Prison Capacity

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

As is so often the case, the hon, Gentleman is absolutely right. We have to ensure that victims are not spectators in the criminal justice process, but participants in it. That is why we have rolled out the victims code, which contains 12 core entitlements to ensure that victims can be kept updated about the progress of the case and informed about special measures and how they give their evidence, as well as the right to court familiarisation visits, the right to make a victim impact statement and a right of review, as I have indicated. We have also ensured that victims’ funding has been quadrupled since 2010, we have doubled support for rape support centres, and so on. That is over and above creating the new offences to ensure that those victims can get justice. All this we do and more, and we do so because we want to put victims first.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Rape, and child rape in particular, is an abhorrent crime. Ensuring that those perpetrators serve their full sentence in prison will clearly act as a deterrent and reassure the public, but what steps is my right hon. and learned Friend taking to ensure we have the prison places to lock up dangerous rapists and child rapists in particular, so that victims know that those perpetrators are always behind bars?

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those are some of the most appalling crimes, which shatter not just the lives of the victims, but potentially those of so many others, including the victims’ friends and families, and he is absolutely right that we need to make sure there is always sufficient custodial capacity for that to take place. That is why I am announcing today that we will roll out a programme to buy the very locations we need next year, with additional money, to ensure that, well in advance of the prison builds needing to come on line, we have the planning permission in place so that there is the pipeline of places to ensure that justice can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

18. What steps his Department is taking through the criminal justice system to deter small boat crossings of the English channel.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)]

Under the Nationalities and Borders Act 2022, 162 people, including 34 small boat pilots, have been convicted, resulting in sentences totalling 108 years—legislation, of course, opposed by the Labour party.

[Alexander Stafford]

I thank the Secretary of State for the answer, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the concerns of many of my constituents that illegal immigrants and their lefty London lawyers are seen to game the court system by relying on its sluggishness so that they can remain here indefinitely? [Interruption.] What steps is he taking to boost capacity in the upper and first tier-tribunals ahead of the Illegal Migration Bill coming into force?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has woken up the shadow Front Bench team from their slumbers with that one. He is absolutely right. As part of the work I am doing with the Home Secretary, we are increasing the number of judges we are recruiting for the immigration and asylum chamber. That means 72 more judges for the first-tier tribunal and 50 more for the upper tribunal. We want appeals decided swiftly and decisively, so that we can clear the court system and also make sure we remove those who are not entitled to come here.

Ten-Year Drugs Strategy

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Drugs bring nothing more than pain and misery and leave nothing more than blood on our streets, fuelling human slavery, terrorism, child sexual exploitation and, ultimately, death. I therefore welcome the £145 million investment in tackling county lines, but does the Minister agree that we must win the war not only against those who push drugs but against those who find it socially acceptable to take them? Does he agree that we should pursue every possible solution, whether it is treatment, rehabilitation or stop and search, but should also introduce far longer and tougher jail sentences for those who push drugs?

[Kit Malthouse]

Well, Mr Speaker—Mr Deputy Speaker, I should say. Forgive me, but maybe, one day.

I agree with my hon. Friend that those who promote drugs, in his constituency and many others including mine, deserve sentences that will deter others from following their path. We need a 360-degree approach, attacking supply—as we are doing now, with ever greater skill—but also dealing with demand. By killing both, we will drive those people out of business completely.

Injunction to Protect the M25

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

We are very alive to the possibility of other motorways being affected. If they are, of course we will take the action that is required. My hon. Friend highlights an important point: we as democratic representatives should be the repository of those kind of views and I am not aware personally—I will check in my office—that I have been approached by this group seeking any change or acceleration in Government policy and I do not know whether anyone else in the House has. That is the way we do things in this country and hopefully that is the way we will go back to.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

We have heard countless examples of people being stopped going to GPs or hospitals because of those protesters. We all know that the NHS is under great strain, with long waiting lists post covid. What steps can the Government take to try to get financial recompense for the NHS from the protesters so that the taxpayer is not subsidising those eco-extremists?

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend expresses pithily the frustration and the cost of the protests to wider society. If only we had some way to recover that cost from those individuals. Sadly, that is unlikely under current legislation, although it is not beyond the realms of possibility that someone who was caught up in the protests and missed some commercial opportunity might wish to consult their lawyers and see whether there was some method of seeking compensation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to tackle pet theft.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to tackle pet theft.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

What steps his Department is taking to tackle pet theft.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend will know that our manifesto pledge is to extend microchipping to cats as well. With regard to dogs, over 90% of them in England are now microchipped. This year, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is carrying out a post-implementation review of the regulations that introduced microchipping in 2015, to see how the various databases can operate in a more co-ordinated way, and it will come forward with proposals later in the year.

[Alexander Stafford]

Pet theft is the most scurrilous crime, and residents have spoken to me about the loss they have felt when their dog or cat has been stolen from them. Does the Minister agree that each local force should have a dedicated dog theft lead? Will he join my calls for the police and crime commissioner to have a dog theft lead for South Yorkshire police, like the one for the Nottinghamshire constabulary?

[Robert Buckland]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to this campaign. I am pleased to hear about his energetic efforts in this sphere and I wish him well. Decisions on priorities are, of course, a matter for individual forces, but I am sure he will want to work with his local force to achieve the laudable aims that his campaign represents.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I do not suggest that any of the amendments are improper or immoderate, but not all of them would have the impact that my right hon. Friend calls for.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

The Minister knows my grave concerns with the Bill, especially about the quickie nature of divorce. Will he reassure me that the Bill does not undermine the sacred marriage vows that I, and so many hon. Members, have taken?

Oral Answers to Questions

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that custody should be a last resort. I am pleased to say that it is a last resort, which is why we have a much smaller number of youth in custody at the moment: just over 700 across our estate. He makes an important point about remand, and I am pleased to say that, certainly in the adult estate, the judiciary have looked at and fast-tracked remand cases. I am also pleased to report that the Youth Justice Board has looked at those who are currently held on remand, and the youth offending teams will be reviewing whether any applications can be made to help those people who are on remand and can be released back into the community.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is vital that prison officers have the right skills to manage young people? How are we training prison officers who work on the youth estate to ensure that we cut future offending rates and increase rehabilitation?

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the training of prison officers: it is important that they get the right training to help turn lives around. We have introduced a new youth justice specialist role, with funding for every prison officer in youth custody services to take up a foundation degree in youth justice. Thirty people have completed it and 400 have started the training.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Alexander Stafford Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Robert Buckland]

I need to make some progress, because I am conscious of time.

The lack of transparency and objectivity means that a spouse who is trying not to cause unnecessary hurt risks not meeting the legal threshold. That has consequences, for example, for victims of domestic abuse and can lead to the manufacture of blame between couples who might have grown apart entirely amicably.

What we are creating is a level playing field. Our equal-handed approach will allow all couples to use the same legal process and will not favour couples who can afford to live apart before their divorce. Vulnerable parties will no longer have to work out whether they can afford to be separated for two years, or face the danger of presenting conduct particulars in respect of an abusive spouse. Our proposals remove many obstacles currently faced by victims of domestic abuse in the legal process of divorce. Victims will not have to place themselves in danger by detailing their abuser’s conduct; they will not have to remain in a legal relationship for a further two or more years in order to rely on a separation fact; and they will not have to fear an abusive spouse exerting their control by contesting the divorce. This position has to be changed, and divorcing couples must be given every opportunity to avoid conflict.

In developing our proposals, we have reflected on a wide range of views, including from the profession, the judiciary and couples themselves, that emerged during our consultation process and from evidence given during consideration of the Bill in the previous Session of Parliament. We have also considered and continue to consider carefully the views of those who oppose reform, although, with respect, I think that there is something of a disconnection between what some think the current law does and what it actually does.

With all that in mind, I will talk briefly about the measures in the Bill. The two stages of divorce and dissolution are maintained. The current decree nisi and decree absolute become a conditional order and then the final order. Always, the intention is to make the process more understandable and more accessible to everyone who seeks to use it, but we have retained the two-stage process because it ensures that a divorce is never automatic; rather, the decision should be considered and intentional at each stage. The reform will retain irretrievable breakdown as the sole legal ground for divorce and dissolution, but replace the current requirement to evidence that with a conduct or separation fact, as outlined in the statement of irretrievable breakdown. Indeed, the statement itself will be conclusive evidence that the marriage or civil partnership has irretrievably broken down; it therefore removes the possibility of contesting the decision to end that relationship, which currently only 2% of spouses do. Importantly, and for the first time, couples will be able to make a joint application where the decision to divorce is mutual. That will create a level playing field for joint applicants and encourage them to work together from the very beginning of the process.

As I have said, the new minimum period of 20 weeks is all part of the drive to create an equal, level approach. It ends any suggestion of so-called quickie divorce. In addition to the 20-week minimum period, the current six-week minimum period between conditional and final orders will remain, so six months is a minimum, not a maximum or absolute time limit. As is currently the case, a conditional order may not be pronounced unless the court is satisfied in relation to service on the respondent.

We are aware of the concerns of hon. and right hon. Members and the Law Society about the question of delayed service where this is done by the applicant’s spouse, and we will of course work with the Family Procedure Rule Committee on that point, and indeed on the point about making sure that divorce does not end up being a complete surprise to a respondent who perhaps knew nothing about service. We will, through the Family Procedure Rule Committee, make sure that those important concerns are dealt with.

Our proposals allow time for the applicant to consider the practical implications of the important decision to divorce. We estimate that, under the new law, the legal process of divorce will take longer for about four fifths—80%—of couples, after taking account of the projected impact of the take-up of the streamlined, digitised divorce service. That means that the question of quickie divorce is one that is wholly refuted, I believe, by the provisions and, indeed, the evidence that underlies this new reform.

The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), will, in his summing up, deal with other points that arise through the Bill. I know hon. Members will have read its provisions and it would perhaps be idle of me to go through all of them in order. This is not a long Bill, but it is, I concede, a significant one—no, I do not concede; I make no apology for the fact that it is a significant Bill, because we are talking about the lives of people we represent, and about making this sensitive and difficult process an easier one.

Importantly, apart from maintaining the balance, we will retain the existing triple lock that requires an applicant to confirm the decision to proceed with the divorce at each of the three stages, meaning that divorce will never be, to coin a phrase, automatic. First, the applicant must apply for the divorce; secondly, they must, after the end of the minimum 20-week period, confirm to the court that it should make the conditional order; and, thirdly, following the expiration of a further minimum six-week period, the applicant must apply for the final order of divorce.

This, I believe, is a measured Bill, which we shall implement in a measured way. I pray in aid the spirit of one of my predecessors, the great Tory Lord Lyndhurst, who, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) will know, was no lover of reform. But at the end of his long and distinguished parliamentary career in the other place, he spoke passionately about the rights of women and the abandoned party in Victorian marriages, and paved the way, as a Tory, for the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857. He is a predecessor whom I invoke today, and in whose spirit I move the Second Reading of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I welcome hearing the wide-ranging views from across the House, but I absolutely wholeheartedly support the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. When I say that it is time to modernise, I am not doing down marriage in any way whatever. When a person enters into a marriage, they do so thinking about the lifelong impact that it will have on them. The same applies when they take the tragic decision to divorce. They come to realise and understand the pain and suffering that it will cause them, their partner, and, obviously, any children that they may have. The decision is not taken lightly in any shape or form.

It is important that we move away from the blame culture. I have heard many comments in this Chamber tonight that, somehow, divorce is damaging to children. As someone who was six months old when their parents divorced, I do not feel damaged. I was very lucky and appreciate that, while some had acrimonious relationships, I was able to access my mother and my father equally. I am aware that that is not always the case for others, but to use the word “damage” is quite extreme and it can be easily thrown around. I do not like to see that word being used so lightly.

The Bill is an important step forward. One of my hon. Friends made a really good point when they said that we were moving with the times.

[Alexander Stafford]

My hon. Friend talks about moving with the times, but does he not believe that, as marriage has been with us since time immemorial, it is something that we need to keep precious? We cannot just let it go.

[Jonathan Gullis]

Like my hon. Friend, I would call myself a strong social conservative, but who is arguing from a socially liberal perspective. He puts me in a difficult spot. What I would say is that although marriage is indeed ancient and should be treated with respect, courtesy and recognition, we also have to understand that we are in a very different cultural time. There does not always need to be infidelity. There does not always need to be one person to blame over another. Sometimes, tragically, the relationship simply does not work. In such instances, it should be for the individuals to make a decision that allows them both to part ways in a non-acrimonious way, without causing harm.

On the length of the proceedings, for people to be going through a divorce beyond 12 months, and in some cases for two years, does not allow either party to move on. It is keeping them trapped in something that they fundamentally no longer wish to be a part of. Therefore, we must understand that, with this law, six months is a positive step forward, because it allows those who, on a personal level, wish to take a step in a new direction to do so. Although I understand that this measure is contentious, and that, for some, it will be seen as challenging the institution of marriage, I also think that it will create less acrimony and mean that we have a more harmonious society, which, ultimately, means that the impact on children will be more positive.