Priti Patel MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 15 Oct 2024 · Renewable Energy Projects: Community Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I commend the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for securing this debate. As the Minister will be well aware, my constituency of Witham is at the forefront of National Grid’s proposal for the Norwich-to-Tilbury upgrade of the national grid. I would like to put a number of concerns to him that my constituents and people across that part of mid-Essex have raised. This debate is about community benefit, but with the pylon development scheme there is very little dialogue about community benefit. Guidance on the community benefits of the scheme is still under development; there are therefore no cost estimates or any details of what it will actually mean for my constituents or even for those affected by the proposal. I would welcome the Minister saying more about that when he winds up. Alongside that, reports now indicate that there may be a cheaper option than pylons: tunnelling. Countries such as Germany have been at the forefront of that, along with innovation and technology. I would welcome more information from the Minister and the Department about whether that will be factored into the community discussion about wider benefits from the upgrade to the grid, and into the work that he will be undertaking. I do not think that it is deliverable by 2030, but clearly we need to make some progress. The community benefit discussion is clearly live within the Government. May I ask when the Minister will meet Members who represent Essex and the east of England for dialogue and discussion, so we can go back to our constituents and give them some assurance about what this will mean for them?

• 14 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He will know very well from his own time in government, given the roles in which he served, that we have been privy to the details of some awful plans, plots and issues that could have inflicted a lot of problems on our country. We must always have these policies under review. I want to pay tribute to the work of our security and intelligence services. Their work behind the scenes is just outstanding, and we are blessed in so many ways with the level of scrutiny, the work they do and the resources that come from Government. I want to pay tribute to the team that set up the counter-terrorism operations centre—a new organisation established by the previous Government during the last Parliament—which focuses on the integrated approach of our security services for a lot of the operational work that takes place. We should not just pay tribute to it, but recognise that this work always has to be kept under review, because the threats change. The nature of the threats evolves and changes constantly and, as we know, terrorism is not just domestic but takes place outside this country. The Bill has had extensive consideration and consultation. It has taken into account the recommendations and details contained in reports and inquests from the Manchester Arena attack, and from the attacks at London bridge and here in Westminster, and other incidents, as is absolutely right. During my time at the Home Office, we gave a commitment to introduce a protect duty, which was welcomed across the House and by campaigners and many businesses, and that consultation was undertaken in 2021. We had to consult and consider carefully how best to implement that and improve public safety protections while being mindful of the many impacts on businesses to which the House has alluded—the need for those impacts to be proportionate and for burdens to be minimised—particularly on smaller businesses and venues, and contemplating the role and responsibilities of the regulator. The Home Secretary touched on some of those points. Since then, the draft Bill was published last year and was considered by the Home Affairs Committee, and this year the standard tier consultation took place. The results were published last month with the Bill and, importantly, the provisions have been built on and some changes made. It is right that the details have been scrutinised. It is important that we recognise the patience of the campaigners who wanted the Bill to come forward much earlier, but we needed to get the technicalities and the details right. There is no point in bringing forward legislation if we cannot operationalise it. The Home Secretary has spoken about the role of the SIA. We need to consider how the SIA will be equipped adequately. It was resourced heavily during the covid pandemic, with new duties and responsibilities, but again it is the practicalities that are important, because the Bill brings an estimated 179,000 premises under the scope of the requirements of Martyn’s law, with a distinction in place—some have a standard duty, as we have heard from the Secretary of State. It is right that the provisions are proportionate to the scale and size of premises and businesses, and that there is a link to the risk, but we do not want to see issues with the enforceability of the provisions, so I want to ask the Home Secretary and her team some questions in that regard. The Home Secretary touched on the whole issue around the SIA, the regulator and the potential to enforce civil penalties, but we need to understand the practicalities, because she also highlighted that we do not want to put additional burdens on businesses through the work that has taken place already. If businesses are not stepping up—not learning from past mistakes and the recommendations of other inquiries—how will that be picked up? Penalties are one thing, but they should be the last resort; we need these institutions and organisations to put public safety and the practicalities first. I hope that the Minister responding to the debate will talk about the impact on local authorities, including local councils and town parishes. What assurances can be given about the work under way with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to support local authorities to meet these obligations, including through training, and considering the implications, practicalities and scope? Will there be financial support for them? What support will be given to schools and educational institutions on their standard duty? Given the existing measures that some premises have in place to ensure compliance with fire safety, health and safety, and crime prevention requirements, will the Minister look carefully at the interplay between those responsibilities so that the guidance is not complicated but consistent and comprehensive, and that we assist premises in minimising cost burdens while allowing them to work in an integrated way? One big lesson from Manchester, and Sir John’s inquiry and the reporting— we know this, as it was in the public domain—was that there was a lack of integration between the various services working together. That absolutely has to be recognised. We must ensure there is a golden thread running through all the services locally, so they know how to integrate and work together. The impact assessment gives an estimate of the overall cost of the standard duty and the enhanced duty over a significant period, but there is again the question of the practicalities: what does this really mean for the many organisations and institutions that will be involved? I seek clarity from the Minister about the role of planning policy in delivering Martyn’s law. This is important; with changes in planning policy, we might be able to make changes to the way in which buildings are shaped and designed, and to what local authorities take on board. We might be able to ensure that the relevant authorities receive advice and guidance from the police on how to design out some of these issues and put in safety measures, and bring in developers to introduce good designs and new concepts, future-proofing many institutions, buildings and developments. I will touch on the nature of terror incidents and the premises that need to be considered, because we need procedures to examine how best to prevent incidents from taking place and places from becoming targets. Monitoring and surveillance is second nature to our institutions, but there is also the question of how premises hosting events should respond to a particular threat or even anticipate an incident—what kinds of processes and procedures will such premises be undertaking? Perhaps the Home Secretary or the Minister could talk a bit about some of the discussions they have had with key sectors. Live venues and events were discussed earlier, but have they been consulted not just on how they will design these incidents out but on the practical measures—the kind of work that will be undertaken or the drills that will be put in place? There are a lot of lessons to learn just from recent incidents. We saw what happened at London bridge in 2017, which differed from the Finsbury Park attack, the Manchester Arena attack and the Reading Forbury Gardens attack as well. It is important that the SIA, the regulator and the Government work to ensure that those responsible for premises and events have the full duty, and can go into their own planning and preparations in the right way. I will mention one particular inquiry that is taking place, as it is in the news today: the inquiry into the 2018 Novichok poisoning in Salisbury of Dawn Sturgess, chaired by Lord Hughes of Ombersley. The Government will naturally be considering the harm and damage that that caused, because the actions of a hostile state led to the most atrocious and appalling deaths of innocent people in our country. It reminds us all that incidents come in all shapes and guises, and that we need to find better ways to protect the public and put public safety first. I conclude by asking the Minister about support for victims of terrorism. The Home Office has been conducting an internal review into the support package available to victims of terrorism, and considering the introduction of a national day of service and tribute to victims of terrorism. Travis Frain, whom the ministerial team will be familiar with and know of, has been a long-standing and deeply passionate campaigner for that. Ministers prior to the election were looking at this matter as well, so we would welcome even a small update on the Government’s thinking regarding support for victims of terrorism and on some of the work that Travis was leading. I note from the programme motion that the Government are keen for the Bill to complete its Committee stage by mid-November. To ensure it progresses quickly, I hope that Members across both Houses will ask the right questions and work in a practical way with the industry—we have not even touched on the insurance industry but I am sure that will all be covered in Committee—and look at how we can start providing public protection and safety sooner rather than later. I say this in my concluding remarks, particularly recognising that Figen Murray and others are here today watching the debate, because we owe it to them, to their families and to so many who have suffered and who have been waiting in anticipation for this legislation. We owe it to them to enact these measures in a practical way: to give them and the public confidence, as they look to us all to drive this legislation forward with positive outcomes, sooner rather than later.

• 14 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think it is right that at this moment we all pause to remember those who have lost their lives to acts of terrorism, and not just in recent years but across many decades. I pay particular tribute to Figen Murray, Martyn Hett’s mother, whose role in this legislation has been recognised today by the whole House. Other families have lost loved ones to terrorism, but she has single-handedly championed Martyn’s law. I have had the great privilege of spending time with Figen, and with so many other families, and it is quite something, frankly, to listen to them speak not just of their concerns, heartbreak and suffering, but of their determined resolve to seek justice for their loved ones, and to steer this legislation across different political parties and bring it before Parliament. I do not have enough words to pay tribute to Figen and so many others, but I can say that the tragedy that has affected their lives has led them to stand tall. There are other individuals such as Travis Frain, who has made such a big impact by standing up and giving voice to the victims of these atrocities, and they all deserve the greatest recognition and respect. They have shown a great deal of courage in dealing with the pain, suffering and trauma that they have experienced, and in working towards making our country and our community safe, and protecting other citizens from the suffering and hardship that they themselves have faced. It is a testament to their campaign that Martyn’s law has consistently attracted cross-party support. I want to thank everyone in the House, including those on both Front Benches and the Home Affairs Committee, which examined the draft Bill, as well as everyone who has worked on progressing Martyn’s law from 2021 onwards. That was when the first consultation took place, for 18 weeks. It provided some startling insights into the public’s attitudes towards the protection of venues and the steps they wanted their Government to advance. So many people have been involved in this legislation, but I do want to pay tribute to a former Security Minister who worked on this with me in the Home Office. James Brokenshire, who was a diligent Security Minister, led this work. This month marks the third anniversary of his passing, and he will be in our thoughts. Of course, our thoughts and prayers must also be with the family of Sir David Amess, whose murder took place three years ago tomorrow. We look at his plaque in the same way that we look at the plaque in memory of Jo Cox. They and their families were victims of some of the atrocities that have taken place in our country.

• 14 Oct 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for her comments. Debates such as this concentrate all our minds and thoughts on how we must work together. It is so sad, but many of the Members here have spoken about Sir David and Jo, and in fact great security measures have then been enacted. Indeed, I pay tribute to Mr Speaker, staff members and everyone who has stepped up to do so. However, there is a threat here, which is the suffering, the loss and the pain, and as has been said in the debates thus far, the Manchester Arena tragedy will live with so many of us for so long. I set up the inquiry when I was Home Secretary, and many of the findings of the important work of Sir John Saunders were absolutely shocking. The families had to sit through and participate in the inquiry, and they were retraumatised to a certain extent while giving evidence and listening to some of the failings, which was deeply painful. This is very much about the lessons we can learn collectively, and not just across Government but as a society. This Bill will always be in memory of Martyn, of course, but it is also in memory of the many others affected.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to open my remarks by recognising that in this important debate we all want to ensure that families who rent have good access to quality homes and housing. That is the baseline that we must all recognise and acknowledge, with landlords in the private and social sector doing the right thing when it comes to their responsibilities, their obligations and their duties to their tenants. This House needs to be honest with itself and recognise that during these debates in recent years, not just today’s debate, we have seen landlords vilified. There is no question but that there are some terrible and shocking examples—as was mentioned earlier, there are examples in this very House as well—and it is right that they are exposed. It is right that there are sanctions for those awful landlords and it is important that, throughout the passage of this Bill and the discussions in this House, we all act responsibly to set the right bar and the right standards. That is crucial. Although we have those shocking examples, we should not forget that the overwhelming majority of landlords work hard to invest in their properties and do the right thing by their tenants. That is fundamental to providing housing supply in the market—there has been back-and-forth between those on the two Front Benches already around what will happen to housing supply, but we should bear that in mind through the type of regulation and legislation that this Government are intent on passing. We should not focus disproportionately on the minority who need to raise their bar and be held to account; as my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, we must work through the unintended consequences of this legislation. I want to pose some questions to those on the Government Front Bench. First, from the landlords’ perspective, may we have some transparency on the costs and impacts? The Government will not have the details yet as this is a Second Reading debate, but we should recognise that during the passage of this legislation landlords will almost inevitably be passing on the costs arising from certain clauses through higher rents. Coming back to unintended consequences, there are also clauses on controlling rent increases and initial rent reviews for tenants and they could be set higher; the Government should be thinking about this. The costs of selective licensing schemes already introduced by local authorities have been passed on to new tenants through tenancy agreements, so we need to look at what works and what does not work. Moreover, landlords are leaving the market as a result of what they know from the draft legislation about taxation and regulation, and we need to look at what that means for private sector supply and what will happen to the market costs of rent. My next questions, in the time I have left, are on housing supply. I do believe that we need more social housing. I represent a constituency with four local authorities, and our house building has been phenomenal over the last decade. That has predominantly been in the private sector but also in the social housing sector. My local authorities play a very significant role in planning, housing and development, and we all recognise the heavy the work that takes place in those areas, but I would like to know how the Government are going to fund their enforcement policies for local authorities, and how the capability will be put in place and how the prioritisation will come together. I know there will be further scrutiny and questions during the passage of this Bill, and I will be pressing those to the Government Front Bench.

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister was in a similar debate this morning, in which he heard a range of views. He is a Treasury Minister, not an Education Minister or the Education Secretary; will he commit to publishing an impact assessment on the overall cost of this policy? There were parents in the Gallery listening to the debate this morning, and it is clear that there will be a legal challenge to this policy. Will the Treasury also publish the potential cost of that legal challenge and the bill that his Department will be footing in order to meet it?

• 8 Oct 2024 · VAT: Independent Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is important to start by saying that this entire policy is dogmatic and rooted in the politics of envy—that really is self-evident. It comes from a self-serving socialist Government that are ignorant and blind to the harm that it will lead to for families up and down the country. In the time that I have, I would like to pose a series of questions directly to the Government. This is not only a bad policy; there has been no information on its implementation and what it means for private schools and state schools. That has been raised by shadow Front Benchers and I think we should get some transparency. I would like a response later on. When the Minister responds, I would also like to hear the details of the costs caused by adding VAT to school fees and the cost of the removal of the business rates exemption. The House has a right to hear where the impact assessment is, what the fiscal projections will be and what the costs will be across every Government Department that is affected. That will be the Department for Education but also the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, because it is local councils that will continue to pick up the costs. I put a question about this next matter directly to the Exchequer Secretary, who was also in the Westminster Hall debate this morning. We know that legal action is coming, and I think that the Government should fess up and tell us what percentage of the DFE budget will be put aside to fund the legal challenge. There are parents out there who are so unhappy about this—we met some of them this morning—and they are adamant that they will pursue legal action. There are many other questions, such as about justification and the implications for local authorities, but I think the point about SEND is important. The House of Commons has published a note that says that for 2024-25, the previous Government had been increasing SEND funding to over £10.4 billion in real cash terms. Is that funding going to go up under this Government, in anticipation of the implications of this policy for children with special educational needs? That could include a growing demand for education, health and care plans. Local authorities are failing, and many of them are Labour authorities. Some of them have gone bankrupt as well in recent years. There will be an impact on state schools, as they will have to accommodate additional pupils. We need some honesty and transparency around this. Class sizes are going to increase in state schools. How is that going to increase the educational outcomes of children attending state schools? How is that going to raise the bar and increase standards in state schools? We all believe in good educational outcomes for all children across the entire country and we want our education system to be first class and to serve all children, but fundamentally this is just an ill-thought-out policy that will have more costs associated with it and devastating impacts for children attending independent schools. I ask the Minister in his summing up to show a little bit of humility— [ Interruption ] — and recognise the implications for these children. Labour Members are giggling, but actually this is about children and about the impact of this policy on children whose education will be affected.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. On special educational needs, this measure will devastate many families around the country who make huge sacrifices. When the Minister sums up, will he tell us what mitigations and support will be given to local authorities to cover the cost and the pressures they face, particularly with shortages in special educational needs provision across the country?

• 8 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), have spoken passionately about the need to upgrade the national grid, but do they recognise the concerns of people across the east of England, including in the Witham constituency, about what that means for their local communities? The Under-Secretary has said that he will meet Members of Parliament, but I ask him very politely whether he and representatives and Ministers from the Department will also meet members of the communities that are affected by this matter.

• 7 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  With employers in Witham and across the country about to be whacked with a barrage of higher taxes, thanks to this Government, how do the Government expect employment levels to stay high? How do they expect small businesses to be at the heart of any employment strategy that they claim to have?

• 7 Oct 2024 · Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister has rightly spoken about the significance of diplomacy right now, and I think the entire House would agree that, across the region itself, leaders must come together. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with Gulf Co-operation Council leaders about the behaviour—the aggressive behaviour—of their neighbour Iran, and what role they can play in de-escalation and preventing Iran from further escalating this terrible conflict?

• 11 Sept 2024 · Port Talbot Transition Project · Hansard source

  More

  I listened to the statement from the Secretary of State with interest. Will he specifically say, first, when the strategy will be published and brought to this House? Secondly, what level of Government investment will be behind the strategy? Thirdly, what assurances can he give to steelworkers across England—at Port Talbot and Scunthorpe in particular—that their jobs will not be put at risk because of steel being dumped in the UK from China?

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Who would have thought that one of the first acts of this awful, cruel and ideological Labour Government would be to assault the nation’s pensioners by removing winter fuel payments? Let us be candid: the nation’s pensioners are falling victim to an ideological decision—a betrayal by Labour as it succumbs to shovelling gross amounts of public spending into the pockets of many of its union paymasters. It is quite interesting— [ Interruption. ] No. I have a time limit; the hon. Member has already spoken. It is interesting that there has been so little transparency around finances and the fiscal choices that the Government have chosen to make. There has been no impact assessment, no honesty around the cost of all this to the Exchequer in the long run, and nothing about the administration of the household support fund. How have Labour Ministers made the spurious claim that they have had no choice in this decision? Bear in mind that the Government—so desperate are they to justify this brutal cut—claimed a couple of weeks ago that there would be a “run on the pound” without the decision, which is just extraordinary and speaks to their fiscal ineptitude. I have a series of questions on the mitigations. First, it is right to encourage more pensioners to take up pension credit where they are entitled to it. I know from my time at the Department for Work and Pensions that many on the Conservative Benches have spent years encouraging pensioners to take up pension credit. We should know how the targeting will work and what the cost will be. Secondly, in recent days the Government have been spinning, yet again, that those affected by the loss of the winter fuel payment will benefit from an estimated £400 rise in the state pension. Will the Minister confirm what the net real-terms impact will be on overall household incomes for those who are losing the benefit, and will he confirm how it will add up over time and what the actual cost will be? Thirdly, concerns have been raised throughout the day that if pensioners cannot afford to heat their homes there will be a serious impact on health. We do not have an impact assessment, so can we have some honesty now? What are the costs to the NHS? The Government owe it to the British people to be honest about this. We have heard that the household support fund will be extended, but how exactly will that £500 million be funded? Who will pay for it? Finally, there are so many unanswered questions. The Government must be honest and answer them. There has been a lack of transparency, with no impact assessment whatsoever. It is right that we hold the Government to account and that they are honest with British pensioners about their intentions, even on the future of the triple lock.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Prison Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  During the debate on early prisoner release in July, the impact assessment produced suggested that there would be 5,500 fewer prison places than planned for because of the need to meet the capital savings that were discussed at the time. When I raised that with the Secretary of State, she said that this matter would be under review. Can she now confirm that it is the Government’s intention to cut back prison places by 5,500 over the medium and long term?

• 25 Jul 2024 · Criminal Law · Hansard source

  More

  Could the Lord Chancellor expand—probably not in this debate but over the summer or even in September —on the local authorities? The point about prison building will not go away. I believe that we need more prisons, we should be building more prisons, and that should come forward from the previous prison programme. There is the issue about finances—the £2.2 billion that I referred to—but will she commit to publishing a list of the local authorities she is proactively working with, which may be those from the previous prison building programme, where we will see more prisons?

• 25 Jul 2024 · Criminal Law · Hansard source

  More

  It is a genuine pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker—congratulations on your new role. I welcome the new Front Benchers to their positions, including the Lord Chancellor, whom I have known for a number of years. I congratulate her on taking up the post, as well as the Opposition Front-Bench team. It is right—this has marginally been touched on—that the first duty of any Government is the protection, safety and security of the public. The state has to manage many measures, sentences and crimes, and collectively we have a duty to ensure that the British public are protected. Alongside robust measures on counter-terrorism and backing our armed forces, we also have amazing intelligence services that form part of the matrix that the Lord Chancellor will now become familiar with, as well as keeping our streets safe by investing in the police and the criminal justice system. Part of that means that the most dangerous, harmful, serious, persistent offenders should be in prison and kept off the streets in order to keep the public safe, and it is important that we have the right deterrent. Those on the Government Front Bench are clearly making a great deal of play about the role of the previous Government and the decisions made in the last Parliament, but it is telling that one of the first pieces of legislation that this Government are seeking to pass is one that basically considers the early release of 5,500 prisoners in a matter of weeks. I have looked at the impact assessment—the Lord Chancellor will be familiar with it—and I note that it gives option 0 and option 1. I understand the situation that she has been asked to look at, but in her closing remarks I would like to hear what alternatives were considered, other than the blanket scheme. The Lord Chancellor touched on the previous Parliament, and for the record, in the previous Parliament we saw Labour MPs campaigning to block the removal of foreign national offenders from being deported from our prisons. We saw them oppose the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the tougher sentences that were introduced for sexual and violent offenders— I will come on to the release of some of those offenders shortly. Labour Members opposed life sentences for people smugglers in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which we know is making a difference. The release of 5,500 prisoners, and reducing the time that most offenders stay in custody from 50% of their sentence to 40%, will cause concern for the public, particularly victims of crime. I would like to ask the Lord Chancellor about some specific areas. She has touched on them, but I would like her to expand on them. In the early release provisions, clear offences such as sexual or domestic abuse offences have been listed in the schedule. She has outlined community orders and tagging, but it is important, particularly for women who have been victims, to know and understand what provisions will be put in place for them. There are also offenders responsible for racially aggravated assaults, and the real harm that comes with offenders with past convictions for sexual offences or perpetrators of domestic abuse, who might be serving time in custody for other offences and who could be freed early. What we know—the Lord Chancellor will know this—is that those types of perpetrators do not just offend once; they have a whole litany of historical aggravated offences. We cannot simply release those people out into the community, because those blanket offences do cause problems. She is well aware of the cross-party nature of the debate on support for victims over the past decade. I have spoken about a victims Bill, as has she, and it is about how we can work to achieve that. There will of course be impacts on wider services—this has already been raised, in particular by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain)—and I would like to ask about the impact on our police, probation and housing services. There is no clear plan in the impact assessment. The Lord Chancellor said in her statement that that will come and that officials are working “at pace”—I have no doubt that Opposition Members will hear a lot of that term from those on the Government Benches. The papers published with this order give no indication of how local authorities, and which local authorities, will be particularly affected by the early release scheme. It is important for local authorities, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in particular, to publish that information with the Ministry of Justice. The Lord Chancellor has spoken passionately about the transparency she will bring on data releases and numbers, and I urge that we should have that information sooner rather than later. A Labour Member also mentioned homelessness that results from this measure, particularly in the City of London, and we see that already. That is a local authority duty, and statutory duties are in place where we know such things need to be managed. There will be, and already are, pressures on housing stock, and asking the Government to publish a list of local authorities that will be affected is vital. There are also implications for families and individuals on housing registers who will now be worried about the implications for them while they have been waiting patiently on housing lists. There will be pressures on other parts of the criminal justice system. What resources will we put into the criminal justice system? Will resources be redirected? What about police officers who will now be tied up monitoring offenders on early release, and dealing with those who reoffend? The right hon. Lady has already spoken about reoffending and breaches of conditions that will mean someone going back to prison, but how will that be managed when police officers will be taken away from policing activities? Perhaps I may politely say that clarity is required on such specificity for local authorities and police forces, and our police and crime commissioners will also want to know more about this. I would like to press the Lord Chancellor on the timings around this decision. It has been touched on already, and the impact assessment states: “The Lord Chancellor announced her intention for this change to be temporary. This change will be reviewed after 18 months to ensure it is still necessary.” It would be helpful to be indicative about the concept of the sunset clause—she is familiar with sunset clauses; we have all debated such legislation—and to be clear that this measure will not be permanent. The public, as well as Members of this House, need to be assured on that. Indeed, all Members who are voting today need assurance on that important point. I wish to ask about the reduction in the prison population by 5,500. The impact assessment considers a period over 10 years, and states: “The Central scenario assumes there will be 5,500 fewer prison places required than would otherwise be needed in steady state… Over a 10-year period, the average annual savings for HMPPS due to reduced prison running costs are estimated to be £219.5m per annum (2024/25 prices)… Over the ten-year period, there would be a transitional benefit of reducing the additional number of prison places that need to be constructed, with an estimated benefit of” over £2.2 billion. That is significant money, and will clearly have an impact on the prison building programme. When the Lord Chancellor made her first speech on prison capacity and the strains, she spoke from the new Five Wells prison in Wellingborough, which was built and delivered under the last Government. It would be useful to hear more about the implications of that £2.2 billion. We heard during the general election that the Government were to continue with the prison building plans and programmes put in place, and change the planning laws, but the impact assessment assumes that there will be a permanent reduction in the prison population of 5,500. I would like to hear more about the modelling of future prison places and numbers. Will there be an expansion of existing prison sites? There were plans for a super prison in Lancashire. Will that be expanded? Alongside that, we need to understand more about the financial impact of this policy and how the Ministry of Justice, the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility will be scoring this measure in the accounting. The impact assessment suggests a saving of more than £2 billion by reducing the number of prison places to be constructed, as well as more than £200 million a year of savings by reducing the number of offenders in prisons. It is a balancing act, but for clarity, when it comes to law and order, the Government’s direction of travel on keeping our streets safe and the points I have made, we need to know from the Lord Chancellor whether these savings will be banked for the forthcoming fiscal forecast from the Ministry of Justice, the Treasury and the OBR, especially with the Budget and the comprehensive spending review coming in the autumn. The Government have afforded the House 90 precious minutes to debate the early release of 5,500 prisoners. From where I stand, the prison building programme, just by this impact assessment, looks as if it is being reduced and cut. I am worried that will put the public in grave danger, and it is right that we continue throughout debates—probably post recess, now—to discuss this matter. This is one of the first legislative acts of this Government. It will have implications for public confidence in law and order. I do not need to expand on that; the Lord Chancellor is well-versed in all this. We have to be cognisant of the impact and what this measure means for victims. We should focus on that and the wider functioning of the criminal justice system. The Lord Chancellor will know that in the previous Parliament, Operation Soteria in particular looked at the integration of policing, the criminal justice system, the court system and the prison system to give confidence to victims of the most abhorrent sexual abuses. Will this proposal have a knock-on impact on some of those key programmes? I would like to have some answers from the Lord Chancellor. Transparency is important, and she has spoken about it in this debate. I have grave concerns, as I know do others on the Opposition Benches, about public safety and security, as well as the wider implications for housing, prisons, probation, the police, law and order, and public safety.

• 23 Jul 2024 · Urgent and Emergency Care · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the new Front-Bench Members to their new portfolios and responsibilities. Essex has actually seen some improvements in emergency care services over the past 14 years, particularly in our ambulance trust, and that should be commended. One way in which pressure on emergency services can be reduced is by having community facilities in our towns and across our districts. Will the Minister commit to meeting me and working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on looking at ways in which we can safeguard community services at St Peter’s hospital in Maldon, which our communities absolutely need?

• 17 Jul 2024 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to take part in this debate on the Loyal Address. In particular, it was good to see His Majesty attend the House today. I wish him well in his recovery and pay tribute to his record of service to our nation. I congratulate all new Members who have entered the House. I thank the proposer and the seconder of the motion, the hon. Members for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), who are no longer in their places. It is fair to say—this is a note for all new Members, as well as existing Members—that their speeches were made in the finest traditions of the House. The start of the Parliament is one of the few moments we have to unite, to respect each other’s speeches and contributions, and to become accustomed to the traditions, formalities and conventions of the House. At the same time, we get to do the greatest thing that we all love: representing our constituents. For new Members, in particular, this will become the regular pattern of their work in this House and a reflection of the hard graft that goes in. We have all come fresh from a general election campaign where a lot of graft was put in, but we are now here, elected to represent our constituents, in the normal tradition, on the issues that may sometimes divide us, but where we can advance their cause through legislation. I want to begin my contribution on the Loyal Address by saying a few words about the new Government’s tone over the past 12 days. It is an inevitable feature of a new Government that they spend their first few weeks continuing campaign rhetoric—we will hear it a lot—and talking down the record of the previous Government. However, much was advanced over the last 14 years. We are proud of our record and the transformation we led, including on public finances. These are big things that do not just happen over a few weeks and months. We are proud that we transformed the public finances, from the Government borrowing £1 in every £4 to a much better fiscal position today. It is not easy to get into these fiscal positions and those on the Labour Benches should reflect on the fiscal position they inherit. We are proud of supporting the creation of 800 jobs per day, on average, having faster economic growth than many of our competitors, cutting the tax burden on incomes and fuel duty, overseeing an increase in doctors and nurses working in our NHS, more teachers, schools raising standards, and, on law and order, getting more police officers on our streets fighting crime. That is a record we are proud of. It is important to reflect on that. If I may say so, in a very subtle, gentle and polite way to those now on the Government Front Bench, it is all very well trying to rewrite history through slogans. It sometimes takes attention away from the responsibility of having to govern and make the big decisions and choices. Let me touch on some policy areas. The Government have already presented a programme in one area of which I have some experience, having been Home Secretary for more than three years. We have heard quite a bit about immigration and crime, but although we have not seen the details, what we have heard from the Government so far differs little from some of the measures that were already in place. One example is the proposed UK border security command, which we actually set up just over four years ago to co-operate with international partners. Some of my colleagues who followed me in the Home Office will recognise much of this. They will recognise the need to take action in the English channel and work with our intelligence and security agencies in order to do so, and they will recognise the appointment of a clandestine channel threat commander and the establishment of joint interagency task forces, because they happened under the last Government. I want to commend the work of our international law enforcement agencies and our international partners. Not only do they work at an exceptional level, but they work to save lives, and I think we should reflect on that, because only last week we saw more lives lost in the channel. We also introduced robust measures to tackle criminal gangs and county lines and put together safer streets policies together to protect our constituents, but some of those measures were opposed by those who are now in government when they sat on these Benches. It is important to recognise that some things do not happen overnight. There is no single solution to some of these issues, but through collaboration we can drive the right outcomes. We heard the Prime Minister speak about law and order today, and I welcome many of his comments about the importance of safer streets and tackling terrorism, but also the need to address those appalling problems that we still see and will continue to see: violence on our streets and domestic abuse, with victims suffering at the hands of criminals. None of us wants prisoners to be released early, but it is important to focus on the victims of crime and to have the right punishments in place to ensure that the perpetrators are given tough sentences. Again, I noted that those measures were opposed in the last Parliament. It is important for us to get fairness back into our system when it comes to law and order. One of the great achievements of the last Government was the expansion of renewable energy generation. We can be proud of our record in that regard and proud to be world leaders, given that the energy generated by a mix of renewables passed the 40% mark. That is a huge improvement on the situation in 2010. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) has already touched on the question of how we can generate new technology for energy purposes, and I genuinely believe that technology, rather than taxation, is the path to a much more sustainable future. I think that our colleagues in the Government will recognise the reality of some of the projects that already exist and will now be dominating their inboxes, such as the National Grid’s attempts, through its Norwich to Tilbury plans, to impose more than 100 miles of pylons and overheard power lines across the east of England. It is pressing those proposals, but my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex and I are working to find alternatives through technology and ways in which we can upgrade the grid without destroying the East Anglian countryside. National Grid’s plans will affect farmers and community facilities such as White Notley football club, which will lose community pitches if the pylons are built across our constituencies. That will mean a huge loss of local amenity, which is deeply concerning. My constituents, and constituents throughout Essex and East Anglia, want to see alternatives such as an offshore grid or the use of more tunnelling to build up grid infrastructure capacity. The proposed infrastructure and planning Bill will be considered in great detail. It must receive the right level of scrutiny, along with the legislation on planning and new housing, and we must ensure that local views—the views of our constituents—are not simply disregarded. I am aware that those on the Government Front Bench are already proposing a consultation in this area. If I may give them some subtle and gentle advice, listening to the views expressed in that consultation will be incredibly important, because this is not about saying that people do not want homes; in fact, constituencies such as mine have put forward so many plans for new homes. We have actually built over 10,000 new family homes over the last decade, which has helped my constituency to become a very good commuter town and successful when it comes to schools. Families want to move to our area, but it is a case of getting the balance right. That is incredibly important. In the minute I have left, I want to make a point about economic growth. Of course, everybody across the country and in this House fundamentally believes in securing higher levels of economic growth, which every Government want—name me a Government who do not want that. We want more jobs, we want more job creation and we want more successful businesses, but it is about being on the side of businesses and how we can effectively support them to employ people. Over 80% of my constituents are employed by small and medium-sized businesses. We are incredibly proud of that, but the minute that more regulatory burden comes upon those businesses, I am afraid they will lose the ability to grow and to employ local people. Of course, small businesses are the backbone of our economy. On a day like today, when we see new Bills coming forward through the Loyal Address and the King’s Speech, it is right that we are given the appropriate time to scrutinise them as we go forward through this Session of Parliament. Fundamentally, however, we need to make sure that, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, we Members of Parliament on this side of the Chamber provide scrutiny, but also redress, to ensure that constituents’ voices are heard—whether on planning, development or economic growth. Fundamentally, we need to make sure that Britain advances in the right way.