Sentencing Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

There are some important points to make about this. As my right hon. Friend will know, there is a whole suite and hierarchy of offences of assault. There is common assault, but if there is even a reddening of a skin, that becomes assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which carries a five-year maximum sentence—although, of course, this applies only to those who are given sentences of under 12 months. However, if the skin is pierced in any way or there is any serious harm, that is charged as grievous bodily harm, either simpliciter or with intent, and carries a maximum of life imprisonment. We must therefore be very clear on what we are talking about and what we are not talking about, and we are not talking about grievous bodily harm. Let me also stress that the two highest categories of offence that fall within the 12-month sentencing period are driving offences and offences relating to class B drugs. However, I take on board the important points made by my right hon. Friend, and I refer him to the remarks I made to our hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).

[Sir Greg Knight]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He is being very generous. The presumption of suspending the sentence does not apply in exceptional circumstances. Can the Secretary of State give us two or three examples of what he considers to be exceptional circumstances?

[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.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that deeply upsetting and troubling case and for liaising with his constituents. Although I do not know the specifics of any licence conditions, it is overwhelmingly likely that those conditions would take into account precisely the point he raises. If family are living nearby, it is usual for licence conditions to indicate an exclusion zone, and that could be expanded to meet issues of justice and safety. Those are matters that the relevant authorities will be taking close cognisance of.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

On parole reform, will the factor determining whether someone is in the top-tier cohort always be the offence or offences committed, or will other factors sometimes be taken into consideration? With regard to top-tier offences, will Ministers have the power to add to or change the list of offences that put someone in the top tier?

[Alex Chalk]

I will come to those points in a moment, but it is broadly to do with the offences.

Approved Premises (Substance Testing) Bill

Greg Knight Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 21st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting his Bill to this stage. Will the results of the anonymous testing be published?

[Rob Butler]

I believe that will happen. I defer to the Minister for the expert technical advice, but my understanding is that generally the data that arises will be published. The prime purpose of the collection of the anonymised data is to enable HMPPS staff to ascertain patterns of drug use, to look in particular at what types of drugs or substances are used more widely and then to come up with programmes to tackle the problems. I apologise that I cannot give my right hon. Friend a precise answer; I commit to writing to him with the appropriate response if the Minister is unable to answer him in her speech. I hope he will accept that commitment for the moment.

It is worth highlighting that even prescription medicines are abused by some residents in approved premises. Occasionally, that can prove lethal. A recent internal survey of approved premises staff found that more than 50% of them felt that prescription medication was a problem. This merits a few words of explanation, because I am talking not about medicines prescribed to the resident who has been tested but about prescription medicines that have been obtained by the person who takes them without a prescription—for example, from foreign companies via the internet—or that have been given to the resident by somebody else to whom they were prescribed. Prescription medicines are of course appropriate for those to whom they have been prescribed, but they can pose a real danger if they are taken without medical advice or in combination with other medicines. If that happens, the consequence can sometimes be fatal because of the level of toxicity reached in the human body.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Greg Knight]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again—he is being very generous. I have a question for him, but I do not want him to think that because I am questioning what he is doing I am opposed to it. I am not—I support him. Could this new power fall foul of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, and if so, what would be the consequences of this?

[Rob Butler]

My understanding is that, in the preparation of the detailed proposals for the implementation of this Bill, colleagues at the Ministry of Justice have considered exactly that and do not believe it is of concern. They believe that the proposals all comply with such legislation.

The introduction of prevalence testing in this Bill will enable HMPPS to increase understanding of the ever-changing drug landscape and, in turn, allow staff to take appropriate action to tackle the threat of drugs in approved premises. After all, it is difficult to work out what to do to solve a problem, or how much resource to devote to it, if the extent of the problem is not known in the first place. The provision in the Bill to undertake periodic prevalence testing will entail the use of residents’ samples to test for the prevalence of controlled drugs, psychoactive substances and prescription-only medicines on an anonymised basis, as was indicated earlier.

In sum, the framework provided for by the Bill will enable HMPPS to respond effectively and flexibly to changing patterns of drug misuse. It will enable HMPPS to improve the identification of residents who are misusing substances to enable robust and appropriate referrals into treatment, together with the development of appropriate targeted care planning. It will enable better identification of elevating or decreasing risk of serious harm to the public based on a resident’s drug misuse. Finally, it will support the development of a comprehensive drugs strategy, building a body of evidence on drug misuse within the resident cohort of APs, which will widen understanding and identification of the corresponding and consequential actions that need to take place, either at a practical level by HMPPS or at a policy level in the Ministry of Justice.

I believe that, as a result, the Bill will have a tangible effect. It will enable us to better identify and respond to new and emerging patterns of drug use in approved premises, help provide the necessary care and treatment for individuals and, ultimately, support reductions in reoffending. Throughout the passage of the Bill and, indeed, throughout my speech, I have been grateful for the support of colleagues across the House. Many of them were unfamiliar with the challenge that the legislation attempts to address and, quite understandably, several have raised specific questions, so, as promised, I will take a few moments to give a little more context and detail on the appropriate areas.

In terms of the change in drug testing practice, the new regime will test every resident at least twice during their stay in the approved premise. A typical stay is approximately 12 weeks. For those who have been imprisoned on terrorism offences, it can be up to a year, but the average stay is about 12 weeks. There will potentially be two tests during that 12-week period, and HMPPS anticipates the consequence of that will be around 20,000 tests a year. Colleagues may remember I mentioned the current risk and suspicion-based testing regime. That will continue on top of the enhanced regime: the testing at specified times in the approved premises, which the Bill will establish. If staff are suspicious or risks are identified, there will be testing on top of that.

The consequences for someone failing a drug test are absolutely critical. The initial step would be a discussion between a staff member and the resident, and the primary aim would be to tackle the misuse. At that first stage, an improvement plan is likely to be initiated. That could incorporate referrals to appropriate services to provide the right help for each individual, probably consisting of signposting or the referral of residents to substance misuse services, and liaison with their probation officer. I want to emphasise that, although there needs to be rigour and discipline in approved premises, my aim in the Bill is for it not to be a purely punitive exercise. If, though, the drug use was a direct breach of a licence condition or it resulted in inappropriate behaviour, it could ultimately result in a recall to prison. However, HMPPS does not, as a matter of course, initiate breach or recall based purely on an initial positive drug test.

Consideration has also been given to the possible reaction of residents in approved premises when the new regime is introduced, not least given the vulnerable stage of their progress from prison to the community at that stage. Naturally, neither I nor the MOJ would want to do anything to jeopardise progress towards rehabilitation. Given that residents already sign an induction pack, which includes a number of rules, including the limited drugs testing I explained earlier, it is not expected or foreseen that there will be a significant problem. What is more, for those arriving at APs from prison, they will already have experience of the enhanced testing regime being proposed from their time in custody. Indeed, staff at approved premises to whom I spoke suggested that the change could be regarded positively by residents because it does, after all, signify increased investment in their wellbeing and rehabilitation.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) asked about the consequences if a resident refuses to comply with the terms of the compulsory drug testing regime. In that situation, if they are on conditional bail with testing as a condition and they are not complying with the terms of the regime, they will have breached their condition of bail. There are some people in approved premises who are deemed to be at high risk and are there while still on bail, as opposed to those who are in the approved premises having been released from custody. In that situation, if they have breached their bail, they can be arrested by the police and brought back to court, where the magistrates or judges have three options. They can continue the bail conditions as they are—essentially, reimposing the same conditions. They can make the conditions more stringent. Or they could, ultimately, remand the person in custody. If a resident on licence—someone who has been released from prison and is in approved premises almost as a halfway house between custody and the community—declines to be tested, consideration will be given to their suitability to stay within those approved premises, because there is that contract of engagement as part of going to the approved premises, and that could also result in their recall to prison.

We must always be aware of the financial implications of new policies. HMPPS estimates that when it implements the change in testing, it will cost approximately £1.2 million per year to carry out the enhanced testing regime with residents of approved premises. The current annual budget for drug testing in approved premises is £350,000, so the implementation of this Bill would see an increase of some £850,000. However, it is worth bearing it in mind that the Ministry of Justice has indicated that it has evidence that shows that drug treatment provides a return to society of £4 for every £1 that is invested, and that increases to a return to society of £21 over a period of 10 years. I would therefore suggest that the testing proposed in the Bill and the subsequent treatment in fact represent very sound spending, which I am sure will be music to the ears of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I hope that I have addressed as fully as possible the aims of the Bill and the potential impact that it could have. In many ways, it is a small step, a minor change, but having spent well over a decade in various roles in the criminal justice system, I am all too aware that the path to rehabilitation can be slow, painstaking and full of setbacks, but every little step can make a difference. Every day without drugs is a good day for someone who has previously been dependent on them. Every opportunity to increase the prospect of someone living a crime-free life is an opportunity that we should seize, and I am proud to do so today with the Third Reading of this Bill.

Prison Officers: Pension Age

Greg Knight Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the pension age of prison officers.

Just over two years ago, at 4.30 pm on Tuesday 8 October 2019, I stood here and made a speech in which I pleaded with the then Prisons Minister to listen to the concerns of our fantastic prison officers and let them retire at 60, in the same way that comparable frontline emergency workers in the police and fire service are allowed to do. Sadly, my pleas fell on deaf ears, and many prison officers still face the prospect of having to work until they are 68, so I make no apologies for raising the subject yet again on behalf of the many hard-working people who work in the Prison Service, particularly those based in the three prisons in my constituency: Elmley, Standford Hill and Swaleside.

The people working in our prisons do an important, difficult job. For the most part, they do so without complaint and with the utmost integrity and dedication. That dedication saw many of them going to work every single day throughout the pandemic, putting their own health at risk not only to execute their duty of care to their prisoners, but to protect the wider public. Sadly, because they work for the Cinderella emergency service, they receive few plaudits and very little thanks. Let me thank our prison staff for everything they have done during the past 18 months, often in a very difficult and dangerous environment.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and associate myself with his thanks to prison officers. Does he agree that they face a challenging job—challenging even for a young officer—and that there is an overwhelming case for looking again at the retirement age and reducing it? Does he also agree that we should also ensure that they are safe while doing their job and give them all the protection they need?

[Gordon Henderson]

I certainly do agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will cover all those points in my speech.

The truth is that prison officers deal every day with individuals who have been locked up to keep the rest of us and our communities safe. Too often, those men and women face violence and hostility just for doing their job. Despite that violence and hostility, which would be challenging for fit young people, these dedicated emergency workers are still being told that their retirement age will rise to 68.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Victoria Atkins)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson). He is a tireless advocate for the many prison officers and staff who live in his constituency, as well as those who travel to work there. Within days of me being appointed, he stopped me to kindly invite me to visit his three prisons with him and meet his constituents who work so hard there. I genuinely thank him and respect him for raising the issue again.

This is one of those debates to which I wish a little more attention was being paid. While there are clearly passionately held views across the Chamber, this has been a constructive and fair debate where the views of prison officers and staff have been put forward, and I genuinely thank hon. Members for their contributions. I hope that prison officers and staff who are watching and hon. Members will take away from this debate the fact that, although I might not be able to give some of the answers that I have understandably been urged to give, I want to engage with the Prison Officers Association and other unions, many of which I have had the pleasure of meeting already. I want to engage with them constructively on not just the very important issues of pay and pensions, but their working conditions.

Hon. Members have rightly outlined some of the horrendous circumstances that officers find themselves in when they are working to contain some of the most dangerous people in our society. I am very proud of the Ministry of Justice’s hidden heroes scheme, which has been rolled out this year and, I hope, pays tribute to those officers. My hon. Friend referred to it as the Cinderella service. As the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, because the service happens behind those very tall, thick brick walls, it sometimes feels like prison officers are separate from our wider community. I genuinely want to work with the POA, prison officers, staff and governors to shed more light on what happens behind those walls over the coming years. I think that the public would not only be interested in but proud of many examples of the work that our officers and staff do.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the positive way in which she is responding to this excellent debate. Although our focus has been on the pension age, will she say a little more about the need to ensure that prison officers have the best possible protection while at work, including the use of body-worn cameras and, in certain circumstances, pepper spray?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making a very important point about the wider terms and conditions of employment. I do not want anyone in the Chamber or listening to the debate to leave thinking that it is somehow acceptable for prison officers to have to face in their workplace the threats, abuse and serious violence described by hon. Members. We must not as a society shrug our shoulders—I know that nobody in this room would do this—and say, “Oh well, what do you expect?” or words to that effect. We absolutely can do more to protect officers in the prison environment, and I will come on to some of the wider measures in a moment.