by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). She suggested that we were sneaking the Bill through the House. However, it was introduced seven months ago. Not only that, but it forms part of the Prisons and Courts Bill, which was introduced in this House in 2017 and which fell at the general election. The provisions in this Bill have been well known for some time. They have been debated in this House, and they are not being sneaked anywhere at all. The thrust of the hon. Lady’s speech was that this is a Bill about cuts, but it is certainly not. The Bill is part of our £1 billion court reform programme.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

My hon. and learned Friend is making an important point. In 2010, this country faced its largest budget deficit since the second world war, and all that my constituents want is value for money from the Government. The measures that we are taking forward today may not be the most exciting or sexy things that we will do this House, but they are a key part of value-for-money government.

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that has a number of aspects. First, my Department had to make cuts in 2010 because of the poor financial situation that we inherited from the Labour party. Secondly, it is important that we deliver justice fairly to those who are part of the justice system, but as he says, we also have a duty to the taxpayer. Overlaying those two points is a third point. Notwithstanding the position we inherited and notwithstanding our duty to taxpayers, my Department is undertaking a significant reform programme that is investing in our justice system. A couple of weeks ago, the Ministry of Justice held a conference at which more than 20 countries from around the world were represented. They talked about their own reform and modernisation programmes, but ours is one of the most ambitious. We are at the forefront of innovation, and we are investing in our justice system to bring it up to date in the 21st century.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes a second important point, which is that we cannot roll out and continue to use technology unless the technology actually works. I regularly talk to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and others about the importance of ensuring that the systems that we already have in place work well, so that the technology does not fail us when we are trying to hold court hearings.

[Neil O'Brien]

Further to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) about virtual and online courts and creating hassle-free access to courts for all constituents, can the Minister give us figures for the extent to which the change has helped to unclog our courts? One of the benefits of the Bill for my constituents is not just hassle-free access for them, but the fact that our courts will not be clogged up by the traffic cases and small beer that lead my constituents to wonder why serious criminals take years to be processed. Will the Minister give us some stats about the growth of virtual and online courts and what this Bill will do to those stats?

[Lucy Frazer]

I mentioned earlier that 300,000 people have already started engaging with our services online. They can apply for probate or divorce online, and many people are doing that. We also have our new online civil moneys claim court, which enables people to apply online and defend online. In one case in the first week after its launch, we had a settlement without people going to court at all. Technology will not only enable us to unclog our courts and get quicker hearing times, but give our constituents better access to justice because more people will be engaging with it. It will be cheaper for them to engage, and therefore more people will be able to access fairness and justice in the resolution of their claims.

I turn to the essence of the Bill and the Opposition amendments. Amendment 1 relates to clause 3(3), which provides for the use of the negative resolution procedure, which the hon. Member for Bolton South East suggested is not appropriate when dealing with the judicial functions of staff. However, the Government think that the amendment is inappropriate for several reasons. First, clause 3(3), which provides for the use of the negative resolution procedure, is not actually concerned with judicial functions. Clause 3(3) is in fact cross-referring to clause 3(2), which allows the Secretary of State to make

“consequential, transitional, transitory or saving”

provisions relating to authorised staff by way of regulations.

In reality, clause 3(3) allows us to amend references in secondary legislation to, for example, justices’ clerk—a post abolished by the Bill—to authorised officer. So far, we have identified over 200 references and over 60 pieces of secondary legislation that would need amendment, and there may be more. It is a standard clause for this type of provision. We know that that is the correct reading of the measure because the power to enable staff to carry out the judicial functions that the hon. Member for Bolton South East is concerned about is actually set out in the procedural rules made by the independent rules committees. This is clear from clause 3(1), which refers not to regulations but to procedure rules. The procedure by which the procedure rules are enacted is set out not in this Bill but in other legislation, namely the Courts Act 2003, the Civil Procedure Act 1997 and the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

Amendments 2 to 4 relate to the qualifications of those undertaking advice or judicial functions under the Bill. Amendments 2 and 3 require that any staff member who gives legal advice to lay justices or judges of the family court must be legally qualified and have more than three years’ experience post-qualification. Amendment 4 requires the same qualifications for any staff carrying out judicial functions.

The Government absolutely agree it is important that those who undertake functions in our courts are suitably qualified. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said, and as he has said on many occasions, our justice system is renowned throughout the world, and much of that is down to the experience and quality of our judiciary. Ensuring that those who work within our justice system have the right skills is fundamental to justice.

[Neil O'Brien]

Members on both sides of the House would agree that we have a world-renowned judiciary. In fact, Members are profoundly nervous when we see headlines in our papers calling judges, “Enemies of the People,” which we would all disavow. These are people who, day in and day out, do things in court that could cause them to be threatened. They are taking risks on behalf of the rest of us, and it is a high-quality system. With that in mind, and given the respect in which the judiciary are held by this House, does my hon. and learned Friend agree it is important that we do not accidentally do them down in this debate? Does she agree it is not right for the shadow Attorney General to suggest, I think unintentionally, that temporary judges may be less impartial than permanent judges? All our judiciary are high quality.

[Lucy Frazer]

That is absolutely right. As a former barrister, I appeared regularly before experienced judges, all of whom were full of integrity, undertaking important roles.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East suggested that all judges need qualifications of some kind. Of course, we have magistrates across the country who are doing outstanding jobs in our justice system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) mentions, temporary judges, just like full-time judges and judges who operate on a permanent basis, are recruited because of their expertise and skill. They are trained, and they carry out their roles as they should.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

Yes, those are important points. A large number of people already carry out these important roles and do so very well, and we would like to retain them.

Both the judicial functions that may be carried out by staff and the accompanying qualification requirements will be set out—it is just that they will be set out in the procedure rules, which are made by way of secondary legislation and are therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

[Neil O'Brien]

Progressive politicians on both sides of the House believe in labour market progression; they believe people should be able to act up, do more, learn more, take their career further and earn more. By putting in primary legislation artificial demarcations that stop skilled people doing things they are capable of doing, we would be doing people down; we would be putting a limit on their aspirations. That is why we must reject these amendments.

[Lucy Frazer]

That is an important point. Some people are already carrying out these functions and doing them well, and they will be able to see a future career progression for themselves. The legal and other qualifications they should have will be set out, but they will be set out by the committees, which are judicially led and independent of Government, and include representatives of the legal professions, and court and tribunal users. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, the judges placed on those are leading the procedure rule committees and have significant expertise. It is they who are best placed to assess the appropriate level of qualification or experience for authorised staff, in the light of the functions they choose to allow those staff to exercise.

My hon. Friend rightly said that the member of staff will not be able to give legal advice or exercise judicial functions until they have been authorised to do so by the Lord Chief Justice or their nominee, or by the Senior President of Tribunals or their delegate. Authorisations are therefore ultimately the responsibility of the judiciary, and those people will not authorise staff unless they are satisfied as to their competence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

I am glad to say that attrition rates are beginning to stabilise, but they are of course a massive concern. More decent, cleaner, less drug-filled and violent prisons will be important for staff morale, and the right training—we are transforming training courses—will be central for prison officers. We have a huge opportunity. These are young, idealistic people, often with fantastic communication skills. We need to invest in them, because they are the foundation for the future of the Prison Service.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

Central to the welcome drive to recruit more prison officers is the need to ensure that they can work safely. Prison officers at HMP Gartree in my constituency are concerned that sometimes, as a result of local police and Crown Prosecution Service decisions, assaults on staff are not prosecuted. Will the Minister assure me that he will look into the matter if I write to him, and that any act of violence against our brave prison officers is unacceptable?

[Rory Stewart]

This point is central. We need to make sure that prisoners are appropriately challenged and punished, particularly if they assault prison officers. Far too many prison officers who are protecting us —protecting the public—are being assaulted. We are therefore piloting in HMP Isis in London a system whereby the Metropolitan police is putting officers into prisons to follow up and increase the chance of prosecution. That is also why we pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has worked with us to double the maximum sentence for assaults on prison officers, and that comes into effect today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

The proposals in the female offenders strategy, which I look forward to working across the House in implementing, are clear in that they are giving the judiciary alternative routes to custody. We are working on the implementation of those proposals now, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady to talk about her specific views on this, if she wishes to do so.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

Amazon and eBay are selling tiny mobile phones that are explicitly marketed for their ability to be smuggled into prisons. Does the Minister agree that they are abetting criminality and that they must stop doing this?

Bedford Prison

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

HMP Gartree is in my constituency and HMP Glen Parva is just outside it. Those who work there are good people doing a difficult job on our behalf. What more can the Minister do to drive down violence against staff and get the menace of drugs out of prisons?

[Rory Stewart]

Drugs can get into prison only by being flown, thrown, dragged or carried there. A secure environment with the right standards, the right checks on mail and the right bars and grilles should therefore be able to reduce significantly the number of drugs that get into a prison.

On protecting and supporting prison officers, we owe them the trials around pepper spray, the body cameras and the CCTV cameras, but above all, the staffing numbers to get the key worker schemes in place so that they can develop the relationships with individual prisoners. Prison officers also need support from their managers, particularly band 4 and band 5 managers, day in, day out, to ensure that if they are assaulted, we respond calmly and professionally and bring back order and control.