Approved Premises (Substance Testing) Bill Bill, not amended in the
Public Bill Committee, considered. Third Reading 12.05pm Rob Butler
(Aylesbury) (Con) I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the
third time. First, I declare my interest as a former non-executive
director of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and a
magistrate member of the Sentencing Council. Approved premises are
an unsung part of a largely unsung service, but just as part of
the...Request free trial
Approved Premises (Substance Testing) Bill
Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.
Third Reading
12.05pm
(Aylesbury) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the third time.
First, I declare my interest as a former non-executive director
of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and a magistrate
member of the Sentencing Council. Approved premises are an unsung
part of a largely unsung service, but just as part of the
successful functioning of our society and democracy is a criminal
justice system that is fair and fit for purpose, approved
premises are a critical element of the continuum between custody
and community for a significant number of those who have broken
the law.
There are approximately 100 approved premises across England and
Wales, with some 2,300 bed spaces between them. Primarily, they
provide temporary accommodation for offenders who have been
released from prison but are still deemed to pose a high risk, or
those who have the most complex needs and so need to receive
additional, targeted residential supervision and rehabilitative
support.
I make no apology for repeating the point I have made at previous
stages of the passage of this Bill: it is rehabilitation that is
key. Whatever the views of individual Members or different
parties across the House about the causes of crime or harshness
of sentencing, we all want to see fewer victims of crime, yet
despite the best efforts of skilled, dedicated, committed and
caring prison officers and probation staff, to whom I pay
tribute, reoffending rates remain stubbornly high. In fact, as
hon. and right hon. Members may be aware, around 80% of crime
that receives a caution or conviction is committed by a repeat
offender.
We know that drugs play a massive role in offending, whether that
is committing crimes while the offender is under the influence of
drugs or committing crimes to feed the habit. Indeed, Dame Carol
Black’s review of drugs estimated that the total cost of harms
related to illicit drug use in England was more than £19 billion
in 2017-18. Drug-related crime was the main driver of the total
costs, with recorded offences committed in England by drug users
amounting to £9.3 billion in that period. Action to reduce drug
use is an important part of helping people who are newly released
from prison and at acute risk of succumbing to the temptation of
a return to substance misuse.
(Cities of London and
Westminster) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his private Member’s Bill. In
the Mayor of London’s suggested new policy, he is looking to
allow young people who are caught with drugs in Greenwich, Bexley
and Lewisham not to face any offence or be brought to justice and
to be let off the hook. Does my hon. Friend agree that really
small amounts of drugs can lead to greater issues for young
people in the long term and may even lead them to go into crime?
Surely it is about teaching young people from the very start that
drugs are not the answer to anything.
My hon. Friend raises an important point. She is absolutely right
that drugs are never the answer, and we need to make sure we
tackle the blight that they bring. Thames Valley police, which
covers the area of Aylesbury, has a very interesting programme of
diversion. Diversion for young people does not mean letting
people off the hook, but it does sometimes mean steering them
towards help, rather than necessarily taking them to court as a
first step. That can sometimes be a very valuable part of the
process of helping young people make the right decisions
ultimately, and that feeds into the approach that staff in
approved premises will take towards people who are tested, if
this Bill becomes law. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that
point, and I will build on it a little when we get to the
specifics of how it applies to this Bill.
Based on the context I have set out, this legislation is very
much needed. Sadly, in recent years the number of deaths among
residents in approved premises has increased, and many of those
deaths are believed to be related to drugs. As I have highlighted
previously, it is an unfortunate fact that patterns of drug
misuse both in custody and in the community are changing for the
worse. In recent years, psychoactive substances have become much
more prevalent in the illicit economy in approved
premises—indeed, a recent questionnaire of staff in approved
premises suggested that they are now the primary substance of
choice.
Psychoactive substances can be especially dangerous, not least
because of the unpredictability of their effect. In some cases
they appear to have almost no effect and perhaps leave the user
just dozing slightly, but it can be much worse and they can be
left in a virtually catatonic state. In other cases the use of
psychoactive substances can result in convulsions, vomiting, the
temporary loss of vision or speech, reduced levels of
consciousness and anxiety.
It is more concerning still that the use of psychoactive
substances can provoke extreme, volatile or unpredictable
behaviour that can often be violent. That poses a serious risk
not only to the person who has taken the substance but to people
nearby. Members may have seen a recent television documentary
that showed prisoners in jail who were thought to have taken
psychoactive substances and who behaved as though they were
animals: they were literally on the floor, howling and fighting
extremely aggressively. It was profoundly disturbing to watch
such scenes.
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting the Bill to this
stage—and further, we hope, later today. He is right to raise the
problem with psychoactive substances and the risk of people
turning violent or aggressive. Is there not a risk of a domino
effect? If people are on the mend and clean in approved premises
but then go into an unstable environment, that is more likely to
put them back on the path that we are trying to get them off.
My hon. Friend gets to the nub of the challenge we face, and I
glad he has highlighted it. I express my appreciation for his
work with a similar Bill on substance testing in prisons that he
stewarded through the previous Session, inspired by our former
colleague, the much-missed former Member for Chesham and
Amersham, , about whom I shall say a
little more later. He picked up the mantle and speaks with great
expertise in this policy area.
(East Yorkshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting his Bill to this stage.
Will the results of the anonymous testing be published?
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.
(Bracknell) (Con)
My constituency of Bracknell has a drugs problem, and drugs are,
of course, endemic across the UK and beyond. I wish, briefly, to
commend all those involved in the fight against drugs, including
the police, the blue-light services, the NHS, probation services,
local councils. However, more needs to be done, which is why I
commend my hon. Friend for his Bill and thoroughly support it.
Does he agree that the utility of his Bill, when it comes to
approved premises, is that it identifies those who are clearly
still taking drugs as part of that process but, more importantly,
it identifies people who may be taking drugs and are in need of
further rehabilitation and support? Can I ask him therefore to
commend the very positive aspects of his Bill?
That is exactly the point I raised earlier when I mentioned the
key being rehabilitation. I will come on to talk a little about
exactly what will happen if somebody fails a drug test once the
Bill is implemented, should it end up passing today and making it
through the other place.
(North West Norfolk) (Con)
My hon. Friend says he will come on to the consequences for
people failing a test. However, what if someone refuses to take a
test? What actions could happen in that circumstance?
If my hon. Friend is patient, I will also come on to that point
in just a moment. It is all in my speech, I promise.
Returning to the need for this Bill, the Prisons and Probation
Ombudsman, which investigates deaths in custody, has made
repeated recommendations on the urgent need for a comprehensive
drug strategy for the approved premises estate, including
expanding the range of drugs for which tests can take place. The
Bill will do exactly that.
Of course, deaths are not commonplace in AP, and we should not
imply that they are. However, the impact of drugs on the physical
and mental wellbeing of individuals in both the short and long
term is profound. Drug use also undermines an offender’s ability
to engage in rehabilitation, which was mentioned by my hon.
Friend the Member for Bracknell (), and potentially hampers
an offender’s efforts to turn their back on crime at the very
moment they most need to desist and begin a new law-abiding
life.
The Bill will enable Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service
to create a comprehensive framework for drug testing in approved
premises. It will bring APs in line with the testing regime that
was recently introduced across the prison estate—to which I
referred a moment ago, in response to the intervention by my hon.
Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme ()—and that was established by
the Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill, which was introduced in the
last Session in the name of the former right hon. Member for
Chesham and Amersham, the late .
Dame Cheryl and I discussed her Bill in some detail; she knew I
had experience in this area and was very interested in it. She
was very clear on the positive impact that these changes could
have on prisoners. The fact that her Bill received no opposition
during its passage and received Royal Assent is just one further
example of the tremendous legacy left by Dame Cheryl. She is very
much missed in this place and, I would like to say, across the
whole of Buckinghamshire and more widely across the country.
I recognise that some right hon. and hon. Members might wonder
why drug testing does not already exist in approved premises. I
would like to reassure them that there is already some provision
in place, although it is far from sufficient for today’s
landscape of substance misuse. Currently, residents are tested
for drugs if they are asked to do so by staff in accordance with
the house rules that they accept as a condition of their
residence in the approved premises. Although that provides a
basis for some drug testing, it does not set out a comprehensive
statutory framework for the testing of illicit substances, for
the type or scope of substances that may be tested, or for the
types of samples that may be taken. What is more, at present,
HMPPS tests residents only on a risk and suspicion regime and can
test for only four groups: opioids, cannabis, cocaine and
amphetamines. In short, the current testing regime is
unsatisfactory and insufficient, hence the need for the Bill
before the House today.
(Penrith and The Border)
(Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing his Bill this far, and
I wish him well in its further passage. It is an important Bill.
He has fluently described the changing patterns of drug use, the
different substances and the ever-changing types of drugs used
that are a blight on our society. Does he agree that, by bringing
forward a robust and regulated drug-testing system, his Bill will
provide an effective response to the ever-changing picture of the
types of drugs in use? He has mentioned psychoactive substances.
Given that ever-changing picture, an approved testing regime will
help.
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; once again he
demonstrates knowledge of the impact of drugs on the human body.
He has expertise on animal bodies rather than human bodies, but
he demonstrates none the less a profound understanding of
pharmacology and the changing pattern of drugs. There has been
great news about prescription medication—we have seen real
advances in drugs. However, there is a flipside to that, which is
that there is an ever-growing group of criminals who seek to
exploit scientific development and advances, and use them to prey
on the most vulnerable in society. What we need to do is help
those who might fall prey to that victimisation. That is why this
testing regime will result in help, guidance and support,
alongside potentially criminal consequences if the misuse is
continued or results in particularly poor behaviour.
Dr Hudson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. He brings
up the point about the different types of drugs that are
available. I was not going to bring this up, but he has made the
important point that some of the drugs that are misused in
society are used in a veterinary setting, perhaps for analgesia
and anaesthesia—ketamine, for instance. It is important that
legislation is passed that mitigates, reduces and cancels out the
inappropriate use of drugs that are so beneficial in human and
veterinary medicine, but create such a blight for people if they
are misused. They are dangerous and potentially fatal.
Again, I thank my hon. Friend for sharing his expertise and
contributing to the greater education of Members across this
House. By expanding the range of substances that can be tested
for, and taking the step to require that testing be done on
urine, the Bill will increase HMPPS’s ability to detect and
address drug use quickly and efficiently. As I have already
indicated, the Bill will extend the range of substances that can
be tested for. It makes provision to test all residents in
approved premises for controlled drugs, psychoactive substances
and prescription-only medicines.
I will now move on to the manner of testing. Approved premises
currently test for drugs using oral fluids. However, relatively
few drugs can be detected reliably in oral fluid. That means that
the current testing regime has a limited capacity to identify
drug use among residents. As a result, residents’ needs are not
identified and treatment and care cannot be planned or managed
effectively. The move to urine testing will allow HMPPS to both
test for a much wider range of substances and, crucially, provide
a longer timeframe in which to detect the use of illicit
substances. That is because certain drugs are only detectable for
a relatively short period of time in oral fluid—12 to 24
hours—but in urine some drugs, such as heroin, are detectable for
up to five days. Clearly, this increases the opportunity to
detect the use of substances and will provide an additional
deterrent to those who might be tempted to abuse them.
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?
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 () 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.
12.32pm
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Con)
After what has been a difficult week for many of us, it is
absolutely lovely to be here in the Chamber with so many
colleagues, and so many Conservative colleagues, working together
and doing important business in this place—scrutinising Bills and
getting Bills passed. I briefly offer my congratulations to my
hon. Friend the Member for Darlington () on the successful passage of
his Bill a half-hour or so ago. I fervently hope that in half an
hour’s time, I will be offering the same congratulations to my
hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury ().
I congratulate my hon. Friend on everything that he has achieved
with this Bill. From his declaration of interest, it is clear
that he literally fits the bill in this instance, given his
experience as a magistrate and with the Sentencing Council and
everything that he talked about. I was pleased to be able to
attend the Chamber and intervene on him on Second Reading. I was
disappointed that I was unavailable for his Public Bill
Committee, but I have read through the good debate that took
place in that Committee as well.
As my hon. Friend said in his speech today, 80% of crime that
involves cautions or convictions involves repeat offences.
Anything that we can do to support rehabilitation, in both the
criminal sense and the health sense, we should do, and approved
premises, as he has rightly identified, are a huge part of that.
They are of course undermined, as he said, if residents are
accessing drugs—in particular, psychoactive substances such as
Spice, or Skunk. As I said in my intervention, there is the
problem of the domino effect: if drugs are in a place, it makes
more people likely to use drugs because they realise that there
is not a regime that takes that seriously, and it is more likely
to put them in an unstable position that sends them back to the
place they have come from.
As my hon. Friend said, the existing regime is now inadequate for
the challenge that we face. His Bill is very much part of the
answer to that. It is only part of the answer; Government
investment and Government strategy are absolutely key on drugs,
too. Therefore, I was glad that in Committee, the Policing
Minister outlined the Government’s strategy and their investment
into tackling the scourge of drugs, which he said is happening on
three levels: first, trying to cut off the supply of drugs and
preventing drugs getting into the country through tighter control
of our borders and airports; and thirdly—I will come to his
second point in a moment—there is a generational shift in the
appropriateness of drugs. More teenagers probably took drugs when
I was a teenager than now. We are winning the war on drugs. For a
long time, it has been fashionable to say that we are not
winning, but it is a winnable war. What my hon. Friend the Member
for Aylesbury is doing today will be a huge part of that.
The Minister’s second point in Committee was that we are creating
a world-class treatment and recovery system, which is germane to
the Bill. There is also money going into tackling drugs. Good
intentions and strategies need to be backed up by Government
investment, and nearly £900 million of additional funding is
being put in over the next three years, which brings the total up
to £3 billion.
I will be brief, because I know that several hon. Members wish to
speak. With that investment and the Bill of my hon. Friend the
Member for Aylesbury, I am greatly reassured that the
Government—unlike the Labour Mayor of London, as my hon. Friend
the Member for Cities of London and Westminster () said—are determined to
tackle the scourge not just of drugs and the damage that they do
to people’s health, but of crime that is associated with drugs
that ruins other innocent people’s lives. Once again, I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury on his
efforts to get to this point and I look forward to voting for the
Bill in the near future.
12.36pm
(North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and I congratulate my
hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury () on successfully bringing the
Bill forward to this stage. I welcome the fact that it is concise
and precise legislation. Indeed, it is probably short enough for
the former right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (), who did not have time to
read the Maastricht treaty, to skim.
The Bill is about public safety in approved premises—hostels in
communities—that provide temporary accommodation for people who
have been released from prison but are considered to present the
highest risk to the community, so that they can get additional
residential supervision, rehabilitation and support. As has been
said, such premises also support people on bail as well as
high-risk offenders serving community sentences.
I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury
that, regrettably, the number of deaths among approved premises
residents has increased in recent years, with much of that driven
by the scourge of drugs. With more than 2,000 bed spaces, it is
important for there to be a comprehensive drugs strategy for the
approved premises estate.
Aside from being illegal and damaging for individuals’ health,
taking drugs also undermines rehabilitation efforts, which may
therefore lead to more offending. My North West Norfolk
constituents want action to be taken to deal with that. I welcome
the Bill and the proposals to put in place a comprehensive
framework for testing. Importantly, it is consistent with the one
that operates in prisons.
It is a sad fact that the Bill has needed to ensure that a much
wider range of drugs is included, so it covers prescription
drugs, medicines and psychoactive substance. I welcome the fact
that by including prevalence testing, and putting it on a firmer
statutory footing, we will be able to track emerging trends so
that they are identified and to react more quickly to changes in
drugs use.
I know from debates on Second Reading and in Committee, and from
the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury earlier
today, that the critical issue of the consequences of failing a
drugs test has been considered. In the first instance, it is
important that the staff talk to the individual, point them to
substance misuse organisations and make a plan to help them to
stop taking drugs. He may have some current data on how
successful those efforts are after failed drugs tests, but
ultimately, if they are unsuccessful, there should rightly be
consequences, as he said, with police involvement or recall to
prison if they have breached licence conditions.
Once again, I turn eagerly to the commencement clause. The Act
will come into force only when regulations are laid, rather than
on the day on which it passes. I am sure that the Minister will
assure me that those regulations are well developed and will be
brought forward rapidly once the Bill is on the statute book.
It is a modestly sized Bill, but drug use is a major problem that
drives crime in our communities, whether that is theft to fund a
habit or violence or other criminal behaviour when people are off
their heads on Spice or other substances. It will help to deliver
our commitment to the people who put us here to make their
streets and communities safer, so I am pleased to support it
today.
12.39pm
(Great Grimsby) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury () for introducing the Bill. As
others have said, it is a concise and precise piece of
legislation which will hopefully give Her Majesty’s Prison and
Probation Service and others associated with approved premises a
broader understanding of the needs of people in such
premises.
The prevalence of drugs is of great concern to all of us, as is
the huge—indeed, worldwide—business that continues to promote it.
In my own constituency, I am concerned about the pain that people
must be going through to want to take drugs in order to remove
themselves from real life, when there are so many valuable things
we can do when we are fully focused on real life.
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and heartfelt speech. I know
that, given her experience in her constituency and what she did
before she came to the House, she is aware of the risk that drugs
pose to young people; perhaps she could say a little about that.
As I said in my own speech, I believe we are seeing a
generational shift, and I think the Bill will be part of it.
My hon. Friend has alluded to my career in education and working
with young people, including children and teenagers. I believe
that, thankfully, we are seeing a cultural shift as people start
wanting to be healthier and live longer. The progress with
vaccination in the last couple of years has shown that people
want to lead healthier lives, and to be more careful about what
they consume. We know that in criminal circles drugs provide a
way of coercing and controlling people, especially young people,
who, even if they are not starting to take the drugs, are
delivering them. The clampdown on county lines is making a huge
difference in towns such as Great Grimsby, where, at various
communication and travel points, youngsters on bicycles can be
seen meeting people with carrier bags or rucksacks.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury
will be able to respond to this point, but obviously the biggest
concern is that if people in residential approved premises are
being tested regularly, presumably they are able to get hold of
and take drugs while they are in such premises. Perhaps the
Minister will be able to say whether it will be possible for that
to be pinpointed in the Bill. It is not just a question of
rehabilitating offenders, ex-offenders, or people going through
the various stages of a sentence or post sentence; what about
those who are clearly getting hold of illegal substances while
they are in those premises? Will this or other legislation allow
for us to find out what is happening with the supply and where it
is coming from—whether it is coming from people who are visiting,
whether people are going out into the community to get it, or
whether, sadly, it is coming from people who are employed in the
system?
Although this is a tight and concise piece of legislation, it is
vital in our fight against drug use, and hopefully it will help
us not only to rehabilitate people, but to pinpoint where those
supplies are coming from.
12.43pm
(Cities of London and
Westminster) (Con)
Like other hon. Members, I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for
Aylesbury () for his efforts to enhance the
capability of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to
detect illegal drug use. The Bill will be an important tool to
enable HMPPS to understand the prevalence and nature of substance
abuse in approved premises.
I am particularly encouraged by the Bill’s holistic approach to
tackling drugs misuse. It will work well with a number of the
Government’s key priorities; it chimes with the beating crime
plan, complements the prisons strategy White Paper and adds to
the focus on transparency in the new drugs strategy. One thing
that struck me on reading the Bill was that its provisions are
very much targeted towards help and guidance for those in
approved premises, rather than towards prosecution. I think we
all agree that if somebody has a drugs problem, it is better to
help than prosecute them.
I accept that the Mayor of London is trying to do his best about
drug use among young people, particularly in Bexley, Lewisham and
Greenwich, by not prosecuting under-25s caught in possession of a
small amount of drugs. However, I think that that policy will
give a very clear steer to the gangs peddling drugs that they can
persuade young people that a small amount of cannabis will be
okay and that they will get away with it. I do not think that
that is the right message to send our young people.
I particularly praise the Bill for giving agencies the ability to
understand and respond to new and emerging patterns in drug use
in approved premises, ultimately aiming to reduce it and support
reductions in reoffending. I also welcome the fact that it will
support the development of effective practice in tackling
substance misuse, supporting recovery and building a body of
evidence on drug misuse among the offender cohort. My concern,
however, is that people living in approved premises are not
typical offenders; they often have complex problems. Keeping that
in mind, our approach to drugs and dependency in approved
premises must always be underpinned by assessment and
empathy.
Overall, consistency of testing and treatment from prison to the
community can and will be vital in ensuring that approved
premises, which we are expanding on, are safe and drug-free, and
that the risk of serious harm is reduced for the individual, for
other residents and for the wider public. I am therefore
delighted to support my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill
today.
12.47pm
(Darlington) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate and to further support
my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (), who has expertly guided the
Bill through its early stages. He and I know what a rollercoaster
ride the stewardship of a private Member’s Bill is; I pay tribute
to his hard work and tenacity. Having spoken on Second Reading
and in Committee, I am delighted to have the opportunity of
completing the set, as it were. As I outlined at the earlier
stages, the Bill is warmly welcome: it is vital to protecting our
nation’s rehabilitation services and staff members in approved
premises up and down the country. I am proud to support its
progress and glad that it has reached Third Reading
unamended.
For too long, staff members of assisted premises have been left
without the appropriate and necessary support from lawmakers here
in Westminster, so they have had to rely on antiquated
legislation that has not evolved to match new challenges. Their
important but often unrecognised part of our criminal justice
system is vital in assisting with rehabilitation; approved
premises are important in supporting the minority of individuals
who are deemed at high risk of harm or of reoffending. Their work
ensures that those at the highest risk and with the most complex
needs receive additional, targeted residential supervision and
rehabilitative support. At the sites, their needs are supported
and they are protected and supervised as they are gently
reintroduced into society, in the hope that they can become
productive and effective members once again.
As I set out on Second Reading, Darlington is served by Nelson
House and the Crescent in Middlesbrough, and it is clear that
staff there have gone above and beyond to provide the necessary
specialised support. Under clause 1 of the Bill, approved
premises managers can authorised assisted premises staff to ask
for and require a urine sample from any resident, rather than an
oral fluid test—a provision already in place elsewhere in the
system. This is achieved by allowing Her Majesty’s Prison and
Probation Service to create a comprehensive yet fair drug testing
framework in approved premises. Importantly, it allows the drug
testing framework to respond flexibly as managers and staff adapt
to patterns of drug misuse and improve the identification of
their residents misusing substances, ensuring that appropriate
care planning and referrals to specialist treatments are in
place.
The Bill seeks to capitalise on improving technology by using the
definitions of those substances and medicines already set out in
legislation, including in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the
Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 and the Human Medicines
Regulations 2012. I was glad to hear reassurances during the Bill
Committee that clause 1 also ensures that the first step will be
to provide guidance and assistance for those found to have drugs
or other illicit substances in their bodies. I am glad that this
short yet impactful Bill grants staff the legislative powers that
they need to prevent wider prevalence of drug misuse within their
premises and tackle ever-changing and evolving patterns. It
builds on the recommendations of the prisons and probation
ombudsman, which in 2017 called for more effective drug testing
practices and better staff guidance to identify and address the
risks associated with substance misuse.
The Bill places approved premises on a much firmer legislative
footing when it comes to protecting residents. I fully support my
hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury in his efforts to guide the
Bill on to the statute book. I look forward to the Bill’s
completing its remaining stages.
12.51pm
(Stockton South) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury () for bringing the Bill before
the House. I believe it is not only a fantastic piece of
legislation but fits perfectly within wider Government strategies
to deal with the influence and issue of drugs in our communities.
It will set a comprehensive statutory framework for the testing
of illicit substances in approved premises and will enable an
increase in testing, thereby hopefully reducing the number of
drug-related deaths in approved premises. For that reason, I
strongly support it.
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments on the focus of the Bill
being guidance and help rather than just prosecution. We need
this sort of balanced and compassionate approach when dealing
with this complex and multifaceted issue. The more humane we are
as a society and in our approach, the better chance we have of
actually helping those in need to break the cycle of drug abuse
and reoffending, giving people another chance in life.
What is so important about the Bill is that it will help us
tackle drug use in approved premises, where residents are most at
risk, and will empower those staffing these premises to respond
effectively to residents, with staff enabled to apply the
relevant treatment, guidance and support. Prevention is better
than punishment. The Bill’s enlightened approach will support the
Government’s continued commitment to the general rehabilitation
of offenders, help reduce reoffending and assist in getting
vulnerable people’s lives back on track. Breaking the cycle of
drug use and reoffending will clean up our streets and protect
our communities. The Bill provides a robust response to the
ever-changing means and methods of drug use.
It is important that we expand the methods of testing. The Bill
will introduce urine testing rather than oral fluid testing. Few
drugs can be detected reliably in oral fluid. Moving to urine
testing allows a laboratory to test reliably for a range of
illicitly used drugs. The Bill will also extend the range of
substances that can be tested to cover all forms of psychoactive
substance, as well as prescription and pharmacy medicines. It
will allow the Prison and Probation service to respond
effectively and flexibly to changing patterns of drug misuse and
to improve the identification of residents misusing substances to
enable appropriate referrals to treatment, together with the
development of appropriate targeted care planning.
Back in 2017, the prisons and probation ombudsman outlined that
approved premises need a more effective focus on drug testing and
on managing the risks of substance abuse. The Bill will do just
that; I am delighted to support it.
12.54pm
(Lewisham West and Penge)
(Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for Aylesbury () for bringing forward this
extremely important Bill. I want to start by thanking those who
work in the criminal justice system in approved premises, prisons
and the probation service. They do an incredibly challenging job
and deserve our thanks.
As we have heard today, residents who are supervised in approved
premises are not typical offenders. Often, they are high-risk
individuals with additional problems and troubled pasts. They
mainly house people released from prison with strict licence
conditions in place. Approved premises play an incredibly
important role in the rehabilitation of those who are there.
Ensuring they are housed in safe and secure drug-free premises
that support their rehabilitation and prevent reoffending is
crucial not just for those who are placed there, but for the
public at large, so everything must be done to protect residents
from the supply of drugs, which in some cases has led to them
offending in the first place.
I am deeply concerned, like other Members across the House, that
drug deaths in approved premises have risen in recent years, and
that the abuse of prescription drugs and new psychoactive
substances is increasing. Psychoactive substances in particular
are constantly evolving and becoming harder to detect and combat,
and the hon. Member highlighted the profound effect such drugs
can have on those who take them.
I am interested to know the hon. Lady’s views on the Mayor of
London’s proposals to allow under-25s not to be prosecuted.
Perhaps it is the decriminalisation of drugs that he is
suggesting for Lewisham, Bexley and Greenwich.
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I am not surprised by it,
particularly as I am a Member of Parliament representing
Lewisham. I do not agree with the premise that it is the
decriminalisation of drugs in our borough. Let us look at what
the Mayor of London is doing: an extra 1,300 police officers and
£70 million for opportunities for disadvantaged young people. The
reoffending rate for people using the London Women’s Diversion
Service, which the Mayor of London funds, is just 7% versus the
national average of, I think, 23.3%. It is really important to
look at what works, but it certainly is not the decriminalisation
of drugs that the hon. Lady refers to.
Under the Offender Management Act 2007, residents of approved
premises are required to submit to drug tests if requested by
members of staff in some circumstances, but it is not a
comprehensive scheme. The detection of prescription drugs and
psychoactive substances in particular can be evaded. It is
therefore clear that the current testing framework is far from
perfect and we welcome the Bill, which would help to build a more
comprehensive framework that enables approved premises to conduct
drug testing in line with the regime used in prisons. Not only
would that allow for the testing of a greater range of
substances; it would allow offender managers to use urine
testing, rather than oral fluid testing, which detects a far
wider range of drugs over a longer period of time. The measures
would also allow for anonymous sample testing to help to
understand the extent of substance use and to help to identify
any new substances.
It is absolutely right that managers of an approved premises
should have the tools to identify drug misuse and better
understand the types of drugs that are being used, but we are
also pleased to see that the Bill provides assistance and
rehabilitation. I welcome the points the hon. Member for
Aylesbury made in relation to that not just today, but on Second
Reading and in Committee. Residents who test positive for drugs
will be directed to appropriate substance misuse organisations
first, with punitive sanctions not the primary purpose of the new
regime. That is something we very much welcome. All these
measures will help offender managers to better support those in
their care. That will not only improve the rehabilitation of
residents but decrease the risk to members of the public.
However, to truly tackle drug use in approved premises we also
have to look at what is happening in our prisons. Following over
a decade of Tory Government, drug use in prisons has increased by
500%. Our overcrowded prisons are in crisis—failing to
rehabilitate, failing to stem the tide of drugs flowing into them
and failing to keep us safe. The Government hailed their prisons
White Paper as a great success but it was merely a sticking
plaster over the deep wounds caused by 12 years of Conservative
neglect. The statistics speak for themselves. There has been a
12% drop in inmates enrolling in drug and alcohol courses over
the last four years, with fewer offenders taking these
programmes. That simply leads to greater addiction and inmates
learning nothing but more criminality. And what of the Justice
Secretary’s flagship programme of introducing £1 million X-ray
scanners in all men’s prisons? They are detecting only a quarter
of the number of contraband items being found in manual checks by
prison officers. This is a Government that is high on tax but
soft on crime. The perilous state of our prisons means that a
third of adults released from custody go on to reoffend within a
year, costing the taxpayer £18 billion and meaning that we are
less safe on our streets.
We welcome the Bill, but unless the Government get to grips with
the fundamental problems across our justice system they will be
condemning many to a cycle of reoffending. I commend the hon.
Member for Aylesbury for his determination in bringing the Bill
before the House and I wish him every success as it passage
continues.
1.01pm
The Minister of State, Home Department ()
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for
Aylesbury () for the excellent work he has
conducted over the last few months in introducing this important
Bill and for navigating it to this stage. As my hon. Friend the
Member for Darlington () said based on his own
experiences—I congratulate him too on his success this
morning—getting a private Member’s Bill through can be a bit of a
rollercoaster. It is great credit to my hon. Friend the Member
for Aylesbury that there is such warmth and support for his
efforts and for this legislation in the House today. I am
extremely grateful to my hon. Friends across the House for
speaking so well and for giving such support to this important
piece of discrete legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme () gently reflected on the fact
that it is good to be in this place talking about issues that
really matter for our constituencies, and I echo his feelings on
that. This legislation, coupled with the Government’s work across
our drugs strategy and our prisons strategy, will really make a
difference to our constituents across the country.
The Bill will play an important role in helping us to tackle
illegal drug use, cut crime and save lives. I thank members of
staff across the country, who work day in, day out to assist
prisoners and offenders in getting back on to the straight and
narrow and, importantly, to protect the public. Individual
officers and members of staff do this work often without the
public quite realising what they have to do or their enormous
personal commitment to helping protect the public. I put on
record my thanks to everyone doing this work day in, day out in
approved premises, in probation and in our Prison Service.
The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge () had a little pop from the
Opposition Front Bench about X-ray scanners. I read with great
interest the Opposition’s press release today about how X-ray
scanners do not work. I do struggle to understand how the
Opposition propose that prison officers are to detect concealed
items in a person’s body. I have looked at the photographs and,
believe you me, it would be quite difficult for a prison officer
to reach down somebody’s throat, or another way, and remove
something from their intestines, but who knows? The Labour party
seems to be against X-ray body scanners. We are very firmly in
favour of them. We are also in favour of drugs dogs and of
members of staff doing manual searches. These things are just one
tool in the Government’s determination to have a zero-tolerance
approach to drugs in prison and in our society.
In December, we published our cross-Government drugs strategy,
which represents an ambitious 10-year generational commitment to
work across Government to address illegal drug use, including
increased and enhanced testing in prisons and approved premises.
We know the detrimental impact that drugs have on both the
individual taking them and the wider community. Our strategy sets
out three core priorities, which are: cutting off drugs supply;
creating a world-class treatment and recovery service; and
achieving a generational shift in the demand for drugs. I was
particularly interested in the contributions on that from my hon.
Friends the Members for Great Grimsby () and for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
They are right that such work must sit hand in hand with greater
education—particularly of our young people—so that people
understand the enormous costs involved in taking drugs both for
themselves personally and for wider society.
Our vision goes beyond just treatment. We know that people who
suffer from addiction also have multiple and complex needs for
which they need support. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of
London and Westminster () used the word “empathy”
about such approaches. She is right, and in a characteristically
informed and knowledgeable way she showed how that requires not
just our ambitious efforts to crack down on drugs supply but a
little understanding of why people may find themselves addicts in
the first place. We want to deliver a joined-up package across
treatment, accommodation and employment. The strategy is
underpinned with total investment of £3 billion in combating
drugs over the next three years.
The prisons strategy White Paper, which sits alongside the drugs
strategy and this discrete piece of legislation, sets out our
ambitious plans to reduce reoffending and protect the public. It
defines our goal for prisons to have a culture of zero tolerance
to drugs and an approach that ensures meaningful and lasting
recovery for all prisoners. Prisoners will be supported to use
their time in prison to become free from drugs. On release,
accommodation and employment support will help them to stay away
from drugs and crime.
It is important, however, that work to tackle substance misuse
continues outside prison. The Bill will ensure that we can
understand and react quickly to the changing patterns of drugs
misuse that exist in approved premises and hamper an individual’s
chances of rehabilitation. As my hon. Friend the Member for
Aylesbury set out, the Bill will implement a rigorous drug
testing framework, enabling mandatory drug testing for
psychoactive substances together with prescription and pharmacy
medicines. It will enable us to test for a wide number of
substances for longer and will help to identify prevalence trends
so that we can focus our preventive and, indeed, investigative
work.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk () asked a perfectly fair question
about the consequences for someone who fails a drugs test. We
very much want to incorporate the empathy referred to by my hon.
Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, but we
also want there to be consequences. If a resident fails a drugs
test, there will be discussions with them, and an improvement
plan may be initiated with referrals to appropriate services. We
are conscious that although there needs to be rigour and
discipline in approved premises, we do not want the exercise to
be purely punitive. We therefore aim to signpost and refer
residents to substance misuse services, liaising with
probation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South () emphasised the vital role
played by staff. He is right to pay tribute to them, because the
staff in approved premises will be leading the work in helping
residents make the changes that we all want them to make.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk also asked about
regulations. I am told that no further legislation is required—it
is more that guidance and authorisations will be required.
Officials aim to implement that as swiftly as possible, because
we want this work to continue. In closing, I thank my hon. Friend
the Member for Aylesbury again for all his hard work in getting
the Bill to this stage. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, this
is also a rare opportunity for Ministers to thank at the Dispatch
Box the unsung heroes who exist in every single Government
Department, drafting legislation and providing assistance to Back
Benchers when they are navigating a private Member’s Bill through
the House. As such, I thank the Bill manager, Alice Harrison, and
other officials including Graham Mackenzie, Alisha Hubert,
Shelley Smith, Janet Thomas, Adam Hartley, Janet Cowdrey, and
parliamentary counsel Justin Leslie and Amy Perkins for all the
work they have done quietly from backstage, making sure that my
hon. Friend is able to achieve what he wants to achieve.
I am pleased to reiterate the Government’s support for this
important, discrete piece of legislation, and I wish it well in
its progress in the other place.
1.10pm
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank all those who
have assisted me in getting the Bill this far. First, though, I
must apologise that in the heat of the moment, I inadvertently
misled the House when I suggested that it was my hon. Friend the
Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme () who stewarded the Prisons
(Substance Testing) Act 2021 through the House on behalf of
, when it was in fact my hon.
Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden). I cannot
think how I possibly mistook the two; I leave that to others.
I thank my hon. Friend for his generous apology. I suspect that
as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham is five years
younger than me, he may be getting an angry text from him, rather
than me. [Laughter.] I understand that he has a similar problem
with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (): perhaps he could address
that.
I do indeed: it is my hon. Friend the Member for North West
Norfolk who is often angry, because he is, I think, 10 years
younger than I. I will move on, but I beg the indulgence of the
House and apologise profusely for inadvertently misleading the
House and Members.
First, I thank the Ministers in the Ministry of Justice. My right
hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire () has been alongside me throughout much of this
process, but today, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and
Horncastle () has picked up the mantle
with her normal expertise on the brief. I am very grateful to her
for stepping in today, and to both Ministers for their help,
assistance and advice. I echo my hon. Friend’s words and extend
my thanks to the Ministry of Justice civil servants whom she has
just named. They have worked incredibly diligently on this Bill,
devoting many hours of work to its progress, and have been a
constant source of information, advice and—at times—just calm
reassurance. I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker,
and the other Deputy Speakers for your guidance and for ensuring
that there was always a firm hand on the tiller.
On the parliamentary side, my thanks go to the Chairman of the
Bill Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan
(), and all the Members who
served under his chairmanship. If I may beg the House’s
indulgence, for his expert knowledge of procedure, his
willingness to answer even the most basic questions, and his
warm, reassuring approach to a new MP potentially overwhelmed by
the complexities of legislation, I record especial thanks to the
Clerk of Private Member’s Bills, who sits at the table today.
This would not have been possible without him, so I am deeply
grateful to Adam Mellows-Facer. If I have broken protocol by
naming him, I apologise, but I hope that all will understand the
circumstances of doing so.
I thank my Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and
North Poole (). I also thank the Whip
in charge of private Member’s Bills, my hon. Friend the Member
for Castle Point () for her military-like
precision and firm guidance, which right now extends to waving me
to sit down. I will do so in 15 seconds after I finally, and most
importantly, pay tribute to the staff working in approved
premises, working alongside people at an incredibly sensitive
moment in their lives. As the Minister has summed up so well, we
owe a great deal of gratitude to them.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Occupants of the Chair have great sympathy when Members are
confused with other Members. It is particularly difficult when
the largest part of a person’s physiognomy is hidden: it can
sometimes be very difficult, especially when people hide
themselves at the far ends of the Chamber, but the hon. Gentleman
got through.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
|
