Priti Patel MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.