Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill

Rob Butler Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate 2 December 2020: House of Commons
Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

[Ms Brown]

[Rob Butler]

[Ms Brown]

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

[Rob Butler]

[Lucy Frazer]

Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill

Rob Butler Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. What an honour to be considering a private Member’s Bill this morning. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham is not with us, but I know that the hon. Member for North West Durham will continue to take the Bill through the House most ably. He demonstrated his skill on Second Reading. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham chose wisely.

The Bill is an important one, and Labour supports its core goal to improve the testing regime for harmful substances in prisons. Substance misuse in prisons is rife, and we are told that it fuels violence and health problems and remains a real barrier to rehabilitation. The physical and mental impact on prison staff, including those who work to provide healthcare and education, can be truly awful.

As the hon. Member for North West Durham said, the current system for enabling substances to be tested within our prisons is just not responsive enough. The drugs that are being produced change rapidly, as do the methods of smuggling them into our prisons. Removing the necessity to introduce secondary legislation every single time a new substance needs to be added to the testing regime is a necessary and proportionate change, which is of a piece with the broader changes made several years ago by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016.

I served on the Committee for the 2016 Act. If we are being frank, we probably should have provided for this issue in that measure. However, it is very welcome to have a statutory basis for anonymous prevalence testing, so that prisons and healthcare staff, prison leaders and the Government can deliver a faster, more precise and more accurate understanding of what the problems with drugs are, and where they are within the prison system.

I have two brief questions about the drafting of the Bill, which I assume the Minister will be able to answer. I raised them quickly on Second Reading, but understandably at that point I did not receive a full response. As hon. Members will know, there are occasionally issues with the interpretation of the core definition of a psychoactive substance in the 2016 Act. This Bill would copy that definition into the Prison Act 1952. Are the Government confident that the definition is robust enough? Is there a risk that the general power to specify substances to be tested for in clause 47 (3A) of the Prison Act 1952 will still need to be used if these definitions fail? I have noticed that the consequential amendment 1 opts for amending the general power that I just mentioned, so that all controlled drugs—pharmacy medicine, prescription-only medicine, and psychoactive substances—are excluded.

An alternative step would be to repeal subsection (3A) entirely. It might be that the decision to amend it, rather than repeal it, reflects a judgement that the definition of a psychoactive substance could turn out to be inadequate, and that a power to set out specific substances to be tested will still be needed. However, if that amended power in subsection (3A) were ever used in the future, it would still have to make use of an amendment to the prison rules through secondary legislation. That process would be no faster than the one that currently exists. I do not say so to oppose a general power to specify substances remaining in legislation after this Bill hopefully becomes law. However, I would welcome further explanation. Is the general power simply there in case the other definitions drawn from the 2016 Act and the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 fail, or is it there for another purpose? Is another purpose envisaged? I am quite happy to take a note on this, electronically or otherwise, after the sitting. I have no intention of causing any difficulties, but these are issues that have been flagged to us, and we would be grateful for an explanation.

Two of the largest issues where we need greater clarity about the Government’s approach in response to this Bill are addressed by the new clauses that I will come on to introduce. I can see that I am likely to have a majority when I press them to a vote. Before we come on to those new clauses, I want to raise a few other questions and issues which it would be helpful for the Minister to address. The most important question for the Government in relation to this Bill is what are they going to use it for? Once the Bill has provided the power to rectify the problems with the testing regime for Spice and other novel psychoactive substances—as it is very early in the morning and I am a bit tired, I hope Members will accept that I will say “NPS” from now on—how are the Government going to use that power to create a healthier, more therapeutic, and more rehabilitative environment in our prisons?

Something that could result from more accurate testing is more widespread use of punishment for people found to have misused drugs in custody. As I said on Second Reading, this is a difficult issue, because sometimes the punishments that are used could make it harder for people to stop using drugs, rather than easier. Would the Minister tell us more about Government’s understanding of this? Has there been, or could there be, a review of the impact that different types of disciplinary intervention have had on people who are found to be misusing drugs in custody?

The Minister—rightly, in my view— has been looking keenly at the different ways that our courts can respond to offending in the community in a way that solves problems and does not make problems that clearly exist worse. I hear that next year we are going to be considering some of those welcome changes in the sentencing White Paper. In my view, it should be no different when people break the rules in prison. People in prison have had their liberty taken away as a punishment appropriate to their crime and, given the added challenges of living in prison and all that that brings, it is more, not less, important that the disciplinary actions taken solve problems and create the conditions for rehabilitation, not reoffending. The punishments announced in 2015 by the then Justice Secretary included bans on family visits, 21 days confined to cells, removal of TV access and more. We know that the use of drugs in prison can be, or is often thought to be, caused by inactivity, loss of hope and complete and utter desperation.

I worry that greater use of at least some of those punishments might inadvertently lead to people wanting to take more drugs to get themselves mentally out of the situation—even temporarily—that they find themselves in. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be locked up. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be locked in a cell—I am completely claustrophobic and antisocial—with someone I did not like for 23 hours a day. I could imagine in those circumstances, if I were a little bit different, wanting to get out of there in my head, at least temporarily.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Ms Brown]

Can I just finish this, because it is not written down and otherwise I will lose my train of thought? This is something where some of us use alcohol. If we have had a rubbish day—not that it ever happens in this place, obviously—we go home for a very large gin and tonic. That in and of itself is almost a way of trying to come down from the stresses we have had and cope with them. Some people use alcohol in much worse ways than that and do not have it under control. All I am trying to say is that we should try and walk for a few minutes in the moccasins of those who find themselves imprisoned and are struggling mentally with all that being in prison means—being separated from their families and children and having their liberty constrained.

[Rob Butler]

Out of an abundance of caution, I declare that prior to my election I was a non-executive director of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Notwithstanding what the hon. Lady has just said, does she accept that there is a real scourge of drugs in our prisons and that we must clamp down on them and not do anything to encourage their use? I entirely agree that rehabilitation is the right way to proceed but, equally, nothing must be done to encourage those who seek to bring drugs into prison, create an illicit economy and make the problem much worse.

[Ms Brown]

I absolutely agree and I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, especially with the knowledge that he has, for giving me the opportunity of making myself abundantly clear. Those who bring the trade into prisons, who put at risk the lives and wellbeing of our prison staff and prisoners should feel the full penalty of the law. I have no doubt about that at all.

What I was trying and obviously failing to do was to get us to put ourselves in the mind of the prisoner who is taking this stuff and understand that in many ways it is logical to want to free oneself mentally, even just for a few hours, from some of the stresses that people have to endure when there are in prison. The hon. Member for Aylesbury is absolutely right that the full weight of the law should be felt by those who are peddling this insidious, evil stuff in our prisons and taking advantage of those who are most vulnerable. They are completely and utterly despicable. I do not think I could make myself clearer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Member for West Ham has highlighted two matters in her amendment, both of which relate to reporting. I am very grateful for her having raised these very important matters, but I would like to reassure her that the amendment is not necessary, because sufficient procedures are already in place to measure and record what work will be done.

I would like to highlight, as the hon. Lady has, that making sure treatment is available is critical, and the first step is this one: identifying what substances are out there. The second step is identifying those people who we need to help, and the third is to give treatment. I hope that in the points I raised in response to her earlier speech, I have identified the considerable measures that we are taking to support people in their treatment, including the significant sums we are giving to rough sleepers—of course, there is an overlap there with prison leavers—and the RECONNECT service that the NHS links up with those treatments within prison and in the community.

I would like to go through the substance of the amendment. Through proposed new clause 1, the hon. Lady is seeking to expand the current scope of reporting by obligating an assessment of value for money after a year, so I will identify the structures that are already in place. As I said, the key objective is to ensure that people are identified, so that they can get treatments, and the effectiveness of that objective is continually reviewed as part of the national prison drugs strategy, which we published in April last year.

The Department also released an annual assessment, with accompanying statistics, as part of HMPPS’s annual digest. This provides a number of the items that the hon. Lady has enumerated in her amendment, including the number of tests conducted, the number of positive tests, and the number of psychoactive substances found. Furthermore, we believe that the contract for providing the drug testing service is effectively managed and reviewed by operational and commercial teams through regular formal contract meetings. To understand the capabilities of the various testing providers, HMPPS has undertaken extensive market engagement with potential suppliers, and it will do so again during future contract tendering processes.

In relation to the specific points the shadow Minister made about value for money, I can reassure her that the provisions in the Bill would contribute to value for money through drug testing in prisons and ensuring that complete information is routinely gathered relating to the misuse of substances in custody. This, as I said, will enable us to make the right operational responses, as well as ensure that we get the right interventions. I believe that there is scrutiny for drug testing in prisons, supported by existing processes, and we should not rush into legislating on this issue.

I would, of course, be happy to write to the hon. Lady when the annual digest is published—I believe the next one is due in July—to draw her attention to those matters, so that she gets that material as quickly and speedily as possible. Of course, I am always happy to engage with her when she has questions, so that we can resolve any issues that she feels have not been fully dealt with. I ask her to withdraw new clause 1.

10.30 am

In new clause 2, the hon. Lady is asking that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs make biannual reports to Parliament on substance testing in prisons—that is quite similar to new clause 1. As I have explained to the Committee, the effectiveness of drug testing is continuously reviewed and the contract in which it sits is already scrutinised.

Officials at the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs have advised us that the council is not set up for the type of role proposed in the new clause, which appears to be about reporting on the operations and performance of the substance testing system. The council’s role is to provide independent science advice to the Government. That may involve, for example, synthesising advice based on evidence collected on misuse and societal harms. Its role is not to report on the objectives of specific drug testing programmes. I can reassure the shadow Minister, however, that the ACMD already has a role in making recommendations for action, but more broadly, under its role in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The new clause would broaden those functions beyond their current scope.

I will address a few of the specific points that the hon. Lady made and I hope that I can alleviate some of her concerns. She identified and mentioned the significant investment that we are making in security—the £100 million investment to which I referred earlier when addressing the main clauses. In the course of that significant programme and of ensuring that we have funding from the Treasury for it, we have identified where we think, having done some work, the best value for money is. That is why we are pursuing those measures in the course of our programme.

The hon. Lady talked about the impact of covid on drug testing and the importance of lessons learned. I completely agree with her about the importance of looking at what we have learned in this period, and we are undertaking a broad study on that, with input from a wide range of people, including service users, third parties, and HMPPS itself. We suspended drug testing between April and June because of the social distancing measures and the lockdown within prisons, but under our current national framework prisons can reintroduce testing. Where that is done, prisons must take account of social distancing and cohorting measures. At the moment, it is too early to evaluate the impact of the changes on the drug testing programme, but we will of course be looking at all those issues in due course.

[Rob Butler]

On the point about the impact of covid, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all the staff in HMPPS—the officers, the staff in prisons, the governors and those at HMPPS head office—for their tremendous effort to minimise and mitigate the effect of covid on the prison estate during the pandemic?

Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill

Rob Butler Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of this excellent Bill, and I must declare my interest: immediately prior to my election, I was a non-executive director of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and previously spent four and a half years as a member of the Youth Justice Board. In those roles, I visited many prison establishments in England and Wales, and I should add that HMYOI Aylesbury is in my constituency. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of custodial establishments up and down the country for their work, especially during the coronavirus crisis.

Drugs are the scourge of prisons. Indeed, in one that I visited, I was told that drugs now outranked escape as the main threat. We have heard some of the figures on drug testing, but behind numbers, as always, lie human experiences. I well remember being in a workshop of one category B prison and being overwhelmed by the brilliant craftsmanship of the offenders working there each morning. They would carve or sculpt intricate designs. They were doing work that is in great demand in the outside world. They were motivated and skilled. I asked one of the prisoners what he did in the afternoon, once the vocational training had finished. His answer was simple: “Get high to forget—take drugs so the time goes faster.” That is because, as the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) said, in many prisons the main driver of drug use is boredom. Other prisoners take drugs because they cannot cope. Drugs in prison provide escapism, albeit in an extremely dangerous way. That means that drugs in jail are big business. They generate substantial amounts of money for criminals, both inside and outside the prison estate.

Psychoactive substances, or PS, are of particular concern. They are often harder to intercept on the way into prisons, not least because they can be hidden on ordinary sheets of paper. There have even been cases of fake legal letters that are soaked in psychoactive substances being sent to prison, where they are then cut up into tiny pieces and sold on to other criminals to give them a fleeting high. In a category A prison, I was told that one A4-sized piece of paper soaked in PS can be worth £400.

The criminalisation of possession of psychoactive substances in custodial establishments is a very good thing, but there are always unintended consequences, and it has led to a boon for organised crime gangs operating inside the prison estate. PS are still relatively easy to come by outside prison, meaning, as one prison officer put it to me, that “everyone can now become Pablo Escobar.” It is a terrifying thought. One of the biggest dangers of PS is the unpredictable impact on different individuals. Some prisoners become catatonic. Others engage in extreme behaviours that almost defy imagination. Others still are humiliated.

What all this illustrates is the challenge that faces our prison staff day in, day out, and we as parliamentarians should do anything we can to help. However, our current legislative process to update the list of illegal substances is no longer fit for purpose. Making repeated amendments through secondary legislation to add each new formulation of a substance is cumbersome, slow and inefficient. Adopting the generic definition of a psychoactive substance, as proposed in clause 1 of the Bill, will mean that small alterations to the chemical formulation will not provide a loophole such that prisoners can claim they took nothing illegal. I submit that the proposed change is a necessary and sensible step to improve the ability of HMPPS to tackle PS in the estate.

It is important that we provide HMPPS and all its staff with the right tools to stay one step ahead of the criminals. Prevalence testing is one way to do that, enabling staff to identify new substances that are being taken. Creating an express statutory footing to do so, as proposed in the Bill, is therefore not only wise but necessary. There are also, unfortunately, cases where prescription and other pharmacy medicines are abused by prisoners, and I therefore welcome the intention in the Bill to widen the range of such substances that can be tested for, in order to clamp down on the illicit economy that arises from their misuse.

It is absolutely essential that we have a process of testing for drugs in our prisons and our youth offender institutions that is thorough, effective and able to respond to rapid changes in the market in both illicit and legal substances that are abused in our jails. This is a short Bill, which, on the face of it, makes relatively minor changes to the regime of drug testing, but its impact could be profoundly beneficial. I warmly congratulate my constituency neighbour and good friend Dame Cheryl Gillan on her efforts to make it more straightforward to tackle the curse of drugs in prison, and I thank the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for bringing it to the House on her behalf.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman reiterate that bit, instead referring to the right hon. Lady as—

[Rob Butler]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan).

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you very much.

Lord Chancellor’s Oath and the Rule of Law

Rob Butler Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

I am not a lawyer, let alone one with the esteemed reputation of other hon. or right hon. Members, nor am I an academic steeped in the study of centuries of history or intricate international treaties. But for 12 years before I was elected, I served as a magistrate and for about 18 months was the magistrate member of the Sentencing Council; consequently, I set great store by the need to obey and respect the law.

I approach today’s debate as a layman, albeit one with a firm idea of justice and a clear sense of right and wrong, and I also do so with great respect for the seriousness of the matters being considered. The rule of law is a central tenet of the UK’s constitution. The office of Lord Chancellor carries such prestige as an officer of state that it comes higher than the Prime Minister in the order of precedence.

The twin subjects of today’s debate are the oath of the Lord Chancellor and the rule of law, and I will consider those in a fairly narrow sense, which perhaps reflects the naivety of a new Member of Parliament. The first element of the Lord Chancellor’s oath is to respect the rule of law. Despite that being a term with which we are all familiar, its meaning is, as we have already heard, subject to considerable debate.

A typical dictionary definition will elucidate straightforward principles, such as that all people in institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced. Eminent jurists have emphasised the principles of accessibility of power exercised in good faith and of equality before the law, whether prince or pauper. Indeed, I well recall the emphasis on the last from taking my own oath as a magistrate, when I promised to

“do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.”

However, probing a little further reveals that the concept of the rule of law, and specifically in the context of the Lord Chancellor, is not as simple as it might at first appear. As we have heard, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which fundamentally changed the role of the Lord Chancellor, does not define the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law, nor the Lord Chancellor’s existing constitutional role in relation to that principle.

Like the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), I have read the 2014 report from the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution on the office of the Lord Chancellor. In addition to what she said, it also noted that

“the rule of law ‘is not readily defined or readily understood.’ Not all lawyers will agree on what the rule of law entails; differences of opinion will undoubtedly also occur between different Lord Chancellors… ‘the rule of law remains a complex and in some respects uncertain concept’.”

Those words are significant in the context of the matters we are debating, indicating that we should not try to oversimplify and must accept that there is room for nuance of opinion.

Another aspect of the Lord Chancellor’s oath is to defend the independence of the judiciary. Rare indeed is the suggestion that the British judiciary is anything but independent. Indeed, sometimes the press, the public or, dare I say, politicians feel the judiciary is a little too independent. Many have been the tabloid headlines that criticise judges for imposing a supposedly light sentence on an offender whose crime has outraged public opinion, but that judge has invariably used their experience and knowledge to pass a sentence according to the law and sentencing guidelines, which can be appealed through higher courts but not influenced by any political opinion.

Even if there are protestations by hon. Members at the level of a sentence, there is never seriously a proposal to have a form of political accountability for the judge or magistrate. This remains the case, even in judgments that go against the Government, of which we have seen more than a few in recent times. I submit that the independence of the judiciary is further reinforced by the role of the Judicial Appointments Commission, the independent body that selects candidates for judicial office in courts and tribunals in England and Wales on merit, through fair and open competition.

The final element of the Lord Chancellor’s oath is to discharge his duty to

“ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts”.

Now, all of us who have served in the courts in recent years know that they have experienced considerable reduction in resource, as a result of necessary spending restraint by the Government of the time, but there is now an ambitious programme of court reform, which aims to bring new technology and modern ways of working to the way that justice is administered that involves the investment of £1 billion in the courts and tribunals system.

I take this opportunity to highlight the fact that, during the current coronavirus pandemic, the courts have risen to the challenge from the Lord Chancellor to ensure that justice could continue to operate. In particular, magistrates courts are responding magnificently. Consequently, disposals have outstripped receipts since the end of July. I also, unashamedly, highlight the initiative and imagination of staff at Aylesbury Crown court in my constituency, who have adapted their layout and ways of working, so that they can return to working at 100%.

Behind today’s debate seems to be a question whether the Lord Chancellor is in compliance with his oath. I have not been an MP long, but in my short time here I have met the Lord Chancellor on several occasions, questioned him in the Justice Committee and on the Floor of the House, and heard him speak from the Dispatch Box on all manner of topics. One thing is abundantly clear to me: the Lord Chancellor is a man of the highest integrity. He has spent his entire career in the law and respects the law to the core of his being. Indeed, at the ceremony to mark his swearing in, he said that he had sworn an oath to defend the independence of the judiciary and respect for the law that had far more than formal relevance. It is my firm conviction that he demonstrates his absolute and unwavering commitment to that oath day in, day out.

I said a few moments ago that I wanted to address the specific nature of today’s motion. In the few seconds that remain, I must recognise that it would seem odd were I not to say a few words about the Internal Market Bill, which, in many respects, prompted this debate. Clearly, that was a matter of profound importance for me, given the concerns that were raised about international law being broken.

Probably the first thing that I learned in my time on the Bench was that it is important to listen to both sides of the argument before reaching a decision, not jump to a verdict immediately after the prosecution has presented its case without hearing from the defence. I am grateful for the time that the Attorney General, in particular, spent talking to me about what was going on. I must say that the parliamentary lock that was achieved largely through the efforts of the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), combined with the knowledge that such a course of action would only ever be a last resort, provided me with necessary and sufficient resource.

The law is precious. It is both fragile and robust. Overseeing the rule of law is a profound responsibility marked by the weighty oath of the office of Lord Chancellor—an oath, I submit, that is fulfilled with distinction by the current holder of that great office of state.

Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords]

Rob Butler Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee stage: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

As we leave the EU at the end of year, this is our opportunity to go out into the world and make international agreements that will make things better for our constituents. We must embrace that opportunity and strike while the iron is hot, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) rightly said, we do not need to lay primary legislation for every PIL agreement that our Ministers make. This is a proportionate Bill that allows us to protect our constituents, while new clause 5 ensures that in this Chamber, rather than seeing half-empty Benches bogged down by legalese and technical detail, we can continue to focus on the wider priorities of the people we are elected to serve.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 5 in the name of the Minister, which, on balance, I believe would result in proportionate scrutiny for the measures that would fall under the jurisdiction of the Bill. The general points about the need for international agreements on private international law have been well rehearsed. Without such agreements, there would be a considerable impact on British businesses, individuals and families who are engaged in cross-border litigation. Indeed, it is not inconceivable to foresee a situation where parallel judgments by different courts contradict each other, resulting in legal limbo with little hope of redress and no hope of justice.

That is perhaps particularly evident in the case of custody disputes, where a child has been abducted and taken outside the UK by one parent. Right hon. and hon. Members across the House are no doubt all too aware of examples of such cases. Sadly, that pain has been felt by families in my own constituency of Aylesbury. If we compound that heart-wrenching situation with a quagmire of legal process in different jurisdictions, with no mutual recognition of judgments, desperation becomes hopelessness, and loving parents risk permanent separation from their children.

Less emotional, but equally important, is the plight of small British businesses seeking redress from an overseas supplier or customer. Buckinghamshire has more microbusinesses than any other county in the country. There are small firms that need the law to be simple and straightforward, so that they can focus on what they do best—producing goods and services that generate wealth and taxes—safe in the knowledge that the judicial system is there to protect them.

New clause 5 seeks to use delegated legislation to ensure that any future agreements concerning international private law are speedily implemented, thus benefiting individuals, families and businesses in the ways I have described. Parliamentary scrutiny will exist through the affirmative process, and what is more, it will be prompt. That seems to be appropriate and proportionate. Insisting on primary legislation to bring such new agreements into effect is disproportionate and unnecessary, not least because of the likely challenges of finding parliamentary time for what, as other Members have said, are unlikely to be matters of huge controversy. When international private law agreements were in the competency of the European Union, they were implemented by direct effect. Once the transition period is over, Members of this House will be able to scrutinise and vote on such agreements, bringing power back to Parliament through the DL procedure.

I am rather surprised by some of the opposition to new clause 5, both from Opposition Members and from the other place, because what is proposed today is not novel. There is precedent for the Government’s proposed course of action, and precedent is not to be lightly dismissed. Indeed, in justifying the decision of one of Mr Speaker’s illustrious predecessors, Erskine May said that he had

“found what convinces the House of Commons more readily than any argument—I have found a precedent”.

Several Acts passed in this place contain delegated powers concerning international private law. The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 contains delegated powers allowing decisions to be made by Order in Council. The same is true in family law relating to the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 using the same mechanism. I therefore support the Government’s desire to introduce new clause 5 and hope that Members of the other place will feel able to take the opportunity afforded them of a second chance to consider the implications of their earlier action.

As we conclude the transition period from leaving the EU, I want the UK to be a country where we focus on getting deals done, where we support our businesses to trade and where we strive to protect our citizens’ rights in a way that is straightforward and fair. I have had countless emails from constituent businesses asking me to ensure that they can run as smoothly as possible after the transition period. I have not had one single email from a constituent business demanding primary legislation for every single commercial agreement that is made in future—that is not a cue to 38 Degrees to start such a campaign.

I want us to be agile in the way we respond to opportunities from our friends and partners overseas and able to follow up an agreement made in person with swift delivery of parliamentary scrutiny in proportionate form that enables us to implement a deal and reap the benefits in short order. Businesses in my constituency of Aylesbury are hungry for the opportunities that await us on the international markets. They want Parliament to pave the way for them to bring greater prosperity to our country. Let us do that with new clause 5.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I rise to speak in support of the amendments in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and myself. As other Members have said, there is a degree of consistency across a number of the amendments on the selection paper.

I welcome the action to enhance transnational co-operation. For once, instead of measures that seek to breach international agreements or upset international partners, this is a step in the right direction and a move that I hope we will see reflected in other bits of legislation that the Government bring forward.

I wish that this Bill was not necessary, but, having left the European framework, it is essential that we make alternative arrangements to ensure that the three Hague conventions still apply, to prevent Scottish businesses and families from being disadvantaged. The conventions add legal certainty for parties to cross-border commercial contracts, and they help with family maintenance decisions across borders and the protection of children in disputes where parents have separated but live in different countries. These conventions may be technical, but they are very practical for those caught in difficult and tangled situations. There is therefore a clear need to replace the previous mechanisms whereby the EU reached agreements on these types of cross-border disputes on behalf of member states.

Aspects of this legislation fall within the devolved competencies, forming parts of Scots private law relating to choice of jurisdiction, recognition of judgments and enforcement of decisions. The Bill, if passed, will provide reassurances, in particular, to those affected by cross-border family support and custodial mechanisms, so we are keen to see that move forward. The Scottish Government have considered the aspects that require a legislative consent motion under section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998 and will seek consent from the Scottish Parliament to allow agreement to the Bill. The Bill has been drafted with great respect for devolution and, again, I very much welcome that. It is the proper and democratic way to proceed. It is a great pity that that is not always the case with this Government, but certainly it is very much to be welcomed in this case.

I speak in favour of the amendments proposed by myself and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West. I pay tribute and give thanks to the Law Society of Scotland, which has supported us in the drafting of them. Amendment 10 has a particular focus on the Lugano convention, and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has already told us of the significance of the need to put the mechanism in place and of having it on the face of the Bill. Given the Government’s confirmation that they are intent on continuing with the convention, putting it on the face of the Bill would be a proper and appropriate way of doing that. The convention created common rules across the EU and EFTA, avoiding multiple court cases taking place on the same subject and saving the costs of all those involved. I welcome the steps taken.

The regrettable decision not to be part of the single market may yet come back to hit us. However, we are where we are, and if the UK joining the convention in its own right is accepted by 31 December, we will need to work quickly to introduce a simple mechanism to implement the convention. That is what the amendment from me and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West seeks to achieve, and I argue that the Government should amend the Bill to provide for a regulation-making power focused specifically on the implementation of the Lugano convention. That point is not being made just by Scottish National party Members; it is reflected on all sides of the House. That, in itself, speaks volumes.

It is important to note that that move would not preclude us from reinstating the previous regulation-making powers under clause 2 that were removed from the Bill during its passage in the other place. As was said earlier, that debate raised legitimate concerns about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of delegated legislation, and I strongly suggest that the Government strongly reflect on that when seeking to reintroduce those powers.

The Bill fulfils a commitment in the political declaration between the UK and the EU, and I recognise that. I certainly welcome the fact that in this situation at least the Government appear to be looking to keep their promise and to keep private international law clear after the transition. As a proud internationalist, I welcome any measures that will continue to help to support and facilitate cross-border co-operation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rob Butler Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

As I mentioned, we have increased the number of staff in the public sector. We have also introduced the key worker scheme, which is essential for staff to liaise with the prisoners. Private prisons perform well, as do public prisons. Recent reports from this year for HMP Parc and HMP Rye Hill, which are both managed by G4S, judged both to be good. There is not a mantra that public is good, private is bad; both work well.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to reduce reoffending. [R]

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to reduce reoffending.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

Reoffending rates are too high, resulting in some individuals repeatedly posing a danger to their communities and the undermining of public confidence in the criminal justice system. Last week, we published the sentencing White Paper, which sets out measures to better supervise and support offenders following their release from custody. It includes proposals for changes to the rehabilitation periods set out in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, to improve access to employment and education for those with criminal records.

[Rob Butler]

I recently visited MTCnovo’s hub for offenders from Aylesbury and was impressed by the dedication and commitment of the staff, as well as of those completing their sentences there. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that a vital element of reducing reoffending is having enough well-trained and skilled probation officers who can thoroughly oversee and supervise sentences?

[Lucy Frazer]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I thank all the staff at MTCnovo and Thames Valley community rehabilitation company. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that dedicated prison officers are a key part of reducing reoffending, which is why last month we launched the probation workforce strategy, setting out our commitment to recruit an additional 1,000 probation officers by the end of January next year. It is about not just recruiting staff but how we work with them and invest in their skills. We will be focusing on their skills, recruitment, retention, diversity, leadership and wellbeing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady raises a very disturbing case, and sadly, it is not alone. Many shop workers have been at the frontline of providing vital services through the intensity of the lockdown and continue to do so. It is incumbent on all of us to make sure that sentencing guidelines properly reflect the role that they play. There is helpful reference in the sentencing guidelines, of course, to people in that line of service, but if there is more that we can do to draw the courts’ attention to the particular importance of shopworkers, we should do so.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

  The White Paper published last week by my right hon. and learned Friend’s Department proposes extending whole-life orders to 18 to 20-year-olds in wholly exceptional cases. I think that most people understand and agree with that, but there are many others in that age group who will be released, including those serving at Aylesbury young offenders institution in my constituency. Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that young adults in custody can access programmes tailored to their specific age group and their particular needs, in an effort to ensure that they do not commit crime again once freed? [R]

[Robert Buckland]

I pay tribute to those who provide the therapeutic services at Aylesbury YOI, whom I have met in the past. We have clearly stated that we see young adults right up to the age of 25 as a group that need treatment that is different from other cohorts, and we have specialist models for operational delivery to support prisons holding young adults to get the best results for that group. The curriculum at Aylesbury includes personal and social development skills, business, horticulture, barbering and decorating, and we will reinforce that with our new national prisoner education service, which is focused on work-based training and skills.

Sentencing White Paper

Rob Butler Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Lady makes a really interesting point about childhood trauma. In the call for evidence on neurodivergence I want to open up some of these issues in a much more novel way, because I am sure that, with proper support and proper intervention, we can divert a lot of people away from a life of crime. When they get into the system it is vital that we expand community sentence treatment requirements. I am a strong believer in the mental health treatment programme, and the NHS, which is scaling up its support for that, is to be thanked. We will expand the availability of that type of treatment order throughout the jurisdiction, so that judges have a real choice when it comes to passing sentences: it does not always have to be custody; there can be a constructive way forward, properly tailored around the offender.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the White Paper and in particular its proposal for longer curfew periods alongside GPS tags. That strikes me as something approaching a smart house arrest system. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that could fill a significant gap in current sentencing options, because it would be an excellent way of punishing criminals by restricting their liberty while at the same time enabling them to be successfully rehabilitated and therefore less likely to reoffend?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to him for his long work in the criminal justice system, as a member of the Sentencing Council, for example. I warmly welcome his comments, and I am a strong believer that an element of house arrest, let us call it—the use of curfew together with electronic monitoring —alongside various other treatment orders that could be imposed could be a really intelligent, smart way of providing a tougher, more robust approach to sentencing. It will deprive the offender of liberty—causing, of course, huge changes to their life—but, frankly, that is part of the punishment and part of the solution if we are really going to move people on from a cycle of crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rob Butler Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

Children do not instantly turn into adults on their 18th birthday, yet our justice system often treats them as though they do, despite a huge amount of evidence that neuro- logical development continues well into the 20s. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look into ways the entire criminal justice system can better reflect the increased knowledge about maturity, perhaps starting with the sentencing Bill his Department is currently working on?

[Robert Buckland]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his previous service as a member of the Sentencing Council and his work in the youth justice sphere. He is right to recognise that the 18 to 25 cohort have distinct needs relating to maturity and development. In his constituency, excellent work goes on with regard to the neurological challenges that he mentions at Her Majesty’s Young Offender Institution Aylesbury. I will, of course, further engage with him and others on this issue as we develop the White Paper.

Probation Services

Rob Butler Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes a keen interest in these issues. Perhaps I will emphasise the second part of his question. I thoroughly agree about the need to harness that experience and talent. That is what we are going to do. We will work with the unions and all the representative bodies to make sure that as we emerge from June of next year, we will be in an even better position to reduce reoffending.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

Having been a non-executive director of HMPPS before my election to the House, I was privy to some of the challenges that have perhaps contributed to the decision today. With that perspective in mind, the timetable for reintegration seems tight, and I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend has considered further extending the CRC contracts, as is permitted, by six months, to enable that to happen smoothly. When that transition does happen, can we make sure that we keep the ethos of innovation, flexible staff and empowered staff so that we bring the very best back into the public sector?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He knows that I value the work that he did prior to his election to this House very greatly indeed. He is right to outline some of the options that were before me. I looked very carefully at that option among others. I could not see that bringing real value in time or space in order to make the necessary changes. The Government rightly committed to June or to the spring or summer of 2021 as the time by which we had to make these reforms. I thought that we needed simplicity and clarity, which is why I have elected to take this course.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Rob Butler Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I rise to speak in strong support of the Bill. First, I should first declare my interests: until my election I was a magistrate member of the Sentencing Council, which was considering the sentencing guidelines for terrorism, and I was also a non-executive director of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service.

As we have heard from the Lord Chancellor and other Members, the first duty of any Government is to protect their people. One of the most marked threats against the British people is terrorism. It is a particularly heinous offence, its perpetrators motivated by perverted ideologies, driven to cause indiscriminate carnage, demonstrating a callous distain for the loss of human life and revelling in the fear that they provoke among decent citizens. Those who contemplate committing such atrocities must be in no doubt of the revulsion that right-minded people feel towards them. They must know that the law will categorically and clearly condemn their acts.

I welcome the end-to-end provisions in the Bill that will keep us all safer: strengthened TPIMs to scrutinise potential terrorist offenders; longer prison sentences, physically served in custody in their entirety, to keep convicted terrorists off our streets and provide time for deradicalisation and rehabilitation; and stricter licence conditions for terrorists when they are released from prison, including the use of polygraphs.

First, let me focus specifically on the serious terrorism sentence. A minimum period of 14 years’ imprisonment strikes me as wholly justified, and I consider it right that the entire period should be spent in custody. I have said before in this place that I am a firm believer in rehabilitation, and I pay tribute to all those working in HMPPS who strive to engage with terrorist offenders and provide tailored interventions and programmes with the aim of promoting a fundamental change, but we must recognise that deradicalisation programmes have not enjoyed as much success as we would have hoped. I am pleased that there is to be further investment in this area of work, with the recruitment of additional staff, but where terrorist offenders are concerned there can be no room for error.

Because there can be no room for error, I wonder—and I put it no more strongly than that—whether consideration should be given to the introduction of a new sentence of indefinite detention for public protection from terrorism. I recognise that the idea will raise many legitimate concerns given the previous experience of imprisonment for public protection sentences, which resulted in a high number of people spending many years in excess of their tariff in custody through no fault of their own. Indeed, I have met a number of them, and the injustice done to them is palpable and wrong. But that does not have to mean that it would be impossible to design a different system with all the necessary safeguards in place that would ensure that terrorist prisoners, solely and specifically, would be detained without a determinate date on which their sentence would end. I would be interested to know whether Ministers believe that this could be feasible.

It will be evident from what I have said so far that I very much welcome the broad contents of this Bill. However, there are one or two areas where I would ask the Government to consider the scope for possible refinement, particularly in the area of younger offenders. I know from my time at the Youth Justice Board that, tragically, a very small number of children are ensnared into terrorism. It is therefore right for this Bill to address those offenders, but it is also right to ensure that the sentence remains very much tailored to the individual, as is the case throughout the youth justice system, and that there is appropriate provision and resource to maximise the opportunity for rehabilitation. There must remain, surely, some hope that these young people under 18 can be reformed and then lead law-abiding lives.

For young adults—those aged between 18 and 20—there is essentially no distinction between older adults in terms of the sentencing provisions in this Bill. However, it is now well established that neurological development is not complete until the early to mid-20s. Indeed, maturity based not purely on chronological age is now a factor in sentencing decisions, to reflect the science. In addition, young adults are generally seen as more likely to reform. Consequently, I would respectfully suggest that it might be expedient to give additional consideration to the sentencing regime for those aged 18 to 20, specifically, to ensure that the minimum period spent in custody is indeed commensurate with their culpability.

As the Bill progresses, it is imperative that we always ensure that the will of Parliament is unambiguously clear to those who later have to interpret this legislation, particularly the Sentencing Council in the formulation of its guidelines and any interim guidance that may be required, and judges who will ultimately pass sentence. This is in no way to say that I believe that politicians should interfere with the independence of the judiciary, but a minimum sentence of 14 years is exactly that—a minimum, from which it will often be appropriate to move up. To my mind, it is also plain that the intention of this Bill is to broaden the scope to ensure that where there is clear evidence of a terrorism connection, that can be reflected in the sentence, irrespective of the index offence, with very few exceptions. The consequence of that is that the sentence passed must reflect the link to terrorism as a prime factor.

On a similar theme, for those offences where a new maximum penalty is introduced in this Bill—namely, membership of a proscribed organisation, supporting a proscribed organisation, or attending a place used for terrorist training—it is important that the guidelines are updated promptly to ensure that the will of Parliament is quickly reflected in sentences of the court. The message must surely be that the will of Parliament is that terrorist offenders should face the harshest of sentences, that punishment for them is served only by an extremely long period in custody, and that this country, led by this Government and backed across this Parliament, will relentlessly and remorselessly take every possible action to protect the public from the horror of terrorist atrocities.