Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

We conduct this debate at a time when we are fighting a virus—an invisible enemy—and we are told perpetually that the virus might mutate, as viruses are inclined to do. Of course, terrorism mutates, too: terrorism is not a static thing; it metamorphosises, both in character and in method. That is precisely what has occurred as we have gone about fighting the prevailing terrorist threat in this country. It makes the challenge of counter-terrorism acute, because countering something is usually about anticipating and predicting what might happen next.

As terrorism metamorphosises and becomes less predictable, it becomes increasingly hard to counter. That is precisely what has occurred in this country and in other countries that have suffered the effects of terrorism in recent years. Terrorists have become more adaptable and more flexible. Their methodology has changed, and a key part of that has been the use of modern communications in the recruitment, indoctrination and radicalisation of terrorists, particularly using the internet.

I wish to talk about the character of that radicalisation. It is much like the kind of grooming with which we are tragically familiar in respect of children who are drawn towards paedophiles. People are groomed on the internet, and the method is disarmingly and shockingly similar. A lonely individual will be identified and told that at last they have a friend. That person will not reveal—indeed, will conceal—any connection to an extremist cause. Gradually, over time, that individual will be turned into the kind of person who will do almost anything for a cause and for their friends. That is made much easier in the modern age: the character of the way we communicate has altered, so this will happen in people’s homes, in their bedrooms, perhaps unknown to their family, certainly unknown to others and, of course, by definition therefore unknown to the security services and those who might do something about it.

Because of all that, our response has constantly to be reviewed, which is precisely what the Government are in the business of doing, and that is why over the years, including the time that I was the Minister responsible, the Government have looked again at whether they have the mechanisms in place and the resources and powers necessary to deal with the changed threat. The Bill goes about that in a number of ways, and I wish to draw out some particular aspects of it for closer consideration, if I may.

On the issue of TPIMs, they are always a contentious matter, and indeed it was a contentious matter in the days of control orders, which some of us will remember, under a previous Government of a different colour. It is vital that we use the powers that we have to restrict the activities of those who might do harm. The question becomes where we fix the bar. The Bill lowers the bar and, in my judgment, rightly so.

Perhaps I ought to admit that I was not a particularly vehement critic—in fact, I was not a critic at all, so I am understating it a bit—of control orders and the methods used by a previous Government. I do not know if it is quite polite to say that, but I am sure it will please one or two Members on the other side of the Chamber—although I am not sure it will please too many on the Front Bench. I saw the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) in her place and my remarks were half directed towards her. The right hon. Lady made the point that in changing the bar—in altering the criteria—it is right that we do so with care and that there is appropriate scrutiny.

I heard and read the remarks of the independent reviewer, but I simply add another point, which in a way mitigates the counterargument—if I can put it in those terms—and that is on the use of polygraphs, which have been used in other countries, particularly the United States. I am not making any great claim for them, and certainly no greater claim than the Government are, but it seems to me that testing the process of deradicalisation, assessing how far it has gone, and gauging whether someone has changed or simply seems to have changed, is vital as we gauge what should happen if they are not incarcerated—what should happen once they are out of prison and they are not in a secure location. The Government are right to explore that in the Bill. I suppose that one would say in truth that it is a work in progress. We, as a Parliament, as well as the Government, will have to consider how that goes. I know the Select Committee will do that in due course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) mentioned. But mindful of that determination, illustrated by the provision in this legislation to look carefully at the character of the effectiveness of de-radicalisation, it is perfectly reasonable to introduce the changed measures on TPIMs.

[Mr Lammy]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman and, in doing so, apologise for not being here for his opening remarks.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. On the issue of polygraphs, does he note that the independent reviewer also says that there is an absence in the Bill as to how they will be used? Are they to be used against high-risk offenders, or very high-risk offenders, or are they to be used against low-risk offenders to assess their tendency to re-offend or offend?

[Sir John Hayes]

I should reveal to the House, for those who were not here yesterday, that I had a charming exchange with the right hon. Gentleman, where I described him as a “dear friend” and he described me as a “kind of friend”. I was rather slighted actually, but he made up for it later by saying that it was offered in good humour, and I took it in the same spirit, I have to say.

The right hon. Gentleman is right. One of the things that is important about debates on terrorism in this House is that they do not follow narrow party lines. We try to build consensus, as we face common threats and shared challenges. He is right. Rather like Prevent, we do need to be scrupulous about analysing effectiveness. It is right that the Government should do that and, again, without putting words into the mouth of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, still less provoking action on his behalf, the Select Committee will look at that, together, I imagine, with the Home Affairs Committee and others. There are all kinds of bodies in this august establishment that will play a role in ensuring that the application of what is a new development is effective. So I do not think that that is an unreasonable point, and I am more than happy, in the spirit that I have just described, to amplify it. However, I think that the Government are on the right track and I praise the Lord Chancellor for this in recognising that the bar did need to be lowered for TPIMs.

The other point that I want to make is in relation to Prevent and Channel. This is a complex area because, as I described, the character of terrorism is complex, as is our response to it. I am a pretty robust supporter of Prevent. It has critics; it has always had critics. It is certainly right that we have good oversight of Prevent—I tried to bring that about while I was the Minister and I do not think that that was always the case in the past—and that we measure its effect, too. I am not sure that that was always done as well as it could have been, and I am speaking about Governments of all colours here.

Having met Prevent co-ordinators and seen their work at first hand in various parts of the country, I know how much difference they make. It is not just about Islamist terrorism, although I suppose that is what most people will think that we are focused on today. It is much more broad than that. It is identifying problems of all kinds. I was proud, as the Minister, to introduce the Prevent duty, as some here will know, which engaged the various public bodies that are at the frontline of radicalisation—I am thinking of health professionals, schools and others—and also engaged communities and provided them not only with a responsibility, but, I hope, extra support in identifying those people, particularly young people, as it is often young people who are corrupted in this way, and in trying to act before they did something horrible, dreadful or shocking. I do support Prevent and, while I think that it should be reviewed, I also support the provision in the Bill to extend the review process. I make no comment on who should do it—that is for others to comment on—but I note that the Bill extends it and I think that is the right thing to do.

I come to the part of my speech that will perhaps be more challenging for some here—I hope not too challenging. None the less, I would rather be straight- forward, as I always try to be. It is about the issue of sentencing. Public order and faith in the rule of law depend on popular confidence in the justice system. The justice system is in part retributive. We have fallen into the trap of believing that the only purpose of criminal justice is to rehabilitate. Of course, that is a purpose—in the case of terrorism, as I have made clear, de-radicalisation is crucial—but public sympathy for all we do, and all our security and intelligence services and the police do, depends on people believing that justice is being done, and is being seen to be done. That is hard to reconcile with early release at all.

If we spoke to our constituents about early release, I suspect a very substantial number would find it pretty hard to cope with in the case of serious crime at all—or what they perceive as serious crime—and all the more so with terrorism. I think our constituents, whether they are in South Holland and The Deepings or Tottenham, or any other part of this kingdom, and regardless from which community they come, would be surprised if they knew we were releasing so many people who have committed those kinds of offences.

I am going to draw my remarks to a conclusion shortly—I can see you, with typical charm, combined with authority, moving to the edge of your chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I particularly welcome the Government’s approach to early release. It seems to me that the various provisions in the Bill that increase minimum sentences and provide the courts with the ability to look again at the tariff, and in some cases, increase maximum sentences, are entirely in tune with popular sentiment and the threat we face.

Let me end by saying this: the Bill, in my judgment, is apposite and appropriate. We are speaking of those whose purpose is to murder and maim—let us be under no illusion and have no doubt about that—and in the struggle for civilised life, in the cause of virtue, on our side there can be no fear, no guilt and no doubt.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before we move on, we will now have to have a time limit. It will initially be 10 minutes, but I warn hon. Members that that is likely to reduce significantly in the near future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) and to hear his remarks, and it is a pleasure to participate in this debate.

At the outset, I place on record my appreciation for the considerable and considered engagement from the Minister. I have appreciated the discussions that we have had and that he has taken on board the concerns that we have expressed. I appreciate that engagement. I have also appreciated the engagement I have had with the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland, Naomi Long. In listing and highlighting the successes and good engagement, it would be wrong of me not to place on record my congratulations to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) on assuming a shadow Justice role. He and I come from opposite ends of Ulster and from different perspectives within Ulster, but it is great to see him assume the role and we look forward to his contribution later on.

There has been a lot of focus in this debate on terrorism in England and terrorism coming from Islamic and far-right extremism. There have been a number of references to Northern Ireland, but it is always good to commence a contribution such as this by reminding Members that I have been in this place for a short five years, and within that five-year period I have seen three constituents of mine murdered by terrorists. Often in this Chamber, it is easy to believe that the issues that plagued our society in Northern Ireland have gone away, but they have not. The threat to our society in Northern Ireland remains substantial. It is severe.

In those three years, Kevin McGuigan was shot dead in 2015 by mainstream republicans. Adrian Ismay, a serving prison officer, was killed by an under-car booby trap bomb in 2016 by a dissident republican, Christopher Robinson. Last year, Ian Ogle was stabbed to death by loyalist terrorists at the end of his street in my constituency.

During the course of those five years, many more have been targeted. I have had serving police officers who have survived. Many others within our communities feel under the cosh of paramilitaries who have not moved on and who continue to seek control. It is on that basis and that basis alone that our party would always support the Bill. Our party will support its Second Reading, but I will raise some issues.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will know, as he said, that the Bill grows the capacity of the system to deliver extended sentences and cuts early release, but will he invite the Minister to consider the greater use of whole-life sentences, where a judge makes it clear at the time of sentencing that the person should never be released, because I certainly would?

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful for the contribution. I will touch on sentencing in a moment. I am not sure if the clock gets adjusted for that intervention; I was happy to receive it, but I would be even happier to receive the additional time.

I say to the Minister for reference—he will know why I raise this—that I was pleased to see, in paragraph 9 of the explanatory notes, the reference to counter-terrorism legislation being a reserved matter. He will understand the importance of why I raise that and go no further.

On TPIMs, it is important to say that the Law Society has raised concerns about control orders, how they were brought to an end, how there was a difficulty in engagement with human rights legislation and how the imposition of a control order may not have been proportionate, given the risk of the individual, which is why they were changed. It has raised concerns that the changes to TPIMs will take us back to that control order phase. It is for the Minister, in summing up, to assuage those concerns and to outline how the changes can proceed properly.

On sentencing, I am delighted that Northern Ireland is now included in the provisions. When we considered the Sentencing Act 2020 in February, I was not only concerned that Northern Ireland was left out, but somewhat perplexed by the reason given that article 7 and compliance issues with human rights legislation did not apply in England and Wales, but somehow did in Northern Ireland. We do not need to pursue that, because the Government have changed their position. I still have not got a satisfactory explanation, but we do not need one; I am grateful for the conclusion. It will engage some operative issues in Northern Ireland, some of which I know the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) wants to focus on as well. I think it can be appropriately defended and it is appropriate in the circumstances that we are included.

On a wider point that the Minister will not like, I am pleased that the Government are now engaging with the notion of mandatory minimums. I know that the Minister will indicate that that is not a change in policy generally and that mandatory minimums will not become the norm, but it is an important step forward. I have always railed against the view that there cannot be a mandatory minimum for any crime because it interferes with judicial independence. It is not our role to determine what a judge will ultimately decide, but it is our role as legislators to outline what we think any given offence should attract by way of a sentence, so I am pleased to see that.

On age, concerns have been raised about the application of the legislation, particularly to minors. I will not engage in the debate about the age of criminal responsibility, which is not for today and is not going to change. There are concerns, however, that young children—I say children and teenagers; minors—who are encouraged, abused or coerced into carrying out activity on behalf of older individuals who know better and who will not get caught themselves, will be considered under terrorism legislation. I ask the Minister whether in proposed new article 13A(6) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, inserted by clause 7, the requirement for the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to designate for anyone under the age of 21 at least injects a bit of flexibility where our local devolved Department will have the opportunity to decide whether it will apply.

I am grateful for the way in which the polygraph section is constructed in the legislation, in that it is permissible but not forced on us in Northern Ireland. I see no practical benefit in it and I would not encourage our justice system in Northern Ireland to engage in polygraph testing. I am concerned about how it is creeping in continually, first for sex offenders on licence, then in the Domestic Abuse Bill for those on licence at the start of this year, and now in counter-terrorism legislation. It is easy to pick those three, because very few people will say, “I want to stand up for or defend sex offenders, domestic abusers or terrorists on licence”, but I still believe in the rule of law and I still have fundamental objections about the rigidity and the validity of polygraph tests. I do not think they are safe or secure.

When I consider offenders of those three offences, they tend to be the least likely to live in the real world and understand the difference between right and wrong or truth and untruth. They are probably the least likely to be susceptible to polygraph testing. We do not need Jeremy Kyle-style show trials in this country. If there are to be real-world consequences for breach of licence, we need to at least assess them robustly and in a way in which we can defend.

My time has elapsed. I look forward to engaging further with the Minister on these considered issues. In giving support on Second Reading, I look for further progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott). I will not take up much of the House’s time.

I am sure that all of us in this place wish that this Bill was not necessary and that we could be sure that our towns and cities will never again have to fear attacks like the horrors of Fishmongers’ Hall last year, Streatham earlier this year, the Manchester Arena bombing, and the attack on Parliament, which was referred to earlier. All of us want to better protect the public and to somehow find the time and the means to rehabilitate those who want to visit that violence on our society, and to persuade them of a better way. Although I wholeheartedly agree with and support that motive and aim, I cannot agree that parts of this Bill will be effective in doing that.

As the hon. Lady said, keeping people in prison for longer will not de-radicalise them. It may, in fact, radicalise them further or give them the opportunity to radicalise others in prison. Keeping them off the streets for longer will certainly succeed in keeping them off the streets, but will that actually be effective if, in fact, they become more radicalised or radicalise others so that they are even more dangerous when they come out?

There are other flaws in that approach. If we are to prevent people from reoffending after they leave prison and encourage them back on to a lawful path away from terrorism, they need to feel the security of a home and a job. However, the release on licence, which is vital to that, will be shortened by this Bill. Similarly, probation is currently under-resourced, and it would be undermined by the Bill in its ability to de-radicalise.

[Sir John Hayes]

I do not know the answer to this, but I am extremely doubtful whether there is any reliable correlation in respect of the known terrorists that have committed such awful crimes in this country over recent years and unemployment or their family situation in terms of homes; in fact, I rather suspect the opposite. We need to be careful about making such correlations unless there is really strong evidence to suggest that they are meaningful.

[Christine Jardine]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I was going to come on to a different correlation. Surely, we want to stop terrorism happening in the first place. Longer sentences only happen after the fact. Surely, what we want to do in this country is root out of the causes of terrorism—to make people feel secure, to give young people an alternative, to keep them away from radicalisation and, if they are in prison for another reason, to ensure that they are not radicalised by someone who is in there on a long sentence and has the ability to radicalise them.

I believe that the key is reaching young people to prevent them from going down the wrong route in the first place. That is why I believe that we have to strengthen the licensing system, strengthen probation and look at ways of ensuring that our young people, whether they get into trouble or not, have the security of a job and a way of seeing their future positively. That way, we can identify those who might go on to threaten our way of life. We should work with the education system and agencies. We should tackle inequalities. Longer sentencing will do none of that.

There is also a dangerous assumption that one size fits all. As in other areas, that cannot be the case. It is vital that we recognise in the way we proceed that there is a different dynamic in Northern Ireland. In clause 30, there may be an implication that people already serving sentences will have their terms changed retrospectively and will have grounds for challenge at the European Court of Human Rights. We have to be very careful how we proceed.

Although we all desire a way of limiting the threat of terrorism and de-radicalising our young people, simply acting with more force—longer sentences—after the fact will not be enough. We have to get to the root cause first.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

John Hayes Excerpts

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

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who served for a considerable period in the Department I now have the honour of leading. He is right to talk about the financial consequences of breakdown. It is important to note the commitment made by my noble and learned Friend Lord Keen in the other place by way of a letter dated 16 March to Baroness Deech, which has now been placed in the Library of each House, that we will consider how a review of the law governing financial remedies provision on divorce may take place. I give him that undertaking.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. The Law Commission also recommended that rather than reducing the time that people can get divorced within from two years to six months, it should be reduced to nine months. Given his willingness to concede on the previous point, will he at least look at that again?

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I know that he, like me, is a doughty champion not only for the family, but the need to reduce conflict. I know that he makes his point passionately, but I would argue that the way in which this Bill is constructed makes the so-called quickie divorce a thing of the past. The minimum terms that we are talking about provide an equality of approach that will no longer discriminate in favour of those couples who perhaps have the means and the wherewithal to either separate and live separately or to employ the sort of lawyers who can, shall we say, get things done in a more expeditious way.

I stress to the right hon. Gentleman that the six-month term that has been naturally focused upon is a minimum. There will be divorces that take longer than that for reasons of complexity relating to each relationship. The point is that there will not be divorces that can take place in as quick a time as eight weeks, as is currently the case.

Reform of divorce law is supported not only by the lawyers, judges and mediators, but by the Marriage Foundation and, importantly, by evidence from academic research. It is evident that the law does not do what many people think it does. It cannot save a marriage that has broken down, nor can it determine who was responsible for that breakdown. Allegations made in a divorce petition by one spouse about the other’s conduct give no advantage in any linked proceedings about arrangements for children or financial provision for a spouse, yet the current law can perversely incentivise conflict. It requires an applicant for divorce or for the dissolution of a civil partnership to provide details to the court of the respondent’s unreasonable behaviour if their circumstances mean that they need to divorce before a two-year separation period. The incentive at the very start of the legal divorce process to attribute blame can only serve to antagonise parties at the most difficult time in their lives. Moreover, the court in practice has limited means by which to inquire into such alleged behaviour and must often accept what is said by one spouse at face value. This can be a source of real resentment for the other spouse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend will recall his Court of Appeal appearances, where the tribunal might have said, “Mr Neill, that’s your best point. You needn’t go any further.” He makes an important point on the issue of blame; it does not help anybody when it comes to these issues.

The clear purpose of the Bill is to reduce conflict, because conflict does not help when it comes to the legal end of a marriage. That can only be to the advantage of divorcing couples and their children, because children’s best interests are most clearly served by the reduction of conflict and the co-operation of divorcing parents who work together to ensure that they co-parent effectively. The Bill will help couples to focus on a more constructive way of collaborating in making future arrangements that are best for their family—in essence, looking forward rather than backward.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way a second time. The acid test is: as a result of this legislation, will there be more divorces or fewer? It is my contention that if we make something easier, people are more likely to do it.

[Robert Buckland]

I understand entirely my right hon. Friend’s concerns. The number of divorces has declined in recent years, but that perhaps goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester about the beginning of it, because the number of marriages has declined in proportion since 1972, just under 50 years ago. Taking the long view, one should focus upon the beginning of the process—the nature of the commitment, the solemnity of that commitment and the importance of that relationship and that commitment—rather than the detail of the end process.

This Government’s proposals will apply equally to married couples and civil partners. While I conveniently refer to the concept of marriage and divorce, the principles and effects apply equally to civil partnerships and their dissolution. Husbands, wives and civil partners will no longer need to produce or face a real or perceived catalogue of failings in respect of their most intimate relationship. There is a strong common view underlying the proposals in the Bill, built upon the foundation of a significant evidence base.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his speech introducing this important piece of legislation. Labour welcomes this Bill, which offers a common-sense approach that continues to respect the institution of marriage and civil partnerships, but avoids unnecessary antagonism and costs for people dealing with an often incredibly difficult time in their lives.

Sir James Munby, the former eminent president of the family division, has described the current divorce laws and procedures as “hypocritical” and based on “intellectual dishonesty”. As Sir James pointed out in his damning judgment in the infamous case of Owens v. Owens, the requirement of many couples to evidence unreasonable behaviour can lead to farce.

It was 30 years ago now that I studied Evelyn Waugh’s “A Handful of Dust” for A-level English, and as the Secretary of State might recall, in the case in Waugh’s novel, the character Tony is forced to spend a platonic weekend in Brighton with a sex worker to fake evidence to allow his divorce. That, of course, was set in the early period of the 20th century. It is surprising that it has taken that long to update these laws.

Divorce is an unhappy event in the lives of many. It has a profound effect on families, and on children in particular. It is important that the law does not force couples into an adversarial contest when a breakdown in a relationship occurs, but allows and encourages them to resolve matters in a constructive way. The Bill modernises the law, which has been fundamentally unchanged for more than half a century, so that it better reflects the realities of a breakdown in a relationship, better protecting the most vulnerable who attempt to come out of an abusive relationship and simplifying the process of ending a marriage or civil partnership without undermining its social and cultural importance.

The divorce process today is archaic and confusing to most people as they enter into an emotionally fraught process. The law forces parties who are going through a divorce to choose between evidencing one of the three fault-based facts about their partner: unreasonable behaviour, adultery or, less commonly, desertion. If neither party is willing to make such an application, the parties must separate but remain married for a period of two years, or five years if one party disputes the divorce. The option for couples today is entering into a lengthy and costly adversarial legal proceeding, or delay and legal limbo.

Both routes lead to difficulties for all and a real risk of harm to others. Couples who enter the process amicably can be quickly pulled apart by the law. There is an incentive for each party to make accusations about the other’s conduct, and that cannot be right. Some couples can easily live apart and bide their time, but for others, moving into separate accommodation without a finalised divorce and any financial settlement is impossible. That is why so many charities and campaign organisations that work with victims of domestic abuse have called for reform in this area for many years.

The new law will allow and promote conciliation and compromise. That will be of real help for families and children of broken relationships. Importantly, it will reduce legal costs that can quickly reach eye-watering sums, quite unnecessarily.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am so pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman back on the Opposition Front Bench. He is a dear old friend, but he is quite wrong about this. These provisions declare at the outset that the marriage is irreconcilable. If that happened at the end of the process rather than the beginning, he would be right; an opportunity for reconciliation, and perhaps rethinking, as a result of counselling might be possible. That is not the case with the proposals we have before us tonight.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Ever since I first came into this House, it is true: we have had a sort of friendship across the aisle. I say that with a degree of humour, to which I know he is disposed himself. He raises an important issue, but I think the point is that the Bill allows for a period in which couples can reflect, and for mutuality between partners. We in this country are taking an important step, whereby two adults contemplating the breakdown of their relationship can reflect and pause, or come to a mutual agreement and step away from some of the antagonism that the system used to create.

First, the new law does not force couples into an adversarial dispute, but allows for an account of the breakdown in the relationship to reflect nuanced reasoning. That is provided by a simple statement. Importantly, for the first time couples will be able to make this statement jointly. In many circumstances, this will help couples to work together constructively to put a legal end to a relationship that is already broken. Indeed, the new law means that couples will now have the option of a joint application for divorce—a welcome and sensible new provision that must be good for children in particular.

This approach strikes the right balance between respecting the profound role marriage and civil partnerships play in our society, while also allowing for amicable resolution to relationships ending. This is not the introduction of shotgun divorces. The process will still take time, providing for reflection and perhaps a reunion. The new law has been welcomed by many relationship and family charities, such as Relate, which has long called for reform in this area. The minimum time for the application to a final divorce will be 26 weeks, which Relate has welcomed as providing the time to reflect, to give things another go if appropriate, and to access counselling and mediation. In reality, of course, couples have often contemplated and discussed separation for a long time before legal proceedings begin.

Secondly, the Bill ends a reliance for amicable couples unwilling or unable to make allegations about one another to separate and remain married for a further two or sometimes five years. This leaves couples in limbo, married but unable to make other arrangements. The current law is often counterproductive to any hope of reconciliation, as it can put off couples from moving back in with one another for fear of having to start the separation process once more. This can also be incredibly dangerous. Women’s Aid has highlighted the barrier for many women leaving abusive relationships, which is compounded by current divorce law. With over half of survivors of abuse shown to be unable to afford to leave the family home and with the decline of refuge accommodation, women are forced to rely on fault-based facts in any divorce proceedings, making accusations in litigation that can often increase their risk of harm. Indeed, figures show that 77% of women killed by their partners are killed in the year following separation. The current law also drags out the process of separation, which can affect the vulnerable in society. Many women have reported that lengthy divorce proceedings, and the adversarial nature of them, have given an opportunity to abusers to continue to torment them. It may be claims of a lost marriage certificate, not attending court or issuing spurious cross-allegations, but a perpetrator can prolong proceedings, causing more harm. Some people’s circumstances require a faster conclusion to the legal relationship. The Bill will go some way to helping them.

More broadly, the law as it stands discriminates against those on low incomes. For some who can afford to live separately, a no-fault divorce is perfectly viable, but others must make accusations of the other’s behaviour if they cannot afford such an arrangement. The Law Commission recognised that all the way back in 1990, stating:

“It is unjust and discriminatory of the law to provide for civilised ‘no-fault’ ground for divorce, which, in practice, is denied to a large section of the population.”

This Bill rights that wrong and it is long overdue.

Thirdly, the Bill removes the opportunity to contest a divorce. However, in reality, even now a party cannot simply argue that they want to remain in the marriage, but must identify a legal reason why the divorce must be refused. The law as it stands does not prevent disputes or help to bring about reconciliation, but instead only serves to aggravate a conflict that can be manipulated by perpetrators of domestic violence to further torment a partner. The Bill safeguards important procedural challenges—jurisdiction, fraud, coercion—but it will prevent the unnecessary dragging out of traumatic proceedings.

Finally, the Bill modernises the language of divorce. While a modest reform, many family practitioners in this area speak of their clients’ bewilderment at terms such as decree nisi and decree absolute. More accessible phrasing is important. It is a reminder that the law must serve all people, not just those who are legally trained.

Therefore, Labour welcomes this Bill, but these reforms must be put into context. The cuts to legal aid over the past decade mean that parties do not receive any support—none at all—in divorce proceedings, whatever their financial circumstances. In the year immediately preceding the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, 58% of parties were recorded as having legal representation in family cases that had at least one hearing, but that has reduced to just 36%, which means more people are acting as litigants in person during the divorce process. If a separation is acrimonious, the lack of legal advice can make an already stressful situation even worse. In courts across the country the effects of that are being felt: hearings take longer; more are emotionally heated without a focus on the law, because there are no lawyers representing the parties; and the process is more burdensome and stressful for all concerned—the judiciary, who have to hand-hold the parties through the process, and the parties who have to represent themselves.

The lack of legal advice can also lead to delay. Despite the Government introducing online divorce applications, the average time from the first stage to completing the divorce was 58 weeks last year, an increase of three weeks. The delays have effects on the couples, who often want to get on with their lives but are held back by a lack of early legal advice. Without such professional advice, the process for the parties, their families and, in particular, children, is inevitably emotionally strenuous. As Baroness Hale said, upon leaving the bench:

“It’s unreasonable to expect a husband and wife or mother and father who are in crisis in their personal relationship to make their own arrangements without help”.

She has also highlighted something else that is not fair, which is the potential for an imbalance in resources because of the lack of access if, for example, there is a wealthy applicant and a respondent without access to funds. Some studies suggest that legal fees for divorces can cost £8,000, on average. That is simply unaffordable for large groups in the population, but there is no legal aid provision at all. Ironically, the legal aid system introduced by the Attlee Government with the aim of guaranteeing access to justice was initially focused on divorces, where numbers rose exponentially after the war; after a decade of a Conservative Government, it is not provided for at all in these circumstances. The Bill will certainly help couples going through this process, but further investment in legal aid is necessary to ensure that justice is being done fairly for all. I hope that the Secretary of State might say something about the position on legal aid during the course of this Bill, but Labour supports this Bill and will support the Government in the Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

When my party won an 80-seat majority in the election, I knew that it was about much more than getting Brexit done; it was also about responding to the working-class community’s desire for an alternative to the liberal agenda which has dominated politics for so long. So it is with deep regret that I see this Bill brought to the House tonight. We need a Government prepared to back communities, build families and cement social solidarity, and this Bill is injurious to all those objectives.

The biggest shake-up of divorce law in half a century is based on a misunderstanding of what marriage is and the human ideals from which marriage derives its meaning. This Bill reduces marriage to the legal status of a tenancy contract—one that can be dissolved at minimal notice by either party, without any expectation of permanence or any explanation.

Hegel said that marriage is a “substantial tie” that “begins in contract” to “transcend” contract, by abolishing the separation between the parties. Hegel’s point can be put more simply: essentially, a marriage is not a contract but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, a vow. That is why it has such great significance to us and why it is traditionally surrounded by so much ceremony. Roger Scruton put it this way:

“That we can make vows is one part of the great miracle of human freedom; and when we cease to make them, we impoverish our lives by stripping them of lasting commitment.”

It is through our ability to limit and constrain ourselves that we express our true freedom.

Life is not a dreary succession of consumer choices, but a journey marked by moments of transcendental significance, and marriage is one such commitment.

Our existing law is founded on the ancient understanding of what marriage is: a vow. Progressive activists for the Bill, such as the Lord Chancellor’s old ally, David Gauke, say that alleging fault increases acrimony in a divorce, but that notion is based on a misunderstanding of marriage. Changing the law may cheapen marriage, but it cannot change the idealism in which the commitment of one human being to another is founded. Acrimony is almost bound to follow the breaking of such a vow. Regardless of what the law may say, enmity is not a product of the process, but a characteristic of human relations when they break down, and to pretend otherwise is to attempt to deceive this House and the people who vote for us. The current law reflects these facts of life and reflects the significance of the vow that has been made. Fault necessitates expectation.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is said by the supporters of this Bill that the divorce process can damage children, but that is only if parents seek to involve children. One thing that is absolutely certain is that divorce itself damages children, and if we make something easier, it will happen more often.

[Sir John Hayes]

I agree, and the Bill essentially turns divorce into an administrative formality, removing the breathing space that allows around 10% of divorces that are initiated to be averted. About one in 10 divorces that are started are never actually completed, and that is because of the time available for counselling, for reconciliation, for reconsideration and for trying again. The Bill removes that opportunity. It removes protections for individuals whose spouses seek to terminate their marriage in times of hardship or illness. For many, the changes could mean that faithful, committed husbands lose access to their children, while women cruelly abandoned by errant husbands will have no way of marking that betrayal and no reason offered for why their marriage has ended.

What is most disappointing is that the Government ignored their own consultation. Some 83% of public respondents opposed change. The Bill provides a 20-week period at the start of proceedings, which Ministers say will allow time for reflection, but 20 weeks is not long enough to settle the matters of property or to secure the welfare of children. In any event, the Law Society points out that most of the 20-week period could pass without one respondent to the divorce even knowing about it. Unbelievably, the Bill does not require the applicant to serve a notice on the respondent at the start of the 20 weeks. When that matter was raised in the House of Lords, Lord Keen gave a lukewarm response. He is never the most persuasive Minister. I say it is a basic injustice that must be remedied, not by the Family Procedure Rule Committee, as he suggested, but on the face of this Bill.

We are in perhaps the most challenging time that anyone can remember, yet we bring forward a Bill with such insensitivity that we challenge not only the stability of families, but the very nature of marriage itself. Divorce marks the end of a partnership—the death of a love. As a family ends, all of society is a little weaker. The Lord Chancellor will come to regret this Bill because it is fundamentally un-Conservative. As it makes divorce easier, it makes marriage less significant and will make it less valued, and that is a price that no one here can afford to pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to this debate with such powerful speeches. A wealth of insight and poignant personal experience has been brought to bear, and this debate on such an important issue has been enriched by it. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) for sharing their experiences with the House.

Before responding to the points raised, let me make some brief introductory remarks. Marriages and civil partnerships are vital to society as a way in which couples can formally express their commitment to each other. I support marriage. The Government support marriage. This Bill is not anti-marriage; rather, it is anti-bitterness. In those sad cases where a marriage has irretrievably broken down, the Bill removes unnecessary and artificial flashpoints to reduce the scope for pain, recrimination and, crucially, harmful impact on children. We must accept the reality that some marriages do end. The Bill replaces a broken system which for decades has not operated as its framers intended. I note that it is supported by Resolution, which represents over 6,000 family justice professionals in England and Wales who have to grapple with the current framework every day.

One of the principal problems of the current statute is that it incentivises conflict. It does so in relation to those who wish to divorce before a two-year separation period because of the specific need to particularise the respondent’s unreasonable behaviour and to do so in a way that fits a 50-year-old statute’s prescriptive categories. The trouble is that words have consequences; they can do damage, so that where once there was grief, anger comes; where once there was sadness, bitter resentment follows. The academic study, “Finding Fault?” found that 43% of those identified by their spouse as being at fault disagreed with the reasons cited in the petition. That resentment is not just damaging for the parties themselves; others, particularly children, can be harmed by it too, because it toxifies the atmosphere in which a couple then approach negotiations over arrangements for children and finances. No wonder the president of the Law Society has said:

“For separating parents, it can be much more difficult to focus on the needs of their children when they have to prove a fault-based fact against their former partner… Introducing a ‘no-fault’ divorce…will change the way couples obtain a divorce—for the better.”

[Sir John Hayes]

Leaving aside the issue of fault, will my hon. Friend commit to looking, during the passage of this legislation, at increasing the six-month period, at dealing with the issue of both parties being notified at the outset of the divorce, and at ensuring that there is properly funded counselling and support for reconciliation? If he looks at those things, I think he will satisfy some of the critics of this Bill.

[Alex Chalk]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and I pay tribute to the characteristic clarity and eloquence with which he made his representations. Although I cannot give any commitment to specific points, he has made powerful points. On behalf of the Government, I commit to continuing the conversation in Committee.

Part of the problem is that the court has limited means to investigate the circumstances. Having marched the parties up to the top of the hill by requiring petitioners to make allegations, the system rarely inquires into whether those allegations are true. It simply does not have the means to do so. In fact, just 2% of cases are contested, and only a handful progress to a contested court hearing. For more than 40 years, English and Welsh courts have not routinely held divorce trials to prove the allegations set out. That is because most people nowadays recognise that marriage is a voluntary union. When consent disappears, so, too, does its legitimacy.

That lack of inquiry is a problem because allegations may bear little resemblance to reality, but they are presented as established facts. The scope for injustice is obvious. To satisfy the statutory provisions, minor incidents may have to be dredged up and artificially repackaged as a pattern of behaviour. A respondent who, in truth, is a perfectly reasonable individual will have their behaviour branded unreasonable. Conversely, a respondent may have behaved despicably—a point made by the Lord Chancellor —but because of the fear of repercussions, a petitioner may seek to rely on two years’ separation instead. At the end of it all, in the eyes of the law, the culpable respondent will never have been publicly rebuked, and will exit the relationship apparently blameless.

All too often, the law does not do what people think it does. That is not just the Government’s view. Sir Paul Coleridge, a former family judge and chair of the Marriage Foundation, no less, said that the current system

“is, and always has been, a sham”.

I think I may be the fifth person to quote him this evening, but Sir James Munby, former president of the family division, criticised the current law for being

“based on hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty”—

a point powerfully made by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). The same is true of academia. Professor Liz Trinder, who has conducted extensive research on the divorce process, has branded the current arrangements “a meaningless charade”.

I want to address the points that have been made with great force by my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). To paraphrase—I will not do justice to the way in which they expressed it—the concern that they have raised is that the Bill will undermine the institution of marriage by making divorce more attractive. That is an important argument, and it has to be addressed.

The point is that it is a very sad circumstance indeed when a marriage breaks down, but some marriages do end. The legal process of divorce is not the driver for a marriage breaking down; it is the consequence. That is the point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor was making about the telescope. Petitioners do not issue speculative applications for divorce. In the overwhelming majority of cases, they take that step only after reaching a settled conclusion. In those circumstances, we must do all we can to mitigate the pain experienced by the couple and their family, especially the children. We cannot have a system where the legal process works to exacerbate acrimony and suffering where divorce is simply the process of bringing a legal end to a personal relationship that has ceased to function for both parties.

The point that is so often made by practitioners is that very often, individuals are surprised by the convoluted and artificial process that they are presented with. International evidence shows that long-term divorce rates are not increased by removing fault from the process of obtaining a divorce. In short, divorce and dissolution are a sad reality, but one that is sometimes unavoidable. This Bill prevents hardship and misery, and it will help people at a vulnerable time. I commend this Bill to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Member will know that in January we announced a £90 million package of measures to counter extremism. Within that, there is a £3 million package for specialist intervention—counter-terrorism programmes and intervention centres—to build an evidence base for what works. We are also training our prison officers to assess when there are incidents, report them and challenge terrorist behaviour.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

When the Lord Chancellor introduced the Bill to curtail the early release of prisoners with his usual mix of alacrity and wisdom, I suggested on Second Reading, based on information from the House of Commons Library, that about 160 people might have been released early. Since then, having received further advice from our excellent Library experts, it has become clear that the Home Office quarterly report does not distinguish between early release and all release. Will the Minister take the opportunity to set the record straight by telling the House exactly how many prisoners have been released before serving their full custodial term of sentence in each year since 2013?

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that there is no power to strike down the primary legislation. I am afraid that I will not indulge him in a direct answer as to the nature of advice that may or may not have been tendered, and he knows the reasons why. However, I reassure him that all the proper mechanisms have been employed and engaged in the preparation of the Bill, and that on the basis of all the information received, I was able—with high certainty—to make the declaration on the frontispiece.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend will remember that we worked together on these matters when I was in the Government. He is right to speak about the metamorphosis of terrorism. Will he confirm—indeed, these provisions underpin this—that we must never let the persistent and perverse advocacy of the rights of murderous individuals compromise either the work of our security services or public faith in the rule of law?

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience, as we worked together on the Bill that became the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which rightly struck the balance between the need to protect the public and the need to make sure that the rule of law was respected.

That gives me a chance to warm to a theme that I make no apology—

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Where I can agree to a degree is that I certainly accept that there are people with mental health problems in prison who, frankly, should not be. The right hon. Gentleman refers, I think, to secure psychiatric units, where there is also a shortage of places. That is another issue that the Government need to accept on the basis of the past 10 years.

I heard what the Justice Secretary said about specialist officers, particularly those in de-radicalisation programmes, but we are tolerating a rise in physical attacks on our prison staff. That cannot be fair to them and it will not produce a constructive environment in our prisons. From September 2018-19, there were 33,222 assaults, including 23,592 prisoner-on-prisoner assaults and 10,059 assaults on staff. Levels of self-harm were also the highest ever recorded.

The Bill, I am sure the Justice Secretary will argue, will deal with the immediate crisis of the next few weeks, but he must plan ahead. The crisis in our criminal justice system does not end with our prisons. We also need the best possible probation services and the best possible supervision. In 2014, the Government part-privatised the probation service. I do not think it is unfair to say that it was an absolute disaster. The Government had more than 150,000 people supervised by private community rehabilitation companies and just left the high-risk offenders to be managed by the National Probation Service. The chief inspector of probation, Dame Glenys Stacey, said last year:

“The system which sees private firms monitor criminals serving community sentences is ‘irredeemably flawed’”.

She is right. No wonder the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s predecessor had to announce last year that the supervision of all offenders on probation in England and Wales was being put back into the public sector.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is making a point about capacity, and that seems to be reasonable. Early release—scores of convicted terrorists have been released early since 2013—adds to demand on capacity and he is making a case that we should address that. On that basis, I am sure he would want to support the Secretary of State in taking that pressure away, building morale and, as he described, allowing the police to exercise capacity more effectively.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Well, yes. I have made absolutely clear my support for the measures before us today. My point is simply this: today we will deal with an immediate crisis. What the Bill will not do is deal with the broader and deeper problems we have that will need to be dealt with in the months and years ahead. The National Audit Office announced that the botched part-privatisation of probation cost the taxpayer nearly £500 million. Frankly, it is time for good sense and consistency in policy making at the Ministry of Justice.

The independent review of the Prevent programme, which I secured in the previous Parliament—I think I debated it with the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—has been announced, but there is no reviewer. We are now a year from the point at which the Bill that he and I debated received Royal Assent. Lord Carlile was appointed but resigned before Christmas, because he had already expressed views on the programme, and the Government have hardly shown urgency in appointing a replacement. It is high time that they did. I appreciate that that is not the responsibility of the Justice Secretary, but I am sure he will pass on the message to his Cabinet colleagues that the reviewer must be appointed and the review must begin, take place and make recommendations. Today really must be a day when that focus on rehabilitation comes and we turn the page away from a decade of problems in our criminal justice system.

One of the recommendations made by Mr Acheson was for an independent adviser on counter-terrorism in prisons. I would go further and press the Justice Secretary to provide external scrutiny and assessment of the deradicalisation programmes across our prison estate. In that way, this House can regularly assess the position, and we will not again be in a situation where we are taken by surprise or are responding on the hoof. We cannot tolerate our prisons becoming breeding grounds for extremism, and we need to ask searching questions.

I hope that this emergency legislation will pass without a Division. Alongside it, I hope that the Government will now invest in the very best expertise available in counter-extremism and tackle the crisis in our prisons. It is only by doing that that the Government can truly say they are doing all they can to keep our streets safe, and in that we will be holding them to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill]

I certainly agree that we need a more detailed analysis of the best approach to a threat that continues to change and develop. My hon. Friend is right about that, and it is right that this is a discrete, emergency measure to deal with a specific and urgent problem. We certainly need to look at the way in which we deal with sentencing, the treatment of such individuals and the protection of the public in that context—that is absolutely right. I happen to believe, lest it be hinted otherwise, that that is perfectly capable of being achieved within our continuing adherence to the European convention on human rights and that a series of British court decisions would tend to support that, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right on the broader thrust that there is more work to do in this field. I got the sense that the Government and the Lord Chancellor recognise that, too.

It is right that we should consider the necessity of the Bill. I would have thought that that had been well laid out now. That is one of the principles of the rule of law. Lord Bingham famously set out a number of principles. One should not act in haste unless there is a compelling reason, but the reality of blood being shed on the streets of this country seems a compelling reason to me. The fact that people have been released and then have swiftly, and frequently, seized articles and used them to catastrophic effect seems to make this legislation both necessary and proportionate, so I hope that the House will have no hesitation in supporting it.

One issue that seems to have raised some concern, particularly in legal circles, is whether there is any risk of retrospectivity. I do not seek to see retrospective legislation, and for the reasons that the Lord Chancellor set out I do not believe that that is the case. When I was in practice at the Bar, it was very clear that the prospect of whether early release might occur was not a consideration that any judge should take into account in passing sentence. The principle was, and always has been, that the sentence passed should be commensurate with the gravity and seriousness of the offence and any other legitimate mitigating or aggravating circumstances that the Crown or the defence can put forward. Whether there may or may not be early release thereafter was never regarded as a consideration affecting the penalty.

That is important for the argument that the Bill retrospectively increases the penalty, which I think is a misguided argument in these circumstances. It was often said that the prospect of early release in effect ameliorates the penalty that was passed, rather than anything else. There is a string of authority in both the UK and Strasbourg courts to the effect that the total duration of the penalty is that which is laid down by the court at the time. That is the bit that cannot be changed retrospectively and the legislation does not seek to do that.

[Sir John Hayes]

From his long experience of these things, my hon. Friend is making a cogent argument about the character of penalties. He might want to go further. The problem with the assumption about automatic early release is that it is injurious to the very principle that he set out. Early release has always been part of judicial considerations but on the basis of an assessment of risk, merit and worthiness. Automatic early release runs against those principles.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I understand that point and we can debate it in broader terms when the larger piece of sentencing legislation is introduced, as I understand it will be later in the Session. The purpose of this legislation is effectively to deal with that—as well as moving the release point from half-way to two thirds, the Bill automatically states that there must be consideration by the Parole Board. It is very important that the Parole Board has the resource and expertise to carry out the additional and heavy burden that it must take on. There have been good reforms of the Parole Board since the Worboys case, for example, and in the last Parliament the Justice Committee looked at this and urged changes to the way in which parole operated, which have been acted on. There is movement in the right direction but we must be ever vigilant in making sure that the Parole Board has the resource, which may include more specialist resource.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend touches on a point that I raised several years ago, shortly after the infamous, terrible murder of Lee Rigby. On the question of persons returning to this country from ISIS, I told the House that, as far as I was concerned, the issue of their return should be evaluated in accordance with article 8 of the convention on the reduction of statelessness, which makes it clear that a person can be made stateless if they give allegiance to another country—the caliphate could be regarded as such in this context. I accept this is controversial, but the United States, for example, already applies article 8 in that way. If the person in question gives allegiance to another country, by definition they have moved into the zone of treason and have deliberately and voluntarily abdicated their allegiance to this country. I put that on the record because we have to take these matters extremely seriously, and I attempted to make such an amendment to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. This is about not just external activities, but internal ones, within our domestic law, so we need to take this incredibly seriously. That is why I am appealing for this longer term assessment of all these questions, including the one my hon. Friend has raised, because it is so important and cannot just be put into a category of “rather extravagant thinking”. This is really serious.

As I said earlier, human life and public safety are much more important than the question of whether the courts may or may not interpret a particular provision in a more “fashionable” judicial interpretation than we ought to expect of our courts. I go further and say that human life is more important than any legal interpretation of human rights, which is why I have tabled my amendments. I imagine that the Committee stage will be pretty truncated, so I am not going to go into this in Committee in the detail that I will now. As this is a Second Reading issue and a matter of principle, let me say that we should include in the Bill, in clause 1, the exclusion of the Human Rights Act 1998. I have something of a history in that respect, but so do the Foreign Secretary and many others, such as the distinguished Martin Howe, QC. We were regarded as highly unfashionable some years ago, but issues of the kind that gravitate around the Bill have drawn attention to the fact that we have to take these matters really seriously. I understand that the Bingham Centre has made a number of representations on the matter, and there are clear indications that there are lawyers of some notoriety, if not distinction, who will seek to overturn the provisions of this Bill by going to the courts. I deplore the fact that they would seek to do so.

I am looking forward to the discussion in the House of Lords on this matter, because there are distinguished lawyers on all sides of the debate in that House, who, with the greatest respect to all of us here in the House of Commons, have been practising at the Bar, have been in the Supreme Court and so on. They will be able to bring to bear the right degree of analysis of the case law, which needs to be looked at carefully in this context.

[Sir John Hayes]

As ever, my hon. Friend is making a compelling case. I suggest to him that this requires a more fundamental review of the characteristic and extent of rights, and how they relate to citizenship, duty, responsibility and the public good. I wonder what he thinks of that.

[Sir William Cash]

That is an extremely important point. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have the greatest respect for his analysis when it moves from not just the law into the broader societal and philosophical questions, which ought to inform opinions made in this House; we should not just treat issues of this kind as if they are somehow matters of semantics. We are dealing with the kind of society that we want, and the impact of the terrorism, and murderous and dangerous behaviour, of the perpetrators of these crimes our own constituents. A most recent case involved somebody who travelled from Stafford down to London, and therefore was a matter of immediate concern to my constituents, because he had been living there for some time. The manner in which he was allowed to leave to come down to London and commit murder in Fishmongers’ Hall and in the vicinity is a lesson for us all.

I now want to deal with the retrospectivity elements of this Bill, which relate to my general concern to tie down this issue in the longer term. The Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and I had an exchange about a number of cases. I am well aware that this is not the place for us to attempt to make an assumption that we are able to treat this Chamber as though it is a court of law, although we are, of course, the High Court of Parliament, but that is to miss the point; the fact is that proper analysis of the case law has to be conducted. Some of that has already been done in blogging and in some pamphlets, and I am expecting the House of Lords to home in on it effectively when the Bill gets to that House, although it will not have much time.

We know that Ministers have been warned about the likelihood of a legal battle; despite the assertions of the Government that the Bill is compatible with article 7 of the European convention on human rights—for reasons that I will explain, I am sympathetic to their view—there are those who will argue that it is not. I can see this coming, so my amendment would remove any chance that there could be that kind of legal battle on the applicability of the Human Rights Act to this Bill. My amendment would insert the words

“notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.

That is a belt-and-braces approach, and it is what I am seeking. I am not going to move this amendment in Committee with any intention of dividing the Committee of the whole House on it; I think the matter needs further consideration outside this House, and I look to the House of Lords for some indication of views.

My argument goes like this: this Bill is compatible with article 7. No one has read it out so far, so I will do so. It states:

“No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence”—

for conduct —

“which did not constitute a criminal offence…at the time when it was committed.”

This Bill does not purport to create a new criminal offence. Rather, it seeks to prevent terrorists convicted by UK courts on the basis of offences that existed prior to the Bill from having automatic early release. I have already made my point about the length of time indicated. Furthermore, the explanatory notes state:

“The Bill does not retrospectively alter a serving offender’s sentence as imposed by the court, or alter the maximum penalties for offences.”

They state that the Bill is concerned with the “administration of a sentence”. I still believe, despite the exchanges I had with the Chairman of the Justice Committee, that the del Río Prada case could well still come into play there. I fear that it might be used effectively against the Bill. So my conclusion on the question of a textual interpretation of article 7 of the ECHR indicates that is not incompatible with this Bill. However, Parliament does have the power to legislate retrospectively—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Except for love infused by hope, fear is the most vivid of emotions. Love is perhaps more readily remembered, but fear is more easily envisaged, because fear in itself is the imagining of horror that might happen. That is why provoking fear has been the instrument of bullies, thugs, despots and torturers through the ages—to terrorise, hurt, harm, maim and murder is designed to intimidate each and all of us, and to undermine the certainty of order that underpins social solidarity.

Today the provisions we debate are designed to revisit the means of re-establishing order, and to reassure the virtuous that the wicked will not succeed. The Secretary of State described in his opening remarks the metamorphosis of terrorism—the fact that it is constantly changing, and so becoming harder to counter. There are obvious changes: the adaptability—the flexibility—of terrorists, and the instruments used to terrorise are altering. The spontaneity of terrorism is altering, too. The business of the security services and the police, and the legislation that underpins their business, must be just as flexible—must adapt to meet the changing character of terrorism.

The security services and the police, as I learned when I was the Security Minister, constantly refine what they do to anticipate and counter fanaticism, but early release is bound to undermine their morale, as well as to stretch their capacity. The number of subjects of interest, leaving aside those that have been released from prison early, already presents an extraordinary challenge to our security services and police, as we know from various debates that we have had and various reports on this matter, about which time prevents me from going into detail. Simultaneously, public faith in the rule of law is critical, and I suspect that most of our constituents would be amazed that we have released so many terrorist convicts early. I think they would regard that with disbelief. That we have allowed formulaic leniency to characterise the treatment of convicted terrorists is extraordinary, and in my judgment unacceptable.

It is not as if there had not been warnings, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said. In 2018, signals were sent that this would have the kind of consequences that we have now met with horror. The Government are acting decisively in response, to reinforce the legislative powers necessary to allow the police and the security services to protect the public. Public safety, as has been said repeatedly, is the heart of this business.

I suspect that, as the Chair of the Justice Committee said, the enhanced role for parole boards will require greater expertise. The measurement of risk will also change, as the character of terrorism and our response to it changes. We need to be able to assess risk, as we always have, in respect of early release, for parole is about measurement of risk—it always has been—but it is also rooted in the idea that someone who is going to be released early deserves to be released, and will not create further harm and danger. I believe that the rehabilitative aspect of criminal justice is accepted across the Chamber, but the retributive aspect of justice should be accepted too. This is also about punishment—about punishing guilty people who have, through due process, been found to have done the most awful, horrendous, things, and we should not be ashamed to say that.

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was pleased and proud, as Security Minister, to guide the Investigatory Powers Bill—the 2016 Act—through the House. That Bill struck a balance between the protection of the public and the necessary safeguards that should always be applied when we are limiting people’s freedoms—maintaining the tenets of a free society and defending those freedoms from the anarchy of fear and disorder.

Since that time, many people have been released early. I shall be brief because I am anxious to allow others to contribute, but before I conclude I shall look at the numbers. I consulted the Library, as good Members of this House do, and was surprised and disappointed to find that since 2013 something like 163 convicted terrorists had been released early. By the way, I excluded from my considerations anyone who had been serving a sentence of less than a year, so those are just the people serving a sentence of somewhere between 12 months and more than four years. Therefore, leaving aside short sentences, the more serious terrorist prisoners had been released in significant numbers. Just imagine the effect on our Security Service and police of having to deal with the consequences of those releases.

Some of those released will have been rehabilitated and deradicalised, but we know that that does not always happen. I strongly support the legislation, which strikes the right balance. Ordered societies are built on the protection and promotion of shared public interest and the defence of the common good. To face down terrorism and the fear that it spawns, and to face up to our responsibility to protect the people we serve, we should support this legislation as it progresses through the House. I anticipate that it will be necessary to challenge those who seek to undermine it on the grounds of advocating the rights of certain people. We in the House of Commons must stand together to defend the common good and promote the national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mahmood]

The right hon. Member speaks from experience of these issues. He is quite right to say that. It is very difficult for those who do not understand religion to put people into places of religious control and support. That is my clear point. We should have proper registration of people who go into these institutions. Anybody who goes into them should be required to have the proper qualifications and certifications, yet we let most people walk in, and we say that they can do this job. We have heard stories of radicalisation being perpetuated in certain prisons by some of the people who have gone into them. It is important that we look at how we move forward.

[Sir John Hayes]

I intervene partly to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the good work that he has done in this field over a considerable time. He points out the difference between Islamism and Islam—a difference too rarely identified by our media, as he says. Perhaps a review of all the Prison Service’s work on the appointment of imams and their work in prisons should be part of the Government’s ongoing plans to address the issue.

[Mr Mahmood]

Again, I concur with the right hon. Member. As for the Government moving forward on this, for the past 10 years we have not paid enough attention to what has gone on. We need to look at this seriously. The two incidents we are considering, as well as others, and the potential release of other prisoners have brought the issue to our attention.

A big functional issue in prison is how we position inmates. The Acheson report looks at segregating these prisoners. How to deradicalise is a really big issue. If we put these prisoners all together, they become a group. If we put them with other prisoners, they radicalise them. We cannot keep prisoners on their own, because human rights law does not allow that. There is no magic wand of deradicalisation. We have to take the issue very seriously. We have to get the right people, with the right understanding. Good work has been done in Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia on ways of deradicalising. We have to learn lessons from how those countries are proceeding, in order to address these issues. We have to go further in looking at those methods, whether they are relevant, and how they relate to what the community wants to do.

We have to look not just at prisons, but at external departments that deal with the issue. We have to consider education, under what licences we allow madrassahs to operate—if they have a licence at all. The only consideration for a local authority in granting permission for a madrassah is whether it would cause traffic congestion. If an applicant clears that hurdle, they can have one. No heed is given to the qualifications of the imam, there is no proper scrutiny of their past, and there are no security checks. Those are very important issues for us to look at in deciding how we move forward.

As for the people we know of, they are the tip of the iceberg. There is still significant radicalisation taking place, and we need to address that in the community. Radicalisation is progressing in prisons because there is a captive audience there. We need to move forward. We need to look at the availability of resources in prisons, because the resources that are required to deal with this problem are quite significant







While we are looking at Islamic extremism, we also need to look at far-right extremism. If this Bill is to apply to terrorists, it must also apply to far-right extremists —it is important that that is said. The contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) made a lot of sense. I pay tribute to her for the great work that she has done on these issues, including as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. She deserves commendation for the great balance with which she has worked on these matters. It is important for that work to move forward.

It is also important to look at how we police these issues. As my right hon. Friend said, we need to look again at control orders for when people come out of prison. In the past 10 years, we have forgotten about control orders. We need to get back to that issue, look at what is valid and appropriate, and see how we can move forward. That is hugely important.

I support the Bill because it is necessary for us to move forward with the resources currently available to us, but we need to have a much deeper look at how to resolve this issue for all our communities in the long term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I, too, put on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who has kept me updated in recent days.

In the wake of the two recent terrorist attacks, it is absolutely right that the Government look at the legal framework to decide whether it is adequate. Like the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), I was caught up in the 7/7 bombing. I was on one of the tube trains behind the one that was blown up at Russell Square, and I remember the unbearable heat that came from the blast. I was also in this place during the Westminster lockdown. The hon. Gentleman is right that many of us have been affected by acts of terrorism, but with respect, many of us nevertheless come to this debate with slightly different views.

This Bill does three things. First, it brings about an end to automatic release and applies that retrospectively. That is overdue, but very welcome. Liberal Democrats have said before, and we say again, that this part of the law is currently wrong, and it is right that this House seeks to change it. The Government are rushing this Bill through to get to Royal Assent before the end of the month and before the scheduled release of other terrorists. However, this part of the Bill alone, on ending automatic release and applying that retrospectively, would achieve the Government’s goal—and, indeed, the priority of all of us to keep the public safe. This part of the Bill alone would stop the release of terrorists without Parole Board agreement. It would be possible to adopt just that part of the Bill for it to be a change in the administration of a sentence in a way that is compatible with the rule of law.

However, the Bill tries to do two other things that, I think it is fair to say, are problematic. The second thing it tries to do is move the point of release from the halfway point to the two-thirds point for future offences. Of course, it is the natural instinct of all of us to have bad people locked up for longer, but who would want somebody locked up for longer if there was evidence that that could in fact make them more radicalised and more dangerous at the point that they are released?

[Sir John Hayes]

That is not an argument about the length of the sentence; that is an argument about how people are dealt with when they are incarcerated.

[Daisy Cooper]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. Much of the evidence suggests that what helps the deradicalisation process is not only how people are treated when they are incarcerated, but the amount of time they have on licence in order to find a home, rebuild family connections and do all the activity outside prison. There is evidence to suggest that the time on licence can make more of a difference to reducing reoffending rates and deradicalising people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in my opening remarks, I made the point that this was a very overdue change. In fact, we have had many years where we have seen the effects of increased radicalisation in prison simply because of a lack of resources both for our prisons and for our parole service, so he is right to point to that element.

That leads me very nicely to my next point: because of the speed of the passage of the Bill, there is not sufficient opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny. I would argue that, in the absence of adequate pre-legislative scrutiny, hon. Members should all sign up to a system of post-legislative scrutiny. Others in this debate have called for a review mechanism. The Government say there is other legislation coming down the line, but we know that legislation can slip, so I will finish by asking the Government to think again about this particular point to make sure that we have sufficient post-legislative scrutiny and that this law—

[Sir John Hayes]

I waited to intervene until a point at which I agreed with the hon. Lady, because I thought that was in the spirit of this debate. She is right about the need to review these provisions, but as she said a moment ago, any number of Committees will be able to do that in the course of time. We can move ahead with rapidity to defend the public, and then look at these matters in the round through the processes she has set out.

[Daisy Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that this legislation will of course be scrutinised in due course, but it is vital and right, because we are moving on with it so quickly, that we write into law a statutory review in one year’s time.

I conclude by saying that there is a danger that Bill will become a law of unintended consequences. In summary, we welcome the end to automatic release and doing so retrospectively—that is a good move—but we have concerns about changing the release point, particularly if that ends up allowing people to be released who are more dangerous than before. There are also questions to answer about the impact on the rule of law in applying retrospectivity to the release point.

Streatham Incident

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman can shake his head as much as he likes, but I am totally clear that we need to act quickly. That is why we are going to introduce emergency legislation, and I am sure he will support us in the Lobby.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

During my time at the Home Office, I introduced the Prevent duty so I am well aware of the importance of managing these matters before people are convicted, during incarceration and on release. However, sentencing matters. The Lord Chancellor has mentioned ending early release and increasing mandatory sentences. Will he also urgently consider imposing tougher minimum sentences?

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend, as a former Security Minister, is indeed very familiar with these issues, and he and I worked together on them during the passage of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. I reassure him that a mandatory minimum sentence of 14 years for serious terrorist offences will be part of our proposals in the counter-terrorism Bill, and I am sure that he will vigorously support that legislation when it comes to be debated in the House.

Domestic Abuse Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

I welcome the comments that the hon. Gentleman makes and those that my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), a former Culture Secretary, made when she said that she was trying to do what he suggests. Of course the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government must also be involved. We have heard much about health, relationships and sexual education in schools, so the Department for Education also of course has a role to play.

I urge the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend Member for Louth and Horncastle to do what she can to make sure that we are doing more for migrant women, bearing in mind that the destitute domestic violence concession is currently available only to those who come here on a family visa. We must consider those who are here as partners of refugees, those who are here en route to settlement but who have not yet got their protected status, and those who are here on tier 4 visas. We have heard much about older victims, but younger people, those who might be here as students, can also suffer from domestic abuse.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a valid point about the breadth of this issue and the need for Departments to co-operate. One of the most disturbing cases ever brought to my surgery—we all know how disturbing surgery cases can be—was that of a disabled man whom I had known in a different context as a cheerful, light-hearted person but who had been abused for years by his wife, who was of course much stronger and more powerful than him. Disabled people and other vulnerable people need to be taken into account here, which is one reason why we need to work across Government.

[Caroline Nokes]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; we must work across Government and we must consider all vulnerabilities.

We have heard this afternoon about the varied forms that domestic abuse takes. It might be physical, financial, emotional. We have heard about coercive control. However, there is also the controlling behaviour that relates to immigration status. A victim is a victim first, and the law and agencies must recognise that.

The role of the Minister is not simply to speak—it is to listen; it is to understand. Earlier, I mentioned the cross-Government meeting held back in May. As I said, it was not cross-Government enough, but I certainly listened very carefully that afternoon to the voices of Southall Black Sisters, the End Violence Against Women coalition, and Imkaan, and their message was that we had to extend the domestic violence concession and must not allow immigration status to be weaponised—as we know that, by perpetrators, it very much is weaponised. That can be physical, in the sense of a passport being withdrawn, but it can also take the form of the simple threat that a victim is in this country only because of the status of the perpetrator, and that if they were to approach an agency they would do so at their peril, and might then be excluded from this country.

The hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who is no longer in her place—I venture into this space with some trepidation—spoke of the EU settled status scheme and EU citizens. I urge hon. Members to make contact with Home Office officials and talk to them about the amazing amount of work that has gone into the resolution centre in Liverpool. When I was a Minister, I visited the centre and spoke to a wide range of brilliant caseworkers there. I hesitate to name her, but the awesome Gabi, who was passionate about helping those in the most vulnerable situations, spoke about recognising that there will be people who apply to that scheme who no longer have their passport, and who have no paperwork evidencing their stay in the United Kingdom, because their controlling partner has seized that from them and prevented them from having access to it.

We heard this afternoon about Government data sharing. Again I hesitate to go there, but there are occasions when data sharing can actually be a force for good. I would highlight the EU settled status scheme, which can combine evidence from the Department for Work and Pensions and HMRC in order to draw a picture of someone’s life in the UK that enables those who are vulnerable, who have been victims, to pull together sufficient information. There is a call centre. I sat in on some of the calls, which were handled in the most compassionate and understanding way so that victims were not put through a gruelling process but were helped to obtain their status. When I left office, there were in the region of 1,500 people working on the scheme. I hope to goodness that there remain 1,500 people working on it today, because it is absolutely imperative that we get that right for all EU citizens who are in this country.

I know that the Minister takes this matter very seriously and I am delighted that she has seized the opportunity provided by a day that we were not expecting to be in Parliament to give the Bill a Second Reading and allow us to make progress. I urge her to continue listening to the words of current and former Ministers. I know that the current Chancellor of the Exchequer was very passionate about ensuring that the review on migrant women enabled the Bill to cover more ground and enabled us to consider the domestic violence concession and do more.

I hope that the Minister heeds that, and that when the Bill moves into Committee we can all play an active part to ensure that we make it every bit as good as it can be, embracing as many individuals in this country who have been subjected to domestic abuse as possible, to give them the help that they need.

Children’s Funeral Fund

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

As ever, my hon. Friend puts his point simply but eloquently, and he is absolutely right about the prism through which we should be looking at this matter.

The scheme that we are envisaging will not just bring England into line with broadly comparable arrangements in Wales and Scotland. I am keen that we go a bit beyond that where we can. The children’s funeral fund will complement other measures to support grieving parents, including the social fund funeral expenses payment scheme and the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018, which was enacted last September. But I do understand that, alongside the welcome for the fund across both sides of this House, hon. Members and others clearly and rightly want to see the scheme in place as soon as possible, and to be reassured of the continued commitment to and progress towards that.

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on 6 February at Prime Minister’s questions, it is important that we get this right. We have therefore been working hard across Government to identify the most effective way to deliver the fund. For all the clear simplicity of what it seeks to do, it is none the less a complex and challenging policy legislatively and in delivery on the ground, bringing together a number of Government Departments, but it is a challenge that the Government and I have willingly accepted.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend knows—as do you, Mr Speaker—that, inspired by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), I have been a champion of this fund and have indeed highlighted funeral poverty more generally. He speaks about the complexity across Government, and I understand that, but there is an absolute need for clarity where parents are concerned. When people have lost a loved one, particularly a child, they are vulnerable, and they need a very clear indication, as does the funeral industry, of exactly how this will work in practice. Can he give us an assurance that that will be the case?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I should, in recognising the contributions made by Members across both sides of the House, recognise his contribution to this campaign and this debate, and indeed that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who has taken a very close interest in it. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has, I believe, just become chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on funerals, so he will continue to be active on this. He is absolutely right. We do need to get the scheme right. We need to make it effective and legal, but as simple as we can. We are working to devise a comprehensive publicity programme to ensure that both the funeral sector and, of course, bereaved families are fully informed and fully understand how the fund will work, and how they can access it, in advance of its launch.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I cannot give a detailed date. The hon. Gentleman, as a savvy Whip, will read into this what he will. I have said that this will require a legislative vehicle, and given my determination to do this for the summer and given that the House would need to be sitting to deliver on that, that might give him an indication of my intention.

[Sir John Hayes]

I want the Minister to know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), myself and, I hope, the hon. Member for Swansea East, will be going to see the Treasury Minister next week. I have just texted him to tell him.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for updating the House on that.

Short Prison Sentences

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

One of the greatest changes in my lifetime, and indeed my time in Parliament, has been the growing gulf between the preoccupations of the liberal establishment, and the hopes and fears of the people who have to live with the effects of their doubt-filled and guilt-fuelled erosion of the collective wisdom of ages.

That collective wisdom is given shape by institutions, small and large. There are large institutions, such as the law, Parliament, the Church and the monarchy, and small institutions, such as civil society, families and Burke’s “little platoons”. Sadly, what Burke said about order being the foundation of the good life and a working civil society—

“Good order is the foundation of all things.”—

is a far cry from where Britain is now, as a result of the work of that liberal establishment over the decades.

Too much of urban Britain, in particular, is either brutish or brutalised. When good order and the rule of law is eroded, it is the vulnerable who suffer most, for they, unlike those bourgeois liberals who live gated lives, survive on the frontline of crime. Those vulnerable people are suffering at the hands of violent criminals who are punishing them every day, through the fear they cause and the hurt they do.

Yet we are very sheepish now about punishing the culprits. We have learned so little from the time when I studied criminology, almost 40 years ago. We have continued down the road of seeing crime as an illness to be treated, rather than a malevolent choice to be dealt with.

[Kate Green]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will make this point, and then happily give way. The effect of that is to put great emphasis on the culprit and, by nature, less emphasis on the event and the victims of crime. That is precisely what has happened, and I know the hon. Lady could not possibly want to agree with that.

[Kate Green]

I do not disagree at all that people’s lives are made a misery by violent and persistent criminals in their community, but I cannot really agree that we have become less willing to take action against criminals, when the prison population has gone from between 42,000 and 43,000 in the mid-1990s to more than 80,000 today.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Lady is a very distinguished Member of this House, with whom I have worked in the past, so I do not want to suggest in any sense that I am patronising her. However, that could be a measure of either the scale of the problem or of our response to it, and I suggest that it is much more likely to be the former. I have to tell her that the view that is frequently expressed in this House—I put it this way only for the sake of brevity, because it is a little more complex—that we should place greater emphasis on the way we deal with criminals, rather than focusing on the way we support victims and protect those who are at risk of crime, is at odds with the sentiments of most of our constituents.

[Robert Neill]

I have great respect for my right hon. Friend, and I understand the thrust of where he is coming from, but would he reflect on the fact that the two are not mutually exclusive? It is not mutually exclusive to have concern for the victims of crime and, at the same, to consider that one very potent means of having concern for victims of crime is to ensure that those who offend are punished and sentenced in a way that is more likely to rehabilitate and reform them than not. As a one-nation Tory of the cavalier tradition like I, he will know that few are beyond redemption.

[Sir John Hayes]

It is, of course, right that we need to consider the causes of crime. That is why I have talked about the erosion of civil society. Of course it is true that when communities become weaker, and when the ties that bind us become looser, people are more likely to act in a malign way. As my hon. Friend knows, life in the state of nature is “nasty, brutish and short”. What stands between us and all of that are the things that I have described—the civil society that Burke defined and that I attempted to illustrate. The truth is that when we emphasise crime as an ill to be treated, by nature we put less emphasis on its effect: the event itself. In that way, there is often, although not necessarily, a tension between one position and the other.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

Although linguistically my right hon. Friend may be correct, and in language we may sound as though we are more liberal, the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) pointed out the reality. Not simply do we incarcerate twice as many people as we did 25 years ago, but the crime rate has almost halved over the same period, so proportionately, the number of people incarcerated per crime is considerably more than it was 25 years ago. Typically, this is the hypocrisy of liberalism: we talk a liberal language, but in fact we are much more punitive than the Victorians were. In the Victorian period at the end of the 19th century, there were only four prisoners held in prison for sentences longer than two years. Now, for the first time, we have a very large number of young men serving 25 or 30-year prison sentences.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend the Minister knows that that argument is predicated on several misassumptions. The first is the fundamental issue of population growth. Of course when we look to the past there were fewer criminals, because there were fewer people. The second, as he will know, is the very well-known criminological explanation of under-counting and under-reporting of crime; it is known as the black or dark figure, the number of crimes that are never reported and therefore never recorded. It also is probably true that the tolerance of crime has risen and more and more of what might be described as petty crimes, which would once have been taken very seriously, are now ignored, partly because people do not think they will be dealt with. That happens in all our constituencies all the time.

The third problem is that there has been a prevailing view about rehabilitation that, while not intrinsically incompatible with the idea of just deserts and a retributive approach to crime, is too often presented as such by people who are on what I described as the “liberal” side of this argument. Part of the business of the criminal justice system is to punish, and part of public faith in the criminal justice system relies and depends on people believing that those who do very bad things get their just deserts. Frankly, every poll that the Minister or I could cite shows that a growing number of people do not think that criminals get their just deserts.

There is a separate issue about what happens once people get to prison; my hon. Friend is the Prisons Minister, so he will know what a mess prisons are in. I hope he is trying to do something about that, because he is right that when people go to prison, one hopes they will not go back. Recidivism is a profound concern, but given that he is the Minister, that is as much his problem as anyone’s.

[Rory Stewart]

Since my right hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to challenge the statistics and suggest that they can be explained by population growth, population growth from 1992 to 2018 in Britain has been approximately 10%. The prison population during that period has doubled. This cannot be accounted for by population growth.

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes, but if we look at the number of crimes committed in the year of my birth, 1958—I know that is hard to believe, but that is the year—compared with the number of crimes committed now, in almost every category crimes have grown. The number of homicides, for example, in that year, the number of violent crimes in that year, the number of sex-related crimes in that year—if the Minister looks at the figures, which by the way are available from the Library, he will see that in all those categories and many others, the number of crimes has grown immensely over my lifetime, the period I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks.

I want to address the specifics of the debate introduced by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves). It is useful that she has brought this matter to the attention of the House, because the figures from the Minister’s Department make clear that the effect of doing what I understand the Minister has advocated, and with which others may agree, would essentially be that 34,000 offenders who currently go to prison would no longer do so. Roughly speaking, 30,000 of those are repeat, not new offenders. Their offences include burglary, theft, public order offences and weapon and drug possession, as well as drink-driving and other similar things.

Those are not offences that most members of the public would regard as inconsequential, slight or not a cause for worry—far from it. I suspect that the vast majority of our constituents would anticipate that those sorts of things should attract a prison sentence. If any hon. Members take the opposite view, I would be happy to debate with them in their constituencies on a public platform, and see who held the majority view and who was seen to be on the margins. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) is on the margins; I will give way to him.

[Bambos Charalambous]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has just said that there are 30,000 repeat offenders. Those are people who have already been to prison, so clearly that would indicate that prison has not worked for them and we should look at other forms of punishment. Does he agree that prison is not the only form of punishment that would act as a deterrent, and that other options might work better and stop people being recycled into prison?

[Sir John Hayes]

I mentioned recidivism a moment ago, but since the hon. Gentleman was clearly listening, I cannot have made myself clear. I did not say people who had been to prison once; I said repeat offenders. These may be people who have had other kinds of sentences and then gone to prison, because very often, for a first offence, people do not go to prison; they go to prison for a second or later offence. When I speak of repeat offenders, I do not necessarily mean people who are in and out of prison regularly. It is very important to be precise about these things.

The problem with that kind of policy is not only what it would do to public faith in criminal justice, on which it would have a devastating effect—in its response to the Government’s proposals, Civitas, the think-tank, says that it would unleash a crime wave on hundreds of thousands of citizens—but that it would reinforce the idea that prison cannot work. We have profound problems at present; the Minister is aware of that and has spoken very openly and straightforwardly about it. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate has just alluded to those problems—prisons becoming universities of crime, where people who go in are worsened by the experience, rather than rehabilitated.

Even from the rehabilitative perspective, therefore, prison is not doing what it could, but that is not a good enough reason to say to the public, “We are worried about sending people to prison, because they might get worse, so we will leave them on the streets.” That cannot be the signal that this place or this Government want to send. Let us get our prisons right, not be embarrassed or ashamed to send people there.

[Kate Green]

The point we are trying to make in this debate is that people are going to prison for short sentences. By definition, that is unlikely to be for the level of serious crimes that the right hon. Gentleman rightly says our constituents would be horrified if they thought people could commit and then run around at liberty. He is right that we are talking about, in some cases, persistent offenders. A written answer from the Minister, which I received on 5 November last year, said that in 2017, 6,793 people went to prison for less than six months, having never previously received a community penalty for offences that they had committed. I find that baffling. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that sometimes we are too ready to use custody?

[Sir John Hayes]

All I would say in response to that is that the hon. Lady will have seen the national newspaper this week that showed, shockingly, a picture on the front cover of a smirking criminal who, having committed an offence for the second time, took a selfie of himself outside the court. This was a person who was found in possession of both a knife and cocaine, and had been known to the police for a considerable time. Time permitting, I could give account of many similar stories, and particularly of the police’s frustration when we do not, in their judgment, provide the just deserts I mentioned earlier, which so undermines their confidence. As one policeman said of a similar case, “Why do we bother?”.

Prison is of course about trying to put people straight, but it is also about punishing people for the harm they have done. That is an entirely respectable part of criminal justice, and it is what our constituents expect of us and of the Government.

[Rory Stewart]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will give way one last time, but then I really must conclude, because others may want to speak.

[Rory Stewart]

The only reason I keep intervening is that, unfortunately, my right hon. Friend will be unable to hear my speech, so will be unable to hear me answer, point by point, every point that he makes. Evidence from the Ministry of Justice strongly suggests that sending somebody to prison makes them more likely to reoffend, by one offence a year, than somebody given a non-custodial sentence. Given that the short-sentence population in a single year is about 50,000 people, my right hon. Friend’s proposals would indirectly inflict 50,000 additional offences on innocent victims in Britain. In other words, the wrong use of short prison sentences endangers the public, rather than protecting them.

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes, but by letting on to the streets 34,000 people who would currently go to prison, we would by nature make it more likely that those people would have more victims, unless the Minister believes that those non-custodial sentences have a perfect effect—are an entire solution. I think that the Minister should refocus his efforts on getting prisons right, as I would not want his ministerial career to be characterised by prisons being worse when he ended than when he started. I know he is determined to do so, but he has a lot of work to do. The Government have to pull their socks up in respect of the way our prisons are run, partly because of the policies adopted by previous Governments.

My earlier offer applies to the Minister, too: I would be happy for him to come to my constituency, or for me to go to his, and debate this issue with the people there, to see whether they think that fewer or more criminals should be sent to prison. When they know that we are speaking of the kind of crimes that I described earlier, according to data from the Minister’s own Department, I think they would not only be surprised but, frankly, be outraged.

G.K. Chesterton spoke of the people of England who have not spoken yet, but now the people of England are speaking loud and clear. There may be those who have been deafened by the shrill bleating of political correctness, but many of us have not. We will speak for the people of England, and we will not be silenced.

Joint HMI Prison and Probation Report

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

The specific issue there is around the provision of accredited programmes, and there are two problems. The first is that accredited programmes are not suitable for all sex offenders. At the moment, we do not have programmes that are able to reduce the risk of reoffending significantly. In fact, some of the past sex offender treatment programmes can increase rather than decrease the chance of reoffending if they are delivered to the wrong type of sex offender. We have to distinguish between lower risk and higher risk sex offenders and ensure that we are delivering programmes in the right way. The Horizon and Kaizen programmes, which we have rolled out, are key to that, but they are not the key for everyone. I agree that we can do more to assess and to record, but I politely disagree with the inspector’s implication that we should attempt to deliver accredited programmes to 100% of these cases.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

This report is largely about the risk of recidivism and the need to rehabilitate, but at the heart of the criminal justice system is the protection of the public. The malign and the malicious should be locked away, lest they do further harm, and the system can be simultaneously retributive and rehabilitative. Will the Minister look at the principle of just deserts, which has a long philosophical genealogy and is in tune with the opinion of the public, who believe that the vulnerable should be protected and the wicked punished?

[Rory Stewart]

Absolutely. In fact, if we simply look at the statistics, we see that we are much stricter now on sex offenders than ever before in British history—people are getting longer and longer sentences, and there is a reason for that. It is about ensuring that people receive indeterminate life sentences if necessary and are only released if the Parole Board approves, but it is also about ensuring that when people are released, they are on the sex offenders register, that the licence conditions are as strict and specific as possible, and that the multi-agency public protection arrangements are at the right level and properly enforced.

Paupers' Funerals

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Losing a loved one is heartbreaking. Almost everyone in this House will have suffered the loss of a loved one: a parent, a grandparent, a friend, or even—the worst nightmare of all—a child. Funerals provide the chance of a final goodbye. They allow us to grieve, as a family or as friends, sharing the loss of someone close. The ability to say goodbye at a funeral is a necessary part of the grieving process, a staging post in loss. Funerals can change moods. They can lift hearts. Sharing stories and reflecting on memories keep the spirit of the one we have lost alive in our hearts, minds and memories. It is because of the importance of the shared experience of grief that the character of the last parting matters so very much.

Public health funerals, or national assistance funerals as they are called in Scotland, occur when a family cannot, or in a minority of cases refuses to, pay the cost of the funeral of a departed relative or other loved one. As we would and should expect in a civilised and compassionate country, the state, in the form of local councils, steps in to cover the cost of a basic funeral. However, recent press and media coverage has revealed the shocking reality of public health funerals, which are sometimes callous, careless or even cruel. Dubbed “paupers’ funerals”, they can be occasions on which, as an official from Bracknell Forest Council has put it:

“There’s no attendees, no keeping of the ashes. Nobody’s invited; you don’t have any say over the funeral at all…It’s literally as basic as basic can get”.

That is what modern paupers’ funerals are: the reduction of a human life to something that is

“as basic as basic can get”.

As a Christian country, we surely believe that every life has intrinsic value. I follow, or at least try to follow, the commandment to treat others as I would wish to be treated. There can be no pretence that these public health funerals fulfil our Christian duty. They are the very antithesis of what Christ taught us.

In the 1860s, Charles Dickens wrote of that ultimate manifestation of the cruel neglect at the rotten core of liberal utilitarianism, the Poor Law—which included the original scourge of paupers’ funerals—that it was

“to degrade a Christian’s duty into a charlatan’s trick”.

To the shame of our age, Dickens’s words remain an apt description of modern public health funerals.

The hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) moved us all when she recounted the heartbreaking story of losing her son. She has already succeeded in changing Government policy on children’s funerals, and now I hope that I can play a part in changing it on public health funerals. There are two things that the Government can do to bring about change and to relive the pressure of funeral poverty. First, they can carry out an urgent review of the 15-year-old cap on funeral expenses payments. In April 2003, a £700 cap was imposed, and it has since remained in place. The payment is combined with help that is intended to cover some of the cost of a burial plot, cremation fees, travel, the moving of a body and death certificates. However, a maximum of £700 is hardly sufficient, even with those supplements.

The policy is simply no longer fit for purpose. When the cap was introduced in 2003, the average cost of a funeral was £1,920. Since then, the price of funerals has increased by 112%. That means that the £700 of assistance offered would, on average, cover about 17% of the cost of a funeral, compared with 36% in 2003. Given that, it is hardly surprising that the number of public health funerals has increased by more than 200% since 1997. The Government should examine whether more can be done to alleviate the financial burden of funerals. The Minister will know that the Department for Work and Pensions began to help last year by allowing recipients of funeral payments to receive additional contributions without deductions, by extending the application period for a claim from three to six months, by clarifying that the funeral payments will cover the cost of a burial with or without exclusive rights of burial, and with the ability to submit evidence electronically. Nevertheless, it is time to do more.

The heart of reform must be an urgent examination of the appalling way in which some public health funerals are routinely conducted. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) was surely right to say that

“the idea that because you are poor you should have no tangible means through which to remember and pay your respects for a loved one is appalling.”

The Government should issue statutory guidance to every relevant local authority describing in detail best practice in the conduct of public health funerals.

In the absence of such guidance, bad practice has persisted. According to The Sunday Times, a number of councils, including Glasgow and Bracknell Forest, imposed bans on family and friends attending these funerals and denied the bereaved the remains of their deceased loved ones. Who could possibly believe that grieving families should be forbidden from saying a last goodbye to those lost to the grave? I am pleased to say that my own council, South Holland, always ensures that family members can attend and are made aware of the date of the funeral, with the proper dignity and respect that such an occasion deserves. Furthermore, authorities must without any quibbling make the ashes of the deceased available to loved ones. A Glasgow City Council official was recorded telling a reporter:

“It’s us having to pay for it, so, as I say, she will not get his ashes back.”

That is appalling. Local authorities should have a duty to surrender the remains to the family; the ashes, just like the memories, belong to those who loved the departed. I understand that in some local authorities, such as mine, it is less expensive to bury someone than to cremate them. The problem seems to be centred on those places where cremation is the cheapest option.

Finally, it is the comforting delusion of those who regard the past with disdain—perhaps from misplaced guilt, or because they know little or nothing of it—that our age is at the apex of accomplishment. The more thoughtful here know that many things were once better. For now, in our time, paupers’ funerals ban children from mothers’ gravesides. Now, in our kingdom, some public officials refuse to inform children of their father’s cremation. Now, in this age, parents who have loved and lost cannot keep their child’s ashes to scatter or retain. This outrage must end, and the Government must make it happen.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)]

It is a pleasure to be responding to my first debate at the Dispatch Box with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the Chair, who were presiding when I made my maiden speech, and to be responding to my right hon. Friend, and indeed my friend, the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes).

My right hon. Friend spoke with his famed eloquence and passion, but also with typical compassion, on a hugely important issue about which, in our compassionate and decent society, we should all care. As he said, a funeral plays a huge part in helping all of us, at one of the most difficult points in our lives, come to terms with loss and grief. This issue was also more broadly raised in a debate in Westminster Hall last October by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).

Public health funerals are likely to become necessary when either, sadly, a deceased person dies alone with no family or friends to organise a funeral or because the bereaved family does not, or is for various reasons unable to, make funeral arrangements. In either situation, the relevant local authority has a statutory duty under section 46 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to make arrangements for the disposal of the body. To respond to my right hon. Friend’s points, it is important to highlight that the 1984 Act contains no statutory requirement for the local authority to make any arrangements beyond that, nor is it prescriptive of how they deliver on their obligation nor does it contain provision for regulations for statutory guidance or instruction on how they must do so. However, I hear my right hon. Friend’s point, and I have asked my Department to clarify and confirm that my understanding of that position is correct.

In a humane and civilised society, it is reasonable, and indeed proper, to expect that the deceased person and, where they can be involved, their bereaved family are treated with the dignity and compassion they deserve. I am sure that that is what happens in many local authority areas. For example, I have recently heard of a council where officials routinely attend public health funerals themselves—I believe that this is the case in the City of Westminster, among many others—to ensure that the deceased person is not alone in that final act.

However, the Government and I, like my right hon. Friend, are deeply concerned at the alleged practices of some local authorities, such as refusing to tell bereaved families where and when the funeral is taking place or refusing to return their loved one’s remains following cremation. Media reports—my right hon. Friend alluded to the report in The Sunday Times in May—suggest that that may be an attempt to deter future reliance on the local authority’s obligation to step in if other arrangements cannot be made. We all appreciate that local authorities should be mindful of public money, providing a decent funeral but ensuring that care is taken with that public money, but the key thing is that word “decent”. I am deeply concerned that, if true, the reports suggest completely unacceptable behaviour that would be putting bereaved families through unnecessary additional stress and insensitive treatment at an already extremely difficult time in their lives and when they are, in many cases, already managing on a low income. This is about sensitivity, decency and doing the right thing, and that should permeate the approach. I urge all local authorities to reflect on those words.

The legislation and lack of centralised control and powers to mandate is a reflection of the fact that public health funerals are a cross-cutting issue, that local authorities are best placed to determine local priorities and that this matter has sat with local authorities for many decades. It is a pleasure to be here answering on the behalf of the Ministry of Justice today, but colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government all have a role to play. Historically, the Government have not centrally collated information on the number and cost of the public health funerals that councils manage annually. However, a series of freedom of information requests in recent years appear to show a consistent rise in both elements. The most recent of these requests, published by ITV News last month, was based on responses from 300 councils across the UK. It indicated that there has been a 70% increase in the number of public health funerals in the past three years, to around 15,000 last year, at a cost to local authorities of around £4 million in the last financial year.

As I have alluded to, local authorities are independent from central Government in providing their services and are responsible to their own electors and for managing their budgets in line with local priorities. That is how it should be and, as a former councillor, I recognise the importance of that local accountability and local decision making. However, that does not obviate the need for those local authorities to reflect on their obligations with the moneys they have given to them to ensure that this area is not neglected. It is absolutely right that local priorities should determine local spending, but I urge local authorities to reflect on my words about decency.

As my right hon. Friend alluded to, the Government have acted to address the financial pressures that death and bereavement can put on both families and local authorities. On 1 April, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced her intention to establish a children’s funeral fund for England, which all Members would warmly welcome, with the intention that, at such an incredibly difficult and distressing time in their lives, bereaved parents will not have to worry about the essential costs of burying or cremating their child. As the House will know, arrangements for similar funding have already been put in place by the Welsh Assembly Government, and the Scottish Government have recently announced their intention to do the same.

This difficult but important issue has, of course, been championed by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). Although she is not in her place today, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to her for her work, for her tenacity and for her courage in doing so in the light of her own tragic experience. She is an hon. Lady of great decency, commitment and compassion. This House is the better for her presence, and her constituents are lucky to have her representing their interests.

The hon. Lady has continued in her work to support those for whom death and bereavement bring unmanageable financial pressure. On 8 June she co-ordinated and sent a cross-party letter to the Prime Minister, supported by a significant number of hon. Members, calling for the establishment of minimum standards in the provision of public health funerals by local authorities. This action was prompted by concern about the media reports that gave rise to today’s debate, and I understand my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is responding to that letter.

Public health funerals are not needed in the vast majority of deaths. I have mentioned the figure of 15,000 public health funerals a year, which represents around 3% of the total annual number of deaths in the UK. It is right that, where a family are in a position to take responsibility for the cost of funeral arrangements, they should do so. However, there are times when state support is appropriate and necessary, and we are committed to supporting vulnerable people going through bereavement who, depending on their situation, may need to draw on different elements of support.

That support, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings alluded to, includes the provision of funeral expenses payments to help people on qualifying benefits with the cost of arranging a funeral. Such payments make a significant contribution to the cost of a simple, respectful, decent funeral, covering the necessary costs of burial or cremation and in addition up to £700 for other funeral expenses.

[Mr Hayes]

I am sure the Minister is just about to announce it, and I do not want to steal his thunder because he is a fine new member of the Government, but I called for the cap to be lifted. He may want to make that announcement now and make a big impact, or he might want to reflect and write to me about it very soon.

[Edward Argar]

My right hon. Friend is typically beguiling in attempting to persuade me to announce changes to policy from the Dispatch Box. However, the funding offered from the funeral expenses payments scheme and the social fund budgeting loan—he has referred to other measures taken by the Government, such as changing the rules so that additional contributions may be received without deductions being necessary from that fund—provides a level of support while, crucially, maintaining a fiscally viable fund.

I hear my right hon. Friend’s comments about the 2003 cap on that second element, and I will ensure that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—the Department for Work and Pensions administers the fund—is made aware of my right hon. Friend’s comments and of the case he has made today. I sense my ministerial colleague may well be writing to him in response to that specific point.

In conclusion, I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for providing this hugely valuable opportunity to discuss, once again, such an important and sensitive issue. It is of course a truism that death touches us all. For many of us, the funeral arrangements are something that can be planned for and managed, but for some they are something for which the local authority and local government must take on responsibility, in a sense representing the local community. I believe that many councils do so honourably and carry out their duties with utmost respect for the dignity of the deceased person and their family. However, as I have said, it is of deep concern that some allegedly do not. I conclude by exhorting those few to show the compassion and sensitivity any of us would wish to be shown were we to find ourselves in those circumstances. I also reiterate the clear commitment of the Prime Minister, this Government and myself, as a Minister, to work with colleagues to ensure that the system of public health funerals continues to provide that decency and decent send-off we would all wish for.

Question put and agreed to.