(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberI call the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s tribute to Sir George Howarth and pass on my party’s condolences to his friends, family and loved ones. I also echo his support and encouragement for the England football team in their forthcoming match against Norway. Of course, I also echo his words about those people murdered on 7/7, and their friends and their families, and I pay tribute to the emergency services that did so much on that day.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister apologise to the victims of the rapists, sexual predators and paedophiles that he is planning to release early?
I am delighted to welcome the shadow Housing Secretary to the Dispatch Box. He, of course, could have been doing that job every week if he were better with numbers. He was the Foreign Secretary in the Government who botched Brexit, the Home Secretary in the Government who decimated neighbourhood policing and one of the shortest serving Education Secretaries in our history.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about a very serious issue, and every decision we have taken has been based on public safety and delivering justice for victims. Let us talk about the context. The last Labour Government built 28,000 prison places. We are building 14,000 by 2031, and we have already delivered 3,200. The Tories closed 23 prisons: Gloucester—closed; Shrewsbury—closed; Portsmouth—closed; Holloway—closed; Northallerton—closed. And what is it now? A block of flats. That is why we have to have an early release scheme and why we passed the Sentencing Act 2026, and we are putting in community powers locally to make sure that we protect the public.
The right hon. Gentleman makes a joke about the use of figures. Let me give him a figure: 50,000 prisoners released early in just two years on his watch. I am genuinely shocked that, when given the opportunity to apologise to the victims, he very publicly failed to do so. Let me remind him what this is about. Let me quote Fiona Goddard, a victim of grooming gangs who has been brave and open about how his policy will impact her:
“Finding out that they may be released early has completely set me back. I have barely left the house. I feel constantly anxious, frightened and unsafe. I can barely sleep”.
That is the impact his policy is having on victims. He refuses to apologise, but why is he pursuing a policy that he must know is both wrong and dangerous?
This is a very serious issue and the right hon. Gentleman is experienced in this House. He knows that while he was Home Secretary, the Conservative Government had an early release scheme that let out 10,000 offenders—10,000. They had six schemes within a year. They had a scheme that they announced on 6 June 2023, another scheme on 17 October 2023, another scheme on 8 March 2024, another in April, another in May and another in June—all before the election. That is why the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), it is rumoured, called the election in the first place. They left a system with just 83 empty cells. That is what the previous Justice Secretary inherited when she came into office.
That is why we had to pass the sentencing scheme. The right hon. Gentleman has not said what the Conservatives would do now to fix the system. Of course we think of every victim. That is why we are notifying victims and are in discussion with all victims. I sat, last week in my surgery, with a victim of grooming gangs. All of us want to see offenders locked up. That is why we must have prison capacity.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about 10,000 early releases over 14 years of Conservative government. The Labour Government have released 50,000 in two years. He knows it is wrong—he is a good man. He must know that it is wrong to release 5,000 serious criminals, including rapists and paedophiles. Not only does he know it is wrong, but his party knows it is wrong—not one of the 400 Labour MPs voted to support the Government’s policy in the vote last night. They know it is wrong and the country knows it is wrong, but he insists on pursuing it anyway. If he will not change course, will he at least make this guarantee: that not one rapist or paedophile will be released early later on this year?
The right hon. Gentleman has not proposed what the Conservatives would do if they were in office. They released 10,000 under four different schemes, with no impact assessment when they released them, no victim contact when they released them, and no warning. They did it on the sly.
Let us be clear: we have more probation officers, while the Conservative Government cut probation—decimated it—because of Chris Grayling. We have invested £700 million in probation. We are rolling out the largest programme of tagging in our history. We are forcing offenders to stay boxed in certain areas, rather than where victims are. We are creating alcohol, pub, football and driving bans. We are implementing income reduction orders. We are expanding chemical castration for sex offenders. None of that happened when they were in power.
I think the Deputy Prime Minister will look back on this exchange and be shocked by how it is coming across: no apology to the victims; and no guarantee that paedophiles and rapists will not be released early. We all know that releasing dangerous criminals on purpose is wrong, but not content with doing that, he is hellbent on releasing dangerous criminals by accident. Last year, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the Deputy Prime Minister claimed that Labour had got a grip of accidental releases, yet we now know that there have been more accidental releases in the last two years than in the entirety of the last Parliament. I will give the Deputy Prime Minister another chance: will he apologise to the country for his abject failure to keep prisoners in prison, where they belong?
I have got to say, this is rich coming from the right hon. Gentleman. The Conservatives had 14 long years in power; they wrecked neighbourhood policing—he was Home Secretary; prisons were at bursting point—that is why they called the general election; and they let out offenders in secret—and that why we have the Sentencing Act 2026, which passed through this House and the House of Lords. We are getting thousands more bobbies on the beat, toughening up probation—they decimated it—and we have to have the space to lock up dangerous criminals. That is why we passed the Sentencing Act.
It is the dangerous criminals that the Deputy Prime Minister is letting out early. So he refuses to apologise to victims, and he refuses to guarantee that sexual offenders and rapists will not be released early. Another thing that the country, and indeed this House, knows instinctively is wrong is his personal crusade to scrap trial by jury. We know that it will not clear the backlog, we know that it undermines fundamental British freedoms, and we know that the legal profession is united against it, so will he now admit that it is wrong, and will he commit to reverse his proposals to scrap trial by jury?
Let us be clear: there is no proposal before this House to scrap trial by jury. The right hon. Member needs to do better and get on the detail. There is a threshold change. Margaret Thatcher made a change to jury trials. David Cameron made a change to jury trials. The vast majority of criminal cases in this country are dealt with by magistrates—again, which the Conservatives cut. We are restoring the magistery, so that they can do more. We are investing in our courts—the Conservatives ran our courts down. We are modernising our courts, we are introducing digital ID, and we need reform.
The Deputy Prime Minister talks in glowing terms about what he claims to be doing, but what we are actually seeing this Government doing is stripping money from where it is needed and squandering it on the welfare bill, which has ballooned by £20 billion this year alone. He talks about getting over the detail, but here is a simple detail for him: when I was Home Secretary, we had more police officers than at any point in British history. Since Labour taking over, that number has dropped by over 2,000 officers.
At the Dispatch Box last week, the Leader of the Opposition highlighted this Government’s failure to defend us internationally. Today, I have highlighted the Deputy Prime Minister’s failure to defend us domestically. If the soon-to-be Prime Minister—is he in the room anywhere?—does not want to be complicit in the Deputy Prime Minister’s failure, he should come out and condemn the plan, not just hint that he opposes it. If this Labour Government cannot protect the citizens of this country, either domestically or internationally, then what on earth is the point of them?
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberI outlined the fact that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have been involved in this process. The two have mandated Charlie Flanagan and me to lead the work on their behalf. When we look at the issues that are relevant to the parties coming together in that devolved space, we see it is about how we support them to get a positive outcome. I have already spoken about the intensification and the inclusive nature of the talks, and that is precisely the approach I will be taking alongside the Irish Government and Charlie Flanagan, the Irish Foreign Minister, to achieve that outcome. The Government have the absolute intent to do all we can to get devolved government back on its feet again, and we will do our utmost to achieve that which can be done.
Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment to ignore the siren song we are hearing from the Opposition about dragging the Prime Minister to Northern Ireland? It would be perverse, would it not, to reward intransigence on the part of some political parties in Northern Ireland by having the Prime Minister pulled across to the Province on a tight leash?
It is important that we keep focused on the issues at hand, which are about the parties coming together and finding a resolution to the issues that sit very firmly within the devolved space, and the work that we can do as the UK Government to support them alongside, appropriately, the Irish Government too. That remains our absolute focus. I believe that a positive outcome can be achieved with good will and with good spirit, and that is the environment we are determined to secure.
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberWe certainly need an uncompromising approach to pursuing criminality wherever it is found. It is also important to harness the activities of wider society. One of the problems in getting convictions for things like paramilitary assaults is that people feel afraid to come forward and give evidence. We need to reflect on what more can be done to give them the confidence to confront these individuals in their communities and to come forward and give evidence in court when those individuals commit crimes.
The assessment makes it clear that the time of large-scale mass violence by paramilitaries is a thing of the past, but there is a danger, as the years from that period to now extend, that people will romanticise that period of violence and that people who formally or informally associate themselves with paramilitary groups will take independent violent action. What steps is my right hon. Friend’s Department taking to ensure that this romanticisation is nipped in the bud and that people who aspire to relive what they perhaps believe to be some glorious bygone era have their minds set straight and do not embark on individual acts of violence?
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is a tendency among some to try to rewrite history. That is something that this Government will never support and will always firmly oppose. There is no possible means by which one could romanticise a campaign that saw thousands of people murdered. That is at the heart of our approach to the institutions on the past to be created under the Stormont House agreement. They must be balanced, objective, fair and impartial to make sure that we establish all the facts about the history of the troubles, and do not enable anyone to seek to rewrite the history of the troubles and to draw some wholly unacceptable form of equivalence between terrorism and police officers.