Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

We are working closely with colleagues from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to understand the impact on the housing sector, but, as is the case any time a prisoner is released, probation staff are working hard to prepare release plans, including permanent and temporary accommodation. If an offender is at risk of homelessness on release, they will be housed in community accommodation. We expect to provide housing for the majority of offenders using existing provision, but, should there not be enough, I have authorised probation directors to make use of alternative arrangements, including budget hotels, as a temporary measure for the cases that we will see in the next few weeks.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

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?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The right hon. Lady will know that I have committed to publishing a 10-year capacity strategy. There are also live discussions as part of the Budget and spending review process. We have committed to delivering the shortfall of 14,000 places in our prison system, which the previous Government failed to do. That is a commitment that we have given. Those conversations are live conversations and I will report to the House in due course, but we will publish that 10-year capacity strategy before the end of the year.

Criminal Law

Priti Patel Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

I call Naz Shah.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate, but let me begin by saying what a pleasure it has been to do my first piece of legislation in this House under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are a fellow Small Heathan Brummie, and it is no doubt a great first for the community from which we both come.

I was astonished by the shadow Minister’s remarks. He said that he was deeply troubled by the measure, but he and his party, who formed the previous Government, were not troubled enough to prevent the crisis from occurring in the first place. He knows full well that they have left no other option on the table but that which we are taking, and anyone with access to a newspaper can tell that, until about three weeks ago, this was their own plan. I am afraid to say that that is the modern-day Tory party: opportunistic, cynical and unfit to govern.

The shadow Minister asked a number of questions, most of which I had addressed in my opening remarks. Let me remind him—he should know—that our prisons are at over 99% capacity. The exact number will fluctuate on a daily basis, but everyone who works in criminal justice knows that our prisons will overflow by September unless we pass this measure.

On the sunset clause and exclusions for domestic violence-linked offences, I will take no lessons from the Tory party. It brought forward the end-of-custody supervised licence scheme, and that had no exclusions for domestic abuse. I raised that issue many times when I was sitting on the Opposition Benches, and the then Tory Government simply stonewalled and did not give any answers whatsoever. I am pleased to see that Opposition Members have finally discovered that we should treat victims of domestic abuse differently from how we have previously, but they should have applied that to the measure that was their Government’s policy until just three weeks ago.

I will also take no lessons from the Tory party on the sunset clause. I remind them that the end-of-custody supervised licence scheme not only did not have a sunset clause but was in fact extended by the previous Tory Government from 18 days to 35 days and then to 60 days. We then had the ignominy of the increase to 70 days that came without any announcement whatsoever. So when I say that the Government will be different from the last one, I mean it. We have already been far more transparent than the previous Government ever were or could have dreamed of being, and that is the vein in which we will continue.

I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) raised reoffending, which was also brought up by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), as well. It is critical that we get the rates of reoffending down.

Let me turn to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I am slightly perturbed that I found myself in agreement with his first point—I agree that prisons are about punishment—but when 80% of offenders are reoffenders, something is going horribly wrong within our prisons. Every time we have somebody coming out of our prison estate who is a better criminal than they were when they went in, that creates more victims, and we are letting our public down if we do not get the rates of reoffending down. Cutting reoffending is a strategy for putting victims first and cutting crime as much as it is about helping those prisoners become better citizens. I hope that he will take my comments in the spirit in which they are intended, which is a good-faith response to his remarks, and reflect on the necessity of the country finally getting its shocking rates of reoffending down and putting the public first.

I return to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green. IPP prisoners are not included within this measure. I know that he and others in the House have supported the possibility of a resentencing exercise, which we did not support in opposition. That is not the Government’s policy, because while I do want to make progress on IPP prisoners, we cannot take any steps that would put public protection at risk. It is a delicate balancing act, but we will start with the measures passed by the previous Government in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 on the changes to the licence period and the action plan, which we will publish as soon as possible. Where possible, I want to make progress where IPP prisoners are concerned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) made a really important point on the costs. There is a cost to the action that we are taking today, but there would be a much bigger cost to inaction. If we fail to take this measure today, we will face the total collapse of the criminal justice system. That catastrophic disaster has to be averted at all costs.

Let me turn to the comments of the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). I am pleased about how she has approached the debate. Let me assure her, particularly on matters of national security such as they touch on my responsibilities as Lord Chancellor, that we will always take a cross-party approach and look to work together in the national interest.

The right hon. Lady raised important points about the join-up between different service providers, whether that is police, local authorities or others. I have already chaired a criminal justice board and we already have an implementation taskforce that will work over the summer to ensure that all the different agencies are working together so that the roll-out in September is successful. My Ministers will be working with Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that join-up occurs. That is an important point, and I will be taking a close personal interest in the implementation.

[Priti Patel]

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?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will happily return or write to the right hon. Lady in respect of specific local authorities. The impact of prison capacity is uneven, but it is also in flux on a daily basis. On money and the long-term supply of prison places, we will be publishing a 10-year prison capacity strategy, which will deal with the long-term plans that our Government have to increase supply of prison places.

Sentencing Bill

Priti Patel Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who spoke with great conviction on behalf of the families he referred to. I too met Helen McCourt’s mother, Marie, and was involved in work on Helen’s law during my time in government. Such harrowing cases really do shape the minds of those in the Government, be it in the Home Office or elsewhere—the Lord Chancellor will have his own experience—with respect to the human consequences not just of sentencing, but of criminal acts and of the pros and sometimes the failures of the criminal justice system. I will touch on some of those points today.

This is the third criminal justice-related Bill that we have debated in the Chamber in recent days, following the Criminal Justice Bill last week and the remaining stages of the Victims and Prisoners Bill earlier this week. The House will know how strongly I feel about these issues, particularly having been an early advocate of a victims Bill. In debates on criminal justice and sentencing, we must always put victims at the heart of our discussions and reflect on the impact of crime and criminality, and on the effect that the most appalling, abhorrent crimes have on victims and their families.

It will therefore come as no surprise to the House that, although I welcome parts of the Bill, I feel that there is a contradiction in it. On the one hand, it rightly toughens up and strengthens sentences for some crimes—I am very much for that—but on the other, it risks letting some types of offenders off the hook. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) mentioned something that we should reflect on as the Bill passes through the House: which offenders will be listed for early release?

I feel strongly about the whole issue of perpetrators of violence—violent and sexual offenders—full stop, but in particular about those who harm women and girls. The Lord Chancellor has already touched on one of the most appalling cases I had to deal with as Home Secretary, which was the murder of Sarah Everard. The circumstances behind that—the Angiolini inquiry is still taking place—should remind us why we need a system that works in the right way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) spoke about transparency in the system. We need much more transparency in decision making. I say that on behalf of the public, who will have certain views about us—what we stand for and the legislation that we pass in this House. We owe them a better understanding of how the sentences given in our courts are shaped and how our criminal justice system works. As Home Secretary, I sat on the Criminal Justice Board with my Ministry of Justice counterparts, representatives of the legal profession and the Lord Chief Justice, as well as the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon. So much takes place that rightly never sees the light of day, but we should do much more to educate and raise awareness of sentences and the justice system.

When we debate these issues, it is important to remind the House of our public service responsibilities when it comes to law and order. We all stand united on protecting the public. This Bill and previous legislation, in which we have all been involved, will stand the test of time on that. I believe fundamentally that the Government’s first duty should always be to protect our public and the security of our country, and the criminal justice system is vital to that. During the Bill’s passage, we should reflect on what I call institutional state failure, which leads to repeat offences and the cycle of people going in and out of prison. Members have already discussed getting people back into work and off addiction, and dealing with literacy problems. We all stand by that.

However, when it comes to sentencing, we must do everything possible to make sure that we keep the public away from violent criminals and dangerous sex offenders. That must always be a priority. In recent years, we have made significant changes and investment and given significant support as part of that work. The investment in 20,000 more police officers has been vital. We now need to make sure that those resources and specialist work to tackle dangerous criminals and sex offenders dovetail with the criminal justice system. That means more prison places as well. We also need a Crown Prosecution Service that can support more investigations.

I have had the privilege of working with police officers, and meeting and supporting victims of crime. We want to support the extraordinary work of those employed in the criminal justice system, including on the frontline, by ensuring that they have the resources so that crimes are fully investigated and punished. A great deal of work has taken place. On organised crime gangs, county lines have been dismantled, knives have been taken off our streets and we have brought in violence reduction units, which take targeted action in towns across the country to deal with crime and antisocial behaviour. A range of interventions are already making a difference. We must build on those. Notably, in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, we strengthened the punishment and monitoring of sex offenders. That has already been referred to in the debate. We put vigorous sentences in place for serious offenders and stronger punishments for criminals. Those stronger sentences did not exist back in 2010.

I therefore welcome many areas of the Bill. It builds on the Government’s overall record on keeping the public safe. The measures in the Bill on whole life orders and the sentencing of serious sex offenders are absolutely right and welcome. That is what the public expect, and it is right for public protection. The more time such offenders stay in prison, the better all round for public safety and protection. With the expectation that some offenders will spend all their sentence behind bars, I would like some assurances from the Government during the progress of the Bill and when the Minister winds up today, on how we will ensure that the courts still impose lengthy sentences on those offenders. The message about public protection is crucial. With offenders serving all their sentence in custody, courts should not reduce the tariffs to take account of that, and they must take into consideration the nature of the crime and the impact on the victim. Sentences are there to ensure that offenders receive their full sentence.

I have concerns about some provisions in clause 6 on the “Duty to impose suspended sentence order for sentences of 12 months or less”. We have discussed the types of sentences, but as Members know, an offender must already pass considerable thresholds before they are sentenced to immediate custody. Criminals have to commit certain and serious crimes before judges and magistrates send them to prison. That is how the system works.

In my time in Parliament, not only when I was in Government but as a Back-Bench MP, many cases were brought to my attention of offenders committing serious and multiple offences, and yet avoiding custody. From the victim’s perspective, that is unjust. Victims see the system failing them, leaving others susceptible to such crimes as well. In fact, coming back to the point about transparency, many victims simply did not know that their offender had been caught until they read about the nature of the offence, or the sentence, when reported in the news. That is simply not right or fair.

I have also seen statistics on people convicted of sexual offences not getting custodial sentences—sometimes leading to them reoffending. We must absolutely stop that. In one year, something like 43% of people convicted of sexual offences did not receive an immediate custodial sentence. Figures I received back in 2018, for between 2007 and 2017, showed that 13,000 convicted rapists and sex offenders were not sentenced to serve immediate custody. That is shocking in its own right, and even the laws and measures that have come into force since do not address public concern.

However the Bill develops with any amendments, our job is to address public concern, and give people confidence that the system is working for them. We need to ensure that offenders, such as sex offenders who have committed some of the most egregious and appalling offences, including against children, are not just let off prison. They should not be free to be in the community; they should receive the right type of sentences so that people are kept safe. That is a point I want to make strongly in this debate.

Members will also be aware of other concerns that have been expressed to them or that they have heard in other debates, such as those about shoplifting. Other such crimes are having an impact on communities. I am not just speaking about antisocial behaviour; I am speaking about theft and criminality that blight communities. All such criminality frustrates the public when they do not see offences picked up or cases necessarily followed up by the police. That is not acceptable, and we must do more as a party and as a Government to create better public confidence in our criminal justice system. I give a plug to Essex police in particular, who do great work in that area—it is about working to give the public greater confidence.

The whole issue of rehabilitation in prison has been mentioned. Personally, I feel that is one area where there could be much better cross-Government working, whether with Work and Pensions or Education. I have sat on various taskforces in Government where all such issues have been brought together to create an effective and integrated cross-Government approach. We must do more for those individuals. It is simply not good enough for prisoners leave prison on a Friday afternoon and then go on to sofa surf. They do not have accommodation. We need the right approaches in place to make sure that they can rebuild their lives.

As the Bill proceeds through Parliament, we must do better on sentencing outcomes and on outcomes for victims, as well as making sure that people do not go on to reoffend. As a state, we must deal with the institutional failure that has existed for too long to make sure that we can build better pathways for those individuals while making sure that dangerous and persistent offenders are sent to prison and punished for the crimes they commit.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Priti Patel Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments.

It is important this evening that we show the Government that the will of this Parliament, across the parties, is that that body should be set up to administer compensation payments and to start to deliver justice to those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, but I want to say to him how disappointing it is that his Government are mounting a hard three-line Whip operation to defeat these amendments and new clauses. That is shocking, when Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and said clearly that they accept the moral case for compensation. If they accept the moral case for compensation, now is the time for them to do the right thing and support new clause 27. Let us get on with this. Let us get justice to these people who have been waiting decades for justice to be delivered.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate and I want to commend the Minister for the diligent work he has done on the Bill and also the Bill Committee for its scrutiny of the legislation. Some of us have been waiting for over a decade for this Bill to come forward, and a great deal of positive work has taken place.

I welcome the amendments, many of them tabled by the Government, and in particular new clause 37 on Jade’s law, which as the Minister has said is incredibly important. As the Bill goes to the other place, I ask the Government to reflect on whether the measure could go further to cover other serious offences. The Minster will be aware of recent reports of a family that spent £30,000 in legal costs to remove the parental rights of a father from his daughter following a conviction of child sexual abuse. These are complex issues, but we should make sure that we are protecting all victims.

I welcome the amendments on the introduction of a standing advocate and the clarification provided by the Government around major incidents. We know from the Manchester Arena terror attacks and other serious incidents how important it is that victims and the families who are affected are given support. I pay tribute to all hon. and right hon. Members who have campaigned hard on this issue. I am afraid that too many of us have spent a lot of time with victims and their families and we know that their voices must be heard. Legislation to ensure that a standing advocate is in place will provide the Government as well as the victims with an extra layer of focus and the protection that we would all welcome.

A number of amendments and new clauses relate to domestic abuse, and I shall comment on them briefly. A great deal of work has taken place on the Bill, and new clause 20 on domestic abuse-related death reviews is particularly welcome as it focuses on ensuring that lessons are learned from these horrific incidents. I know from my previous work as Home Secretary and the work that took place on the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 that so many deaths take place, and it is right that the public services should review these incidents to see whether lessons can be learned and whether any changes can be made to prevent or reduce risk to other victims.

I commend the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for her new clause 6, which rightly highlights the importance of the role of independent domestic and sexual violence advocates and stalking advocates, and the specialist service that she is asking for. There are some really strong lessons that could be learned here with these annual reviews, and I hope that the Government will look at these areas and give some assurances on the ongoing work that could take place as this legislation comes forward. There is much more that we could do not only to prevent these horrific crimes but to ensure that the victims and their families are given the support that is needed.

I am pleased to support amendment 14, also tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham, which has cross-party support and would require criminal justice bodies to ensure not only that records are kept of name changes of perpetrators but that victims are notified of this. This is all about making sure that victims are given representation. I want to pay tribute to Della Wright, who has campaigned for this change with a great deal of personal courage and conviction. I look forward to hearing the Government’s approach to this amendment.

I also want to comment on new clause 7, again tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham, which deals with one of those areas where victims feel that they get a poor service and have many frustrations around a lack of information about their rights and the support that they are entitled to. There is concern that the current victims code is not being promoted enough, and much more work needs to be done in this area.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend and I have campaigned hard to make this a reality and we welcome this day. Does she agree that, alongside awareness of the code, we need to embed training within the police and the other agencies? In that spirit, will she look at my amendment 156, which makes that very point? Does she share with me a keenness to hear a response from the Government that embodies training and awareness to ensure that the code is a reality for victims?

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his intervention. I was going to come to his particular amendment and say how much I agreed with him. It speaks to the work that we have both undertaken in Government on the victims code and on making sure that the structures can provide practical delivery and support for victims. These amendments speak to that, and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister about how this approach will be taken further and how it can be strengthened.

I welcome new clause 43, tabled by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), with whom I have had the privilege of discussing her concerns. She has been a strong champion of this cause and I pay tribute to her and in particular to the families she has worked with and chosen to represent on this issue. Our hearts break for parents who want to register the death of a loved one but have been prevented from doing so because coroners’ inquiries and other processes have been taking place. We need to find ways to address this, and I would press the Government to look at this with a degree of conviction and also of pure compassion for those family members so that we can find a way to work through this.

I shall conclude in the interests of time. We could say much more about the numerous new clauses and amendments, but I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will listen to our concerns and comments so that we can work collectively to provide support for victims through the new clauses and Government amendments. Victims of crime have waited a long time for this legislation and it is important that we do everything to stand by them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will now go to a five-minute limit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

T5. The Minister will be aware that approximately £1 million of taxpayers’ money was spent, including through legal aid, on finally deporting the vile sex offender Yaqub Ahmed, whose crimes were just unimaginable. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister ensure that legal aid processes are reviewed and, importantly, dust off the previous plans to introduce wasted cost orders in immigration cases so that lawyers who pursue these spurious cases are prevented from doing so?

[Mike Freer]

As my right hon. Friend will appreciate, I cannot comment on individual cases, but I can reassure her that the payment of wasted or unreasonable costs can already be ordered by the tribunal if it considers it appropriate. Given the issue that she has raised, however, I would be more than happy to meet her to ensure that her concerns are conveyed firmly to those responsible for the reviews.

Prisons

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor announced a package of measures to address offender management, and I thanked him for his contribution and the proposals that he outlined. Importantly, we spoke then, and I want to speak again today, about the removal of foreign national offenders from our country.

It is absolutely right that the Government do everything they possibly can to remove foreign national offenders, because they are living in the UK—often on visas, and using our laws to keep themselves here when they actually have no right to remain in this country—while committing offences and posing a danger to the public. That breach of public safety is a clear violation of their right to remain in the UK. When an offender is convicted and given a custodial sentence, it is a high bar to qualify for deportation. Certainly during my three years as Home Secretary, as the Minister mentioned, we deported around 12,000 foreign national offenders, despite the pandemic and the travel restrictions at the time. With each FNO deported, our streets and communities become that little bit safer, and that is something on which we should all be focused. Those who remain in this country still pose a risk to safety. Sadly, we have seen some come out of our prisons, stay in our communities and commit further dangerous offences and serious crimes.

As Ministers on the Front Bench know, some in this House—I have to say this quite starkly, particularly having listened to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury)—have campaigned on this year after year. In December 2020, when I was Home Secretary, 70 Opposition Members wrote to me to stop a deportation flight to Jamaica, and murderers, rapists, drug dealers—you name it—were on that flight. Day after day, Home Office Ministers would come to this House and do a valiant job in speaking about protecting the public and why the people on these flights had to be removed. It is quite shameful to hear such a level of denial from the shadow Minister, which I simply do not think is at all acceptable.

I was lobbied, day in and day out—often through national newspapers, I should add. Letters were even sent to me by those on the Opposition Front Bench, in which they relentlessly broadcast their support for criminals, as they did on social media. They made the case for murderers and sex offenders staying in our country and being able to live in our communities. They made human rights claims to enable dangerous criminals to stay in our country. They have shown more respect for and interest in the rights of these dangerous criminals than those of the victims, or in the public safety of people in our country. That is why I say, as a former Home Secretary, that the Labour party can never be trusted on law and order issues, or on offender management, and its previous track record on them speaks volumes. Living in the UK is a privilege, and those who come here, break our laws and commit serious offences should expect to have their rights removed and their liberty taken away. This is why we should be unapologetic and robust in our approach to the removal of FNOs.

The SI will enable FNOs to be deported directly from prisons sooner—18 months, rather than 12 months, before release point. It is vital that offenders be removed from our country. Of course, everyone wants that, including the public, and victims in particular. I spent time during my period in Government with the victims of some of the most appalling crimes committed by FNOs, and those victims’ lives are shattered when they see those individuals not being removed from our country, but being left to be released and to rebuild their life in our country at the taxpayers’ cost, which is just wrong. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister a series of questions about the practicalities of how this scheme will work, as the change is significant and has an impact on the punitive and deterrent element of sentencing.

First, what consideration will the Government give to the impact on a victim of the early removal scheme, and the measures allowing release 18 months early? Many victims will expect an offender to be in custody for as long as possible, as punishment for their crimes, and they will have concerns about an offender being released and enjoying freedom in the country of their nationality. Victims of rape, sexual offences and other serious offences will rightly have significant concerns about the perpetrators of these horrific crimes effectively receiving back a degree of their liberty. I have a constituent who was a victim of such a crime, and prior to this measure coming in—under the current arrangement, which allows release 12 months early—she was concerned about the person who caused her the most appalling harm being at liberty, even if no longer in this country, and she made representations to me that the offender should not be allowed to be released early. It would be helpful if the Minister spoke about the practicalities of how these offenders will be managed.

Secondly, I would welcome from the Minister details about the communications that victims will receive. As we know, the Victims and Prisoners Bill is going through this House. Many of us from across the House have campaigned for it—in my case, for almost a decade. It gives a welcome focus on victims, and I back the Bill for supporting the rights of victims in the criminal justice system and getting that system rebalanced. That Bill is coming in because of the concern and frustration of victims, obviously including the victims of FNOs. I hope that the Minister will provide assurances and clarity about how victims will be supported. They do get some communication, but they are heavily retraumatised when they hear about those individuals being released from prison, given the implications that that may have.

Thirdly, given that some offenders will be dangerous, and will show no signs of remorse or make any efforts to rehabilitate, will there still be a process for keeping dangerous offenders locked up, rather than eligible for early release?

Fourthly, can the Minister explain how the Government will deal with the enforcement of this scheme when an offender—and I am sorry to say this—makes human rights claims to try to block and frustrate their deportation from the UK? Again, that brings me back to the appeals I used to receive from the Labour party when I was Home Secretary.

On the other measures announced by the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor last week, I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister can give further details and assurances, particularly on the offender management package and the proposals for staffing. I appreciate that I am asking for specific information on staffing, but that has implications for overall offender management. This statutory instrument is of course part of a wider package, and we are not discussing that entire package today, but Ministers on the Front Bench will know of my concerns about the possibility that we will see a repeat of what happened under the early release schemes of the last Labour Government, when offenders committed crimes and absconded. That caused serious concerns and had serious implications for public safety. I am looking for reassurance from the Minister about how the Government’s approach will differ from that of previous schemes, and how we will ensure that victims feel that justice is done, and reassurance that there will be a solid effort to reduce reoffending and its causes.

Prison Capacity

Priti Patel Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of prison staff, as they are ultimately the most important factor, beyond the nature of the prison estate, in making the difference to whether prisoners are kept safe and rehabilitated. We are increasing the number of prison staff, and I think an additional 700 staff were recruited in the last period for which figures are available. The other important point is retention, and we are starting to see a positive trend in retention.

I also make the point that those prison officers who stuck by their duty during the pandemic and went into work when it was tough to do that—when their parents and friends would have been telling them not to do so—are the ones who ensured there was not a complete catastrophe in our prisons in terms of loss of life, and they should take enormous credit for that.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I completely agree with the Lord Chancellor’s last point about prison staff during the covid pandemic, and I am very grateful to him for pointing out that the approach to FNOs must continue. He will know that between 2019 and 2022, some 12,000 FNOs were deported, despite, as he so eloquently pointed out, opposition from Labour Members. They were writing letters personally to the Prime Minister and myself. What assurances will the Lord Chancellor give the public going forward—this is about the direction of travel on this issue—that they are protected, and that offenders who are out and released back into the community, with GPS tags, do not pose a threat to the public? He will recall that in 2008, when the Labour party was in government, similar policies were pursued and there were major issues, with hundreds reoffending and prisoners on the run despite being recalled to prison.

[Alex Chalk]

I thank my right hon. Friend; no one did more in government to ensure that serious foreign national offenders were on planes getting out of the country. She did an exceptional job and I pay tribute to her for that.

On public protection, the whole point of the suspended sentence order is that the magistrate will say to the individual, “The crime that you’ve committed crosses the custody threshold. I am going to impose a suspended sentence order, potentially with a curfew and unpaid work”—or whatever the other conditions are. That order is then a sword of Damocles hanging over the person. If they do not comply, they are brought back before the court and they serve that sentence in custody. The choice for that offender is very clear: do what they should and abide by the order of the court, or they will hear the clang of the prison gates.

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I think the hon. Gentleman has achieved his objective: to get something on the record. I will not comment on ongoing cases, but, speaking more generally, access to justice is at the heart of what we do.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

T6.   I have a constituent who suffered life-changing injuries as a result of an assault eight years ago—she is not on her own, on that basis—but she was awarded only £150 from a compensation order during the criminal case and offered £1,000 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Will the Minister look at amending the Victims and Prisoners Bill so that victims can be given adequate care, compensation from offenders and support through the courts and, importantly, through the CICA?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who throughout her time in the House, and particularly while Home Secretary, has always taken a keen interest in supporting victims of crime. It is vital that victims get the compensation they are entitled to, be that from the offender or the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which paid out more than £173 million in 2022-23. The making of a compensation order is a matter for the court, and there is no limit on the amount that a court can order an offender to pay.

In respect of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, His Majesty’s Government are consulting on changes following the report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse alongside previous consultations. It is important that that can be considered fully, but that will be post-passage of the Victims and Prisoners Bill.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Priti Patel Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

It is incredibly important that child victims receive the support that they need, and that should not be a bar to their giving a video-recorded piece of evidence, for example, so that they can participate in that trial as well. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the particulars. The general principle is this: if child victims, who are victims within the ambit of the Bill, need that support, they should get it.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Can the Lord Chancellor provide the House with slightly more detail on the commissioning functions? He has rightly touched on police and crime commissioners, ICBs, the duty of care and the duty of co-operation. In many walks of life, that co-operation completely fails and, basically, victims are on the receiving end of institutional state failure. It would give the House some confidence if he were able to explain how this will work.

[Alex Chalk]

I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend for her stalwart commitment to the rights of victims. I venture to suggest that no one in this House has done more to stand up for victims. She is absolutely right; there are plenty of organisations who have a duty in that regard—police and crime commissioners are one, but there are plenty of other providers. We want to ensure that the duty of co-operation means that there will not be duplication in some areas and deserts, as it were, in others. The aim is to ensure that across the piece, if someone needs to make sure that there is sufficient support for rape victims, for example, that that support is provided and there is no potential duplication between what the hospital might be doing and what the PCC might be doing. That is a statutory requirement to co-operate—not a “nice to have”, but a direct requirement. That is the difference.

I have already spoken about the importance of ISVAs and IDVAs. They do exceptional work, and we want to strengthen their role further by introducing national guidance to increase awareness of what they do and to promote consistency.

I can also tell the House that we will bring forward an amendment in Committee to block unnecessary and intrusive third party material requests in rape and sexual assault investigations. I know that routine police requests for therapy notes or other personal records can be incredibly distressing for victims, who can feel as though they are the ones under scrutiny. Some may even be deterred from seeking support for fear of their personal records being shared. Our Bill will make sure that those requests are made only when strictly necessary for the purposes of a fair trial.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), and I will come on to the independent public advocate shortly. We have been in touch about the issue in the past; there is a great deal to say about it, and I agree with so much that the right hon. Lady said.

I am delighted that a victims Bill is finally here for us all on Second Reading. I am also delighted to see the Lord Chancellor in his place, and I welcome and congratulate him. I would like to thank the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who has been so constructive on victim engagement, which I have found refreshing. I have spent a great deal of time in government speaking to individual victims, and the Minister of State—like all right hon. and hon. Members—will recognise the importance of doing that and of learning the lessons so that we can be better legislators and give those victims a voice and strong representation.

I feel like I have been speaking about getting a victims Bill for some time—back in 2011, I proposed a ten-minute rule Bill—and we have also seen manifesto commitments from the Conservative party and other parties, so the day is long overdue. In the debate so far, we have heard frustrations about how the Bill has been drafted, what it covers and what it does not cover—I will touch on that as well—but, importantly, it is here at long last and it could be a really important piece of legislation. There is no doubt that it will be amended, but it is clear from the debate thus far that there is much to unite us on behalf of victims. We can work cross-party on so many aspects, and we should seek to do that.

I pay tribute to everyone who has been involved in the Bill and the pre-legislative scrutiny. I pay particular tribute to victims. I have spent days, weeks and months with victims, and I would do that all over again, because we in this House have a duty to them to represent them, and also to recognise the pain and suffering they have gone through and how we can bring about institutional change on their behalf. Many organisations representing victims have campaigned hard, and I worked with many of them in my time as Home Secretary. I was also once chair of the all-party parliamentary group for victims and witnesses.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who chaired the Justice Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill. I also pay tribute, for their work as former Secretaries of State for Justice, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who walked in just at the right moment to hear some important parts of the debate, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab). I have had the privilege of working with them both on behalf of victims as well as on so many other aspects of Government legislation, including policing, crime, courts and sentencing—the things that actually do bring about change.

We recognise that this legislation is needed to provide more rights and support for victims. They are human beings who are trying to navigate their way around the system of the state, and I have already mentioned institutional state failure, which I think will become a dominant theme in this debate and, I suspect, in Committee. It is important that we recognise that, because our duty is to redress the imbalance in the criminal justice system, where too often the needs of victims are forgotten, neglected, ignored or even just bypassed through process and bureaucracy. There is a ton of that in the system.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her kind words. It indeed was a pleasure to work closely with her and Home Office colleagues, meeting victims, dealing with their problems and individual cases, and being forceful about the agenda we wanted to pursue. Does she agree that in clause 15 of the Bill, which relates to guidance for independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, we are now in law recognising the invaluable work that these experts do? It is shown, particularly in sexual violence cases, that the input of an ISVA will often make the difference between a case going forward and a case collapsing.

[Priti Patel]

I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. There is always more that we can do in this area, and there will be lessons we can learn from professionals and professional practitioners, and I believe they should be engaged and listened to. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has already mentioned that in relation to part 3 of the Bill, and we must constantly learn, because we have all been shocked and horrified by the cases of victims—I will highlight some in the course of this debate—the types of crimes they have been subjected to and their treatment by the institutions of the state and the criminal justice system. That needs remedy, and we have the opportunity now to bring serious redress.

That redress will not be judged by words or pieces of paper; it is the implementation that matters. I have always focused a lot on delivery in government, and redress is about practical implementation. The Bill could be the game-changer in improving public confidence in the criminal justice system. All of us—this is not partisan—want that. We all want to ensure access to justice and that justice takes place in a swift and timely way. The improvement of services and support for victims of crimes must be a priority.

Progress has been made. One area to highlight from my time at the Home Office, was the work that we did collectively—because it was both parties—through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which provided much more focus on practical support and services to victims. We should always put victims first and target resources to deliver the right outcomes and support services, including enshrining more rights in law, which is absolutely right.

We have also seen police and crime commissioners’ role being much more focused—and there is more we can do in this area—on supporting victims of crime, which the Lord Chancellor mentioned in his opening remarks. Working collaboratively across statutory services is important. I want to give a positive plug to some of my colleagues who are police and crime commissioners. Roger Hirst, the police, fire and crime commissioner for Essex, is outstanding. He has put a strong focus in his police and crime plan on supporting victims. He is an excellent commissioner, and my constituents across the county of Essex can absolutely see the changes that plan is bringing, supported by our chief constable, B. J. Harrington. Last week I met Alison Hernandez, the outstanding police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall, who is working with Victim Support. I spent many hours, weeks and months working with Victim Support when I chaired the all-party parliamentary group. There are first-hand experiences that we can learn about from those practitioners and bring into statute and practice, empowering parts of our statutory services, including these key roles, and that is vital.

The current code of practice for victims needs updating as the Bill progresses through the House, because we need to test the statutory provisions relating to the code. I want to see, learn and understand how they can be operationalised for delivery purposes. I want us to avoid the whole concept of a postcode lottery, where some parts of the country do better than others. We should be looking to drive consistency in outcomes and ensure that we have the right frameworks in place for accountability. Where the state fails, there should be sanctions, and I will come on to that shortly in relation to the independent public advocate. I would also like stronger assurance—not just further assurance, but stronger assurance—about the delivery of the code and how that will work.

Will Ministers in due course publish the proposed draft code, or highlight areas in the current code where they would like to see directional changes, because we need to get the balance right for victims? To ensure that the rights of victims are enforceable, a balance is needed between rights and the measures enshrined in statute, so that we are better off in terms of outcomes. That is where a number of victims charities and organisations supporting domestic abuse victims and survivors all have a great deal of knowledge and expertise. Ensuring a much stronger victim-centric approach to the criminal justice system is vital to drive the right outcomes. On that point, clause 6 rightly focuses on criminal justice bodies raising awareness of the code but does not include provisions directly to raise awareness among staff and the providers they may commission. I have no doubt that that will come under greater scrutiny in Committee.

On clause 1(2), which refers to victims being affected by criminal conduct, we want assurances that victims of antisocial behaviour will also be afforded some of the rights and protections under the Bill and the code. The lines between criminal conduct and antisocial behaviour are too often blurred. I hear what the Labour party says about antisocial behaviour—we all agree about this—but we must be crystal clear about the definition and its application within the criminal justice system. Antisocial behaviour blights lives and communities—that is a fact—and the perpetrators need to be held to account within the criminal justice system. That is in effect what we are trying to do, but we need to make sure that the current code is not weak in this area and that we have the relevant join-up in the system.

On victim impact statements, the Bill and the code need to examine how we ensure that the voice of victims is heard in the courts. At the opening of the debate an example was given of a victim who was unable to provide such a statement. That is sometimes because the police, the CPS and the courts make decisions that do not focus on the victims, and that is where we must get the right balance between victims and offenders. I am afraid that the process can often act fast for offenders with complete disregard to the victims—for example, in cases of theft or burglary, where quick disposal and, if I may say so, lenient sentences are prioritised over providing sentences that reflect the severity of offending and the impact on victims.

As an example, one of Britain’s most prolific offenders—responsible for hundreds of offences, including crimes against my constituents—was let off by the courts, let back into the community on a form of rehabilitation scheme, and given housing and access to services, but still went on to reoffend. The victims were not aware or informed until they saw this case in the media, and they were absolutely appalled. Their views of the impact of the offending on them had not been sought or heard, and they were completely ignored and dismissed. The Bill is an opportunity to shine a light on that area.

Another area where victims have been let down, and where we could provide improvement and a greater voice for victims, is compensation. There may be scope to amend the Bill in relation to compensation for the victims of crime. The courts have powers to issue compensation orders, which compel offenders to pay for their crimes and give recompense to their victims. However, sometimes —in fact, too often—these provisions are inconsistently applied. When there were the riots in 2011 which caused millions of pounds-worth of damage, I asked questions to the then Justice Secretary about the number of compensation orders issued and the data was not available. I suspect Members across the House have many individual cases in their constituencies, and I have many too and have been to my regional Crown Prosecution Service where I am afraid orders have not been followed through and there has been a huge sense of injustice. Back in 2011 many businesses and companies were left picking up the cost, but for individuals these crimes can be life-changing, severe and horrific, and the failure to enforce these orders can lead to devastating impacts.

A former constituent of mine was blinded by an abusive ex-partner, impacting on her ability to work. Not only did her partner get away with a short sentence and was let out before the halfway point, but no compensation order was imposed upon him. My constituent was left blinded in one eye; that has changed her life and she is a mother. I have spent a great deal of time with her over the years and it is a harrowing case. Sadly, she is a victim of our system and there will be many other similar cases.

I hope that during the passage of this Bill we can give light to such cases and examine how we can represent those victims in a much better way and ensure they are not let down by the courts or the CPS. I have spent many hours with our regional CPS on this; we need to find better ways to support individuals.

The subject of the independent public advocate has rightly already had a comprehensive hearing in this debate both from the Lord Chancellor and colleagues, and I pay tribute to all colleagues across the House. When I was Home Secretary I spent many harrowing hours with the families of the Hillsborough disaster, but, if I may say so, they were also deeply fulfilling hours when I was hearing from them. Bishop James Jones is a remarkable individual and his report is moving and very thoughtful. He has put forward great solutions with the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and the former Prime Minister my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who spent a great deal of time with me. I also worked with other Ministers to understand the role of the IPA and push forward its establishment.

I welcome the provisions in part 2 of the Bill and the establishment of the IPA to support victims of major incidents. The tragedies of Hillsborough have been well aired in this House, but there are so many lessons to learn; the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood touched on all aspects of this and I do not disagree with her at all. The history of Hillsborough is littered with institutional state failure. State institutions have let down those families. I have heard so many comments through the discussions I have had with representatives, the families and Bishop James Jones about issues from cover-up and collusion to state-sponsored denial and the role of South Yorkshire police. The history of this is appalling.

There are other tragedies, too. We have recently received the Manchester Arena bombing reports. I set up that public inquiry and every single aspect of it was devastating and harrowing. I have also met many family members, including children, mothers, dads, uncles and grandparents. I genuinely think we can do much more as a Government and just by changing our laws to bring parity to the justice system to give them voice. That is very important.

I saw that with the Grenfell families as well. There is nothing more harrowing than going to meet them in the area where they used to live—their own community—and hearing about the injustices they have suffered. I pay tribute to all those families for their relentless campaigning: they are campaigning for good reasons and to give voice to their suffering because they do not want others to experience the tragic circumstances they have faced.

During my time at the Home Office we looked at this issue and the role of an IPA sitting alongside the “duty of candour”, which I absolutely support as it will help to rebalance the system. The duty of candour would bring so much to light. It would shine a spotlight and completely change and safeguard individuals’ ability to give evidence at public inquiries, and really ensure that voices are listened to. That is needed, because there is an imbalance in the system, with victims and families who are seeking trust, truth, assurances and answers facing what I can only describe as the machinery of the state. They just feel intimidated. As we have heard, they are told that they are signposted, but it is either totally inadequate or the wrong kind of signposting. That machinery of the state is often tooled up with expertise, lawyers and unlimited resources while they are grappling for resources, so they cannot get access to justice.

I have an example from my own constituency in Essex, where an inquiry is taking place into the deaths of mental health in-patients between 2000 and 2020. We are dealing with incredibly disturbing and harrowing cases, but families have faced frustrations over many years in seeking answers. I believe that an independent public advocate would help them. I have been pushing for that on their behalf and recently had discussions with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. However, I genuinely believe that this could be a breakthrough moment—perhaps we can bring about the right changes through amendments in Committee—where we can all work together to learn from the harrowing experiences and tragic deaths that have taken place to make for an effective, independent public advocate role and give it the independence that it needs.

I do not want to dwell on part 3—it has already been given an airing—but I will touch on the point made by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). There seem to be endless state failures in dealing with offenders. I have already spoken about institutional state failures on behalf of victims, but there must be a stronger and better way to deal with offenders who have been let down, perhaps through successive legislation and their rehabilitation. We have a cycle or revolving door of repeat offenders and offending, and I am afraid that sometimes judges and the courts are failing to send offenders to prison. There is a panoply of issues that we need to look at.

The public and the victims of crime expect offenders to be sent to prison to serve their sentences. But, at the same time, we see how often that does not happen and how offenders go through a cycle that does not address any of their offending, while the costs for the state continue to go up and up. This part of the Bill needs to be looked at. I believe in firm and fair sentences and have always been of that persuasion, but—we know, because we have all seen examples of it in our casework—we cannot have victims finding out about offenders being back in their neighbourhoods indirectly. All sorts of problems then take place in the community. So, areas of part 3 do need to be addressed.

The Bill is obviously long overdue. It could be a groundbreaking piece of legislation to address so many of the criminal justice system’s inadequacies, including the historical adequacies when it comes to giving voice to victims of all sorts of crimes. Crime is an awful thing for anyone to experience, but given the severity of the types of crime, we owe it to all the victims of crimes ranging from the Hillsborough disaster to terrorist events, domestic abuse and rape, to ensure that the Bill gives them representation, rights and access to the criminal justice system and deals with those anomalies and imbalances. I hope that we can all work constructively across the House to achieve that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Priti Patel Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer]

What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that we have spent over £813 million on civil legal aid. In fact, the means-testing review is expected to widen civil legal aid availability to an extra 2 million people, so I do not accept the premise that we are failing families or the civil legal aid system, because of the investment we are making.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

7. If he will make an assessment of the adequacy of the performance of HM Courts and Tribunals Service’s probate service in the last 12 months.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

Despite the increased volume of applications received during and after the covid-19 pandemic, the average length of time taken for a grant of probate once all required documents are received has been maintained at between four and seven weeks, with the average response being almost one week faster in the third quarter of 2022 than the yearly average for 2020 and 2021.

[Priti Patel]

A number of my constituents have been experiencing significant delays in their probate applications—some have been waiting for over 10 weeks—and have had difficulties in accessing staff through the contact centre and the hotline. What message does the Minister have for my constituents who are stuck waiting for answers, and what is he doing to improve the application process? At the end of the day, bereaved families are having to deal with the estates of deceased relatives, and this is a deeply painful time for so many constituents up and down the country.

[Mike Freer]

My right hon. Friend raises a case that I have taken some time to unpick. I can reassure her that wait times for calls to the helpline have dropped from an hour to between five and 10 minutes. In terms of the number of what are called stops, when we have to ask for additional information, we are looking at why the form causes that, to see whether it is user-friendly. We are also recruiting additional caseworkers to ensure that complex cases are speeded through the system.