Lindsay Hoyle
Main Page: Lindsay Hoyle (Speaker - Chorley)Department Debates - View all Lindsay Hoyle's debates with the Ministry of Justice
(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberI would always caution the hon. Gentleman about believing reports. When there are things to be said, they will be said from the Dispatch Box. I think he would expect that I, as the new Lord Chancellor, and my right hon. Friend the new Prime Minister will look at every aspect of business in the Ministry of Justice to ensure that it is delivering for victims and for the public at large. The hon. Gentleman knows the legislation is coming back, and I look forward to discussing it in its fullness when it does.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Upon taking office, the Prime Minister promised to
“find ways of not reducing access to jury trial.”
He said that jury trials are a
“linchpin of a fair society.”
Now that we know the Courts and Tribunals Bill will return to the House on 13 October, immediately after the recess, can the Justice Secretary guarantee that the Bill will not reduce access to jury trials at all?
Order. That is quite serious, and I am getting a little bit fed up of this carrying on at the Dispatch Box. Ask a question and respect the answer, because I expect Ministers to listen to the questions—it works both ways. This is becoming a habit, and I do not want it to continue.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I reiterate my commitment to the hon. Gentleman and to the House: if people have an interest in the legislation and want to discuss it, our door is open.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor mentioned working with experts in his previous answer. Amnesty International has recently questioned the Government’s human rights assessment of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, describing the proposals as a
“dilution of the quality of justice”,
particularly in relation to
“efforts to combat racial discrimination”.
These issues were raised at earlier stages of the Bill, but the Government batted away our concerns. The time is right to change course, prior to the return of the Bill in October. Can the Secretary of State confirm that those concerns are being heard by the Prime Minister while he considers the future of the Bill, and can he guarantee that hon. Members from across the House and experts in the sector will have adequate time to scrutinise the Government’s amendments before we are asked to debate it on the second day back after recess?
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman, himself a former Prisons Minister and a highly regarded former shadow Secretary of State, has raised this issue assiduously on behalf of his constituents. The project to replace a water main serving the Onley Park estate is progressing through design and development, with a projected programme expected in November.
The right hon. Gentleman may well have seen that I set out the Government’s approach in this regard from this Dispatch Box in July. He will know, and it is important to reiterate this, that the challenges in the Immigration Act 1971 are not merely technical, and setting them aside is not merely a technical answer. It is right that we do that properly. He will also know that we have ongoing negotiations and discussions with lots of countries around the world about foreign offenders, and we do not provide running commentaries on them.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government’s progress on deporting foreign national offenders is welcome, but how will the Minister work with the Home Office to ensure that receiving countries are informed of the convictions of offenders, particularly those involving violence, sexual offending or exploitation, so that countries have the information they need to keep their public safe?
I am concerned to hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will look further into that case. We are committed to ensuring that we have the probation workforce so that people are safe and can feel confident that they are safe.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister knows that there has been a decrease in probation officers in the past year, yet at the same time the Government have released thousands of dangerous criminals on to our streets. The Government’s answer is electronic tagging, but the National Audit Office has highlighted problems. First, staff have to review tag alerts. Only 10% to 50% of alerts result in breach notifications, and where outcomes are even recorded, nearly half result in no further action. Can she guarantee that in the next year, every tagging breach will come with consequences?
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Ministry of Justice will be able to deliver its rapid deployment cells building programme more quickly if it completes other programmes. Taunton Crown court has been closed since 2023, and the closure has just been extended. In March, I received a letter saying that the long-promised opening date in July was now cancelled, and that in due course I would receive an update. I have not received any update. Victims and jurors are having to travel extra tens of miles—30 or 40 miles—without public transport, which is a real burden on them. An exacerbating issue is the fact that jury recompense has not been updated since 2010. Will the Minister look into this issue, and also address jury recompense?
Order. This is a question about cells. [Interruption.] Well, you kind of threw something in, and I do not think it was quite relevant, to be honest. Just because you think so, does not mean that I accept it. We really have to stick to the question. Personally, I would have thought this would have been better in topicals.
I call the shadow Minister.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Rapid deployment cells are one option, but the question remains of why the Government are not making use of fully certified cells. HMP Millsike has an operational capacity of up to 1,500, but it has only 1,100 prisoners, due to staffing issues. Can the Minister guarantee that she will replace the 1,600 prison officers lost under Labour by next year?
I recognise the ambition of local partners to develop a justice quarter in Milton Keynes. I know that engagement has gone on—indeed, the Courts Minister is going to meet MPs—and that the Milton Keynes MPs are hunting in a pack on this matter. I think I have already committed to a visit, which I am sure I will make shortly. In the meantime, the Minister looks forward to meeting my hon. Friend.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
This summer, the Government held five different positions on early release in just six weeks. In seeking to exclude killers, rapists and paedophiles—something the Government previously claimed was impossible—the Justice Secretary has used secondary legislation. He says:
“No further legislation is required in the short term…primary legislation will…be considered when Parliamentary time allows.”
Will the Secretary of State guarantee that after relying on secondary legislation to change Labour’s early release scheme, no prisoner will successfully challenge their exclusion in the courts?
My hon. Friend is a stalwart campaigner on tackling violence against women and girls, and he will know that pursuing and punishing perpetrators is a key pillar of our strategy to halve it. We have a 10-year plan to meet this ambitious goal, and we are carefully monitoring the progress and will publish our one year update in the coming months. I want to reassure him that rape charge volumes have more than doubled since 2019, and that 5,206 rape cases were brought before the courts in 2025, compared with just 1,684 in 2019.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats in the other place have secured an amendment to address the injustice of locked child trust funds for disabled children. The leader of the Liberal Democrats has experience of this issue with his own disabled son, and he has been a passionate campaigner for a change in the law for many years, working with other campaigners such as Andrew Turner. When the amendment comes back to this House, will the Labour Government support it?
Nick Timothy
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In oral questions just now, the Justice Secretary stood there and said again that he wanted to work collaboratively, and he invited the House to scrutinise the Government’s proposals on juries, but those are just words. This summer, as the Government constantly changed policy on early release, I wrote to him and the Prime Minister three times in July and twice in August, and received no reply until I got a short, dismissive reply last Thursday, by which point—[Interruption.] What are your guidelines? By that point, the policy had changed several times. Just now, the Secretary of State dismissed my question sarcastically, saying that he was not the correspondence secretary. That is not only disrespectful to the House; it is disrespectful to his correspondence secretary and may explain the delays—
Order. I think I have got the point. The hon. Gentleman is quite right; let us deal with the issues, and we will judge whether it was said sarcastically. Of course, he has never done such a thing himself—be careful about being in the greenhouse with a stone in hand!
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise the issue of correspondence. Whether it is the Prime Minister or anybody else, I expect that there should be a reply ASAP. The point has been made, those on the Front Bench have heard it, and I am sure that in future replies will be forthcoming. I will leave it at that for now.