Oral Answers to Questions

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the clue is in the word “pilot.” These pilots were carried out in 11 areas, over three months, in the run-up to Christmas, and 175 people completed around 2,000 hours of unpaid work. We are analysing the outcome of those pilots and, based on what that analysis says, I look forward to exploring how we can roll this out more widely across the country.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the length of time that prisoners spend in their cells on reoffending rates.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

12. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the length of time that prisoners spend in their cells on reoffending rates.

[Ms Rimmer]

Reoffending costs £18 billion a year, but there is not just the financial cost but the impact on society in general, as well as on the individual. Some young prisoners are still getting only one hour out of their cells, so there is no time for rehabilitation—they can perhaps do a little exercise, but that is not the same. How confident is the Minister that all young prisoners will get the re-education that he has outlined? When does he think all young prisoners—if these people have to be in prison—will get proper rehabilitation and the support they need when they come out of prison to get a home, to have somewhere to stay and to go into further training? Will he please give me some reassurance that better times are coming, not just for young offenders but for society as a whole?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that. As she knows, I have a huge amount of respect for her, and she raises a hugely important point. We have heard from the Lord Chancellor that reoffending rates have come down from 31% to 25% since 2010. So we are making progress, but we want to drive them down further. She also rightly highlights the importance of purposeful activity leading to the opportunity on release for employment, accommodation and so on. That is central to the opportunity for prisoners to rehabilitate themselves.

We have seen significant progress made in our youth estate. The hon. Lady talked about young prisoners and rightly said that we need to go further, but we believe the national regime model that we launched in January will go a long way to doing that. The additional staff we have recruited into His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service are central to doing that, as they enable that regime to be put in place. However, she is absolutely right to highlight this issue.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Local authorities have a tremendous amount of experience in caring for vulnerable children with a high level of need in a secure environment. As she said in Committee:

“It makes no sense to exclude this knowledge and learning from the provisions in the Bill.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 15 June 2021; c. 567.]

Indeed, the failures of secure training centres that we have seen should encourage the Government to widen the pool of expertise as much as possible when moving to this new model of child detention. Charlie Taylor stated in his 2016 report:

“Children who are incarcerated must receive the highest quality education from outstanding professionals to repair the damage caused by a lack of engagement and patchy attendance.”

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that children who commit crime are vulnerable, and in need of positive attention and support to learn what is wrong and what is right, and what is acceptable in society, so that they may learn to become good citizens and contribute positively to society?

[Ellie Reeves]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend speaks so passionately about this issue. It is absolutely right that those in secure academies are given the support that they need, and that they receive not just a good education but the very best that is available to them. To that end, we believe that local authorities must explicitly be brought into the fold when considering who will run these academies. Although we can argue about whether there is a legal bar, the fact is that having it explicitly in the Bill would put it beyond all doubt that local authorities could run these secure academies, and that education policy would not be a barrier to their doing so.

That is a small clarification, which the Government do not appear to oppose in practical terms, but it would send a signal to potential providers not only that local authorities are technically allowed to bid but that, given their wealth of experience in this area, their bids would be positively welcomed. The failures across the youth estate have been shocking, and the Government need to bring in providers with the necessary expertise and ethos to support children in secure settings, to help to address those failings. I hope that, for that reason, the Minister can today commit to their explicit inclusion as possible providers.

Although we are in agreement with the Government on the majority of the proposals in this group and welcome them, further clarification and action on some aspects are needed. Our support here does not detract from the very serious failings in other parts of the Bill, and the failure to make its focus the very real epidemic of violence against women. If the Government were fully serious about the issues facing our society, they would make that one of the main focuses of the Bill and drop the poorly thought-out draconian measures on protests and further police powers.

Hillsborough: Collapse of Trials

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I think the hon. Lady is right to remind us again about the victims of the disaster from Warrington North and how in fact the diaspora—I suppose that is the best word to use—was a wide one, bearing in mind the wide fan base of Liverpool football club. That means that what happened was a national disaster, and was not confined to the great city of Liverpool, though the great city of Liverpool felt the brunt of it. This was something I think all of us felt was a national loss and a national disaster, and therefore we have a national responsibility to address it and to rectify wrongs that have been committed.

I listened very carefully to the hon. Lady’s point about the Bill that fell back prior to the general election of 2017. I am of course, as I have already indicated, looking carefully at aspects relating to that Bill, and indeed at wider work to make sure that we fully reflect the wrongs that were committed and the culture change that I think is such an important part of rectifying the ills of the past.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Ninety-six people were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough. Police statements were altered, yet nobody has been held to account. What are the Government going to do about it?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and she will forgive me if I do not go through all the important points I have made in response to other hon. Members. I will simply say this to her: she rightly raises the issue and she wants accountability—so do I, and so do the Government. That is why the work will continue in the months ahead, particularly the important work that the Home Office has conducted with the families directly, as a result of Bishop James Jones’s second report—the 2017 report.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

What recent estimate his Department has made of the cumulative number of years of experience held by currently serving prison officers.

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

As at 31 December 2020, the cumulative length of service by all band 3 to 5 prison officers was more than 243,000 years. From late 2016 to the end of December 2020, the number of prison officers has increased by more than 3,600. Having experienced staff in prisons is vital to ensuring that they remain safe, secure and decent.

[Ms Rimmer]

I thank the Minister for his answer to my question. We both know that being a prison officer is a difficult job that takes years of experience to perfect, yet a combined 86,000 years of experience has been lost since 2010. Does he accept that this has had a catastrophic effect on safety, and will he commit to giving prison officers the pay rise his experts recommend to tackle the problem?

[Alex Chalk]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for rightly paying tribute to our prison officers. Let us just pause to reflect for a moment. At the beginning of this pandemic, Public Health England estimated that, on a reasonable worst-case scenario, more than 2,500 prisoners could die in prison. Because of the excellent work of our prison officers, that figure—although each one is a tragedy—is closer to 119. It was prison officers who delivered that. I am pleased to say that, even in this difficult financial situation, our prison officers received between 2.5% and 7.5% increases last year. We are also investing heavily in the security equipment needed, including PAVA spray, SPEAR—spontaneous protection enabling accelerated response—training, and body-worn video cameras, that make prisons a better and more conducive environment not only for prisoners but for prison staff.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 2
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) [V]]

First, may I pay my respects to the loved ones of Sarah Everard? My thoughts and prayers are with them.

Causing death by dangerous driving deserves a life sentence. That is the justice that Violet-Grace Youens’s parents deserved. Their angelic four-year-old daughter Violet-Grace was so cruelly taken from them. The family continue to tirelessly campaign and help others through the Violet’s Gift charity. Last year I was proud to co-sign the private Member’s Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) on this very issue. Since then, the Government have indicated that they will not support that Bill. Instead, they have included the dangerous driving changes in this far-reaching Bill before us. Unfortunately, this means that I will not be able to support the changes this time, for this Bill infringes on our very freedom and democratic rights.

Like many, I agree that protests can sometimes cause some personal annoyance. Protests can make us late for work. Protests can cause a little harm to our finances. Protests can force us to listen to views we do not agree with. But should protests be a criminal act because they cause the risk of some “serious annoyance”? I do not think so, and I am sure that most Members agree. Perhaps worse still, the Bill empowers a judge to imprison someone convicted of causing the risk of serious annoyance for 10 years.

The freedom and right to protest is the cornerstone of everything we believe in. It is the bedrock of liberal democracy. Across the world to this day, we see people taking to the streets to protest for their rights. Throughout my life, I have seen how protests have brought about change—the fall of the Berlin wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and more recently in Belarus and Myanmar. We have also seen where putting down protests can lead us. The Tiananmen Square protests live on in our memory. Every adult alive that day remembers that brave man walking in front of those tanks. Giving up our freedoms simply so that the Home Secretary can appear to be tough on crime is not justifiable. Doing so would be a betrayal of everything this Chamber represents.

Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) who has done so much to champion justice especially for those people who have been abused as children. I welcome the two sets of provisions in the Bill. I will restrict my remarks to Vanessa George and the abuse of babies and toddlers in Plymouth. First, though, let me say how grateful I am to Mr Speaker and to the Opposition for allowing me to speak from the Back Benches instead of from my usual spot on the Front Bench. This is a very important constituency issue for those whom I represent.

Speaking up on behalf of those children who attend Little Ted’s Nursery has been, although very difficult, a privilege and an honour. The experiences of those children have been so utterly harrowing. Because their identities are still unknown and because there is a desire to keep what is left of their childhood innocence intact, not many people have come under the media spotlight and been recognised publicly for what they have done. I want to thank all the families for their courage, their steadfast determination and for their love of their kids. Without them and their work, we would not be here today with this Bill in front of us. I would love to name all of them and give them credit, but I prefer to give them the even better privilege of just knowing that they were listened to and that their children’s innocence is safeguarded.

Ever since the news of Vanessa George’s release came to light, I have been campaigning to keep her behind bars. I am not a hang ‘em and flog ‘em politician. That is not my style. But when it comes to the abuse of babies and toddlers, what Vanessa George did both in terms of the acts she committed and of her continual refusal to name which children she abused and which she did not has cast a whole new light over my views on the Parole Board and her release.

As the Front-Bench teams have touched on, the case around Vanessa George is exceptionally disturbing. The abuse, including the penetration of babies and toddlers and the photographs of that penetration and abuse, is something that is really, really difficult for many of us to understand—how someone could do that and how someone could then share those images. The severity of that case was part of the reason why she was given an indeterminate sentence. It was for reasons of public protection. The indeterminate sentence has somewhat complicated this case along the way due to its particular legal position. When sentencing, the words of the judge to Vanessa George were quite profound. She said:

“I cannot emphasise too strongly that this is not a seven-year sentence. It is emphatically not. It is, in effect, a life sentence. Many, and I suspect everyone deeply affected by your dreadful deeds, will say that would not be a day too long.”

The parents of those babies and toddlers were let down twice: first, by a system that did not protect their children in a place where they should have been safe; and, secondly, as one parent told me through tears, that George was released with the identity of those children still not known.

When we talk about matters such as this, we sometimes talk about the identity of the victims, but, in this case, it is not only the victims, but those young children who could be victims. We do not know precisely which children she abused. I have heard the stories of what happened when this news came to light. Parents gathered in a hall and were separated into two groups. One group was the parents of the children who could have been abused and the other the parents of those who were probably not abused. Hearing about how friends were separated into two groups was just harrowing.

I will return to that in a moment, but there is a point about communication that is also key. Many of the families heard about this on social media. The campaign that the parents and I started after her release called not only for a change in the law, which is what we are seeing today, but for a change in how the Parole Board works. The hon. Member for Telford spoke about the operational side of this, which is also really important. Changing the law to keep people like Vanessa George behind bars is important, but how that is communicated and how parents and victims are involved is especially important.

I want to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) in thanking the Secretary of State for the way in which he has engaged on this. Much in this place is a disappointment, but in this case the cross-party working and the professional way that not only the Secretary of State but his Ministers engaged with me and with the families’ concerns are truly remarkable. It is an example that shows that cross-party working can deliver results, and I thank the Secretary of State sincerely for that work.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

This is a commendable step brought about through Marie McCourt’s tremendous efforts over 32 years and the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). Does my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) agree that although we still have a long way to go, this is a huge step in the right direction for justice for victims?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and the way in which Ministers have merged two campaign asks in a single piece of natural justice is quite sensible.

I have some concerns. Personally, I think that Vanessa George should still be behind bars. I do not see how a woman who refuses to name the children she abused should be let out and, indeed, I believe that if someone abuses a child, the state should say that for the childhood of that victim the perpetrator should be behind bars. That would give those children the entirety of what remains of their childhood in a protected space away from the accused. The fact that Vanessa George has been released without naming the children she abused shows that something was not right with the law and the experience of many of the parents throughout this process has been to stumble across deficiencies and difficulties in how it has worked. That needs to be addressed.

Ministry of Justice Spending

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) and particularly the Chairman of our Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).

I want to repeat some of what previous speakers have said. The Department has seen its budget slashed by more than 40% since 2010—the greatest cuts of any Department. A great man, Winston Churchill, said, “You judge a society by the way it treats its prisoners”. He would not be very proud of the way we have treated them in recent years. Last year, the Ministry of Justice’s total budget was £8 billion—just 1% of total Government expenditure, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) said—but the cost of reoffending has now risen to £18 billion a year.

I want to focus on prison and probation. I want this to be considered against a backdrop of increased demand, which is not in the MOJ’s control. We have seen budget cuts of 40%. Planned efficiencies taken into account in budget planning did not materialise. We have also seen cohort changes: historical sex offenders and elderly people with ill health issues requiring care, attention and hospital escorts for heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, rheumatism and mental health illness. It is shameful to see these people in prison. We have young people with learning difficulties, autistic people, people with drugs and substance addiction and women, particularly young mums, separated from children. There is the issue of short-term sentences. Ten per cent. go through the gates—thank God it is 10% and not more. Those women could be treated much better outside, with the support they need to keep them away from crime. They could be rehabilitated and it would save us money as well.

It has been chaotic in the prison system. Most of the prisons are Victorian. There is no planned maintenance programme. Everything is reactionary. It is an inefficient use of what capital resources we have. The capital allocation for 2009-10 was £716 million in real terms. In 2010-11, that changed to £63 million, a real-terms cut in the allocation—it is important to remember that this was a one-year allocation—of £654 million. That was a 91% cut in the first year. The annual allocation steadily reduced from £63 million a year to just £33 million a year, a real-terms cut of 47%. It was as low as £13 million in 2015-16, a real-terms cut of 50%. This is capital investment not going into this old estate that people are living in. We are supposed to be rehabilitating them so that they do not reoffend.

In 2016, the Government announced £1.3 billion for a prison estate transformation programme to create 10,000 prison places by 2020. That was then revised to 2022. Two new prisons were to be constructed and four were to be redeveloped. In 2017, the planned maintenance programme was postponed. Two of the redevelopments were put on hold. The building of a new prison in Wellingborough has started and the construction of a second, Glen Parva, is planned for 2020.

Here’s the interesting part: the MOJ agreed with the Treasury that the capital funding not being utilised could be used to fund current spending—that is day-to-day resource allocation—and £385 million was transferred from capital to resource. This was a one-off, so it won’t be there next year. Once it is spent, it is spent. It is not sustainable. It was essential to providing the day-to-day services and to paying the salaries of people in the prison system. There was not enough resource allocation.

The £385 million could be seen as a further cut to planned, shall we say, capital investment in our prisons, on top of what we talked about earlier. In 2019, we had an announcement of £2.5 billion, which we were told was capital investment and would be spent on creating modern and efficient prisons. I sincerely hope that it is, because previous allocations have not been spent. The £385 million went over to resource spending and the £230 million under the previous Prisons Minister was spent on increasing prison capacity. This leaves just £685 million of the £1.3 billion allocated for new spend. The outturn—actual spending—on allocations is down to 39% in some years and that is not good. It is all very well to make the announcement, but if the money is not spent, we have an announcement with nothing to show for it.

The basic conditions in our prisons are absolutely shameful. Most of them are Victorian. The cells are deplorable. People come out brutalised. Some of them have to remain locked up for 23 hours a day. What chance is there of rehabilitation?

The cost of keeping young people locked up—and that is what they are, locked up—is much higher. In one young people’s prison, Werrington, it is just pounds less than £125,000 a year. I am sure that there are much better ways in which we can help those young people to become better citizens and contribute to society when they come out of prison. The prisons are violent, ineffective and overcrowded. The cost of imprisoning an adult is £40,000 a year. We need to do something radical to reduce the prison population, so that people who need to be and should be in there can be rehabilitated, and those who need help outside and can be dealt with outside are dealt with outside.

The spending has been chaotic. As we heard earlier, the rate of reoffending is at 48.3%, and the rate among those serving short sentences is 64%. Someone serving a short sentence is much more likely to go back to prison. The revolving door of reoffending goes round about 11 times. The reoffending rate among young people is 65%.

I beg the Minister: please get someone to sit down and do some strategic planning and thinking, because at the moment it is just a case of hand-to-mouth spending and putting sticking plaster over where it is needed. There is a lot of money, but it is not being used efficiently because this is not being planned.

Dangerous Driving

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for her excellent introduction and the work that she has obviously put into the debate. I pay tribute to other hon. Members who have contributed.

I praise the three people who have made the debate happen: Rebecca and Glenn, who are present in the Chamber, and Violet-Grace, whose tragic and senseless death is the reason for it. I praise everyone who has signed the petition, and I praise the St Helens Star and the whole St. Helen’s community for supporting Rebecca and Glenn’s tireless work to get their e-petition signed, to get the debate and to prevent something similar from happening in future.

Rebecca and Glenn are asking for the law to be changed and for a sentence that fits the crime: “Life sentences for Death by Dangerous Driving”, as the petition states. That will hopefully deter others from reckless driving, so that what happened to Violet-Grace does not happen to another child—or, if it does, so that those responsible receive a sentence that fits the crime they have committed and that gives them the time necessary to reflect, to be rehabilitated, and to have proper regard for, consideration of and understanding of their actions.

The law must be improved for victims and survivors. In the case that we are discussing, the defendant’s barrister objected to the parents reading out their full impact statement and argued that the defendants would find it too upsetting. The judge accepted that, so the CPS barrister gave the parents a copy of the victim impact statement with the parts that they could not read out in open court highlighted. The whole purpose of the victim impact statement is the impact on the victims and the survivors, not the defendant. Guidance should be given to the judiciary that the overriding consideration is for the victim and their family, not whether the impact statement may upset the defendant.

We are asking for a sentence that fits the crime. Violet-Grace was a beautiful, angelic-looking four-year-old child. Some hon. Members may find the following upsetting—my family have not been able to say it or hear it. On Friday 24 March, she was simply walking home from pre-school and calling on her aunty and her four-year-old cousin with her nan. Her nan had lifted her up to carry her safely across the road, but had not put a foot on the road when she was struck by a stolen vehicle, which had been recklessly driven at 83 miles per hour in a 30-mile zone before it collided and mounted the pavement.

The stolen car that struck them was fitted with false numberplates and had a cloned key. The driver had no licence or insurance. The Independent Police Complaints Commission later reported that there had been complaints about the car being driven dangerously since noon that day. The driver and his passenger then fled the scene, running over Violet-Grace, who had been thrown 50 yards away. The passenger ran back to the car, stepping over the child again, to retrieve a bag that he needed. The whole incident was witnessed by her four-year-old cousin.

A fireman working in the area heard the noise and saw two young men running at speed. He ran to the main road, found the scene and Violet-Grace, and worked with a local dentist to resuscitate her. The driver fled the country and travelled to Amsterdam to “clear his head” by getting some weed. He then fled to Alicante.

Glenn Youen received a phone call at work to tell him to get to Whiston Hospital urgently. Rebecca, who was working in Warrington Hospital, received a similar call. She set off driving—sobbing—and spotted a parked police car. She got out, banged on the window and pleaded for help, so the police took her under blue light to Whiston Hospital. Violet-Grace’s injuries were horrific, and it was essential to move her to Alder Hey Children’s Hospital. Rebecca and Glenn were told that she could not survive her injuries. They knew her as a loving, caring child, always wanting to help others. They courageously decided to donate her organs to help to save other young children’s lives. They say that that is what Violet-Grace would have wanted.

It was suggested that Rebecca get into bed with Violet-Grace, but she was reluctant to do so with all the tubes and equipment around her. She was persuaded to do so. She prayed and pleaded, “Please breathe, please breathe.”

Violet-Grace passed away with the local priest, Father Tom Neylon, saying prayers around her. He checked the time: it was 11.58 pm on 25 March. He said, “Ah, today is the day that the angel Gabriel came down to tell Mary she is to have a baby called Jesus.” The family wept. Violet-Grace was the angel Gabriel in her school’s nativity play. She was so pleased, and she used to dance around singing, “I’m the boss of the angels, I’m the boss of the angels.” Her kidney and pancreas were donated to save the lives of two other young children.

Nan, a nurse who trained at Great Ormond Street Hospital, suffered numerous injuries and was in a critical condition. It was a miracle that she survived, but she had life-changing injuries. Grandad, a university lecturer, has had to retire to take care of her—all that while the driver was in Amsterdam clearing his head.

Earlier, I said that all we are asking for is a sentence that fits the crime that has been committed. The two men responsible for Violet-Grace’s death will serve less time in prison than she was alive—less than four and a half years. In fact, by pleading guilty, and with good behaviour, the driver might be out even sooner. I ask everyone here today, is that truly a sentence that fits the crime that was committed? I believe that most, if not all, of us would say no. Clearly, the 164,632 people who signed the petition would agree.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for her work on this issue. I reiterate what she says about the Youen family. As well as our sympathy and solidarity, and the outpouring of love for the family from our community in Warrington, Wigan and across Merseyside and the whole north-west, there is a deep sense of anger about how they have been treated and a determination to make sure no other family is ever treated like that.

[Ms Rimmer]

I thank my hon. Friend for saying that.

The current laws on sentencing for dangerous driving are simply not good enough. We need to equip our judges with sentencing guidelines that enable them to provide that key tenet of our judicial system: justice. The Youens actually praised the judge and said his hands were tied. I am sure some will say, “What constitutes dangerous driving? What if I sneeze and lose control of my vehicle? Will I now face those increased sentences?” My simple answer is no. We are talking about giving judges the option through Sentencing Council guidelines to issue a higher sentence where they deem it to be just. A judge will consider all the evidence provided to them and pass a sentence appropriate to the crime committed, whether it be the minimum or the maximum sentence in the guidelines, as with any other crime. I and many others are arguing that the maximum sentence that a judge can issue for dangerous driving is far too low.

For gross negligence manslaughter, judges have the option to issue life as the maximum sentence, with a range of sentencing options below it—one to 18 years. I do not see why dangerous driving should have a lower maximum sentence than gross negligence manslaughter. Both involve a disregard for the lives of others, and as we see too often, both can lead to the death of innocent people. An individual’s direct, reckless and callous actions can lead to the death of another. Stealing a car and driving 83 mph in a 30 mph zone can cause life-changing injuries, and the suffering and death of an innocent four-year-old child. How can we not give our judges the option to deliver a sentence at least on a par with gross negligence manslaughter for dangerous driving?

Another issue that I wish to raise on behalf of Rebecca and Glenn, and that I believe falls within the scope of this debate, is concurrent sentencing. Rebecca, Glenn and many others think it is unacceptable that criminals can serve two sentences at the same time. They describe it as “buy one, get one free”. The crux of this issue is that the current legal system does not adequately explain to victims what is happening, and thus it does not appear to be delivering the justice it is supposed to deliver.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

I just cannot imagine the pain that Violet-Grace’s parents feel. As my hon. Friend indicated, two years ago the Government promised to introduce life sentences for death by dangerous driving and create a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving. Many families across this country—including my constituent Mr Addy from Burscough, whose daughter was mown down in 2016 by a driver who received a fine of £500 and no jail sentence—are waiting for that promise to become law. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need not only appropriate punishment but effective deterrents for dangerous and careless driving, excessive speeding and reckless joyriding? We need it now; everyone has waited long enough.

[Ms Rimmer]

I accept what my hon. Friend says; people are feeling that.

I call on the Minister to explain to my constituents why concurrent sentences are used, and to investigate how our judicial system explains its practices to victims. I and others are not calling for a knee-jerk change to the law. We are arguing not for punishment for the sake of punishment, but merely for a sentence that fits the crime that has been committed. We are under no illusions about the impact that the change would have on preventing dangerous driving. Changing the sentencing for dangerous driving may only deter a few people from driving dangerously, but those few people changing their behaviour could save lives like Violet-Grace’s. If it saves more lives, surely it is worth it. It will also send a clear message to those who might consider driving dangerously that we as a society see it as morally abhorrent.

Some may not change their behaviour and may cause death by dangerous driving, but by changing the sentencing guidelines we will finally deliver justice for families such as the Youens and others who are affected by such recklessness. It cannot be acceptable that individuals such as those who struck down Violet-Grace and tore open the Youen family can serve sentences shorter than the time she was alive. They have sentenced Rebecca, Glenn and Violet-Grace’s little brother Oliver to a life of grief, and denied them the joys of watching her grow up and experiencing the joyous occasions and events that a maturing daughter gives to a family. That loss can never be repaid in this life.

In October 2017, the Government pledged to increase sentencing for death by dangerous driving to life, but we have not seen any meaningful movement on that issue in nearly two years. I therefore call on the Minister to set his civil servants to the task of getting the laws on dangerous driving changed. That gap in our legislation and our justice system must be filled sooner, rather than later.

I understand that issues such as Brexit put a strain on Departments and Parliament, but we must not allow this vital issue to be lost in the miasma of current politics. Rebecca and Glenn want the change in the law to be made properly and as quickly as possible. The Government have a duty to get it done. The longer we leave it, the longer our judicial system will fail to deliver the justice that the Youens and the other families we met today deserve. Although we can never heal the wound that has been opened, we must improve justice for victims and survivors and show that we care for them.

Prisons and Probation

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). The excellent speeches that have been made by Members on both sides of the House have shown how important justice is. It is, I believe, the cornerstone of democracy, and it needs to be respected and resourced as such. The current Transport Secretary clearly did not share that view when, as Justice Secretary, he accepted a 40% cut in the Justice budget at the start of the austerity regime.

Prisons have been reduced to places that brutalise offenders, and have become more like universities of crime. Her Majesty’s inspectorate has reported some of the most disturbing prison conditions that we have ever seen, conditions that have no place in an advanced nation in the 21st century. Prisoners are living in squalor. The inspectorate described conditions in the UK—one of the largest economies in the world—as squalid.

I recognise the improvements that were begun by the previous Prisons Minister in the 10-prison project, but we as a Parliament and the Government need to take a long and concerted look at how those improvements can be replicated in the many prisons that have not benefited from the same focus. We also need to take a long and concerted look at whether privatisation of the prison system is really the appropriate approach. Will the private sector ever share best practice with its competitors, which may well be competing for one of the services that their opponents are providing? I do not think so.

Sadly, the Government’s policies are not limited to the prisons themselves, but extend to the probation service. Irreparable damage is being caused to that system by the breaking up and part-privatisation of the UK’s award-winning probation service, which is served by proud, professional probation officers who are committed to working to help to reintroduce people to society. Their careers have been smashed. The way in which professionals have been treated in our justice system is so unfair.

Owing to the actions of the previous Justice Secretary, one in five people who are released from prison have no fixed abode. The community rehabilitation company, the private sector provider, is issuing tents to people who are released from prison. Some are currently sleeping on 24-hour bus services, and some are even being directed to church graveyards. How can anyone look at the current prison and probation service and see anything other than crisis and failure?

We have new people in; the last Prisons Minister was a good one and I am told we have a good one now and a good Secretary of State. I call on them to be brave; I call on the Government to respect justice as a cornerstone of democracy and to fund it as such. The whole of society benefits from a good justice system, yet at present it is being taken to its knees. I call on the current team to be brave and shout out for more resources and respect justice for what it is: a cornerstone of democracy.

Legal Aid for Inquests

Marie Rimmer Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Before I start, may I say that it is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Main?

I want to begin by saying how much I empathise with the aim of an inquiry, which is to find the truth of the matter when someone has died whose safety has been entrusted to the Government—truth that, when found, can provide the families of the bereaved with much-needed and sought-after closure; that simply tells them how and why it is that their loved ones are no longer here; and that provides a foundation of understanding about what mistakes may have been made and how we can learn from them to ensure that what happened may never happen again.

Yet what we find in the present system of legal aid is a great barrier to the goals of truth and understanding. The aim of the bereaved families, more than any other party in an inquest, is to ensure that what has happened to their loved ones cannot happen again, and that nobody must again feel the pain of losing somebody they love in the same, preventable way that they did. However, under the present rules, bereaved families are more often than not forced to fund their own legal representation in these inquiries.

Under the current financial eligibility rules, the threshold for receiving legal aid for an inquest is only a gross monthly income of £2,657—a gross income of just under £32,000 per year. Those earning more must pay for rent, food and all the other basic essentials of life, as well as what can be the crippling costs of legal fees in inquiries that can take months, if not years, to complete, as in the case of the Mid Staffordshire inquiry, the Morecambe Bay investigation and the Harris review. All those inquiries provided great insight into how the state needed to make changes to protect the lives of those who had been placed into its care. However, those who cannot cover the costs face the prospect of representing themselves in proceedings.

When talking about the Hillsborough disaster, Bishop James Jones described how families who had no public money provided for their legal expenses, or who were self-funded, would be forced to pool their resources. At one of the mini-inquests, one solicitor represented the interests of over 90 families. At the generic inquest, one barrister represented 43 families. One of the families was represented by the mother of the person who had died. What a harrowing experience for a woman who had lost her son to be forced to question witnesses and untangle legal proceedings just to find out what had happened to her child.

Compounding that is the fact that all those other families had no representation whatever. Their voice was stolen away from them because they did not have the financial means to represent themselves. It is simply not right, and it is simply not justice.

When we compare that to the funding that the Government or linked organisations have in these kinds of proceedings, we find that, unlike the bereaved families of those lost, the Government are able to bring the full might of the public purse to bear on these proceedings. On 3 April, the Secretary of State responded to my question about public funding for bereaved families. He stated:

“We must remember that there are ways in which we can be sympathetic to and supportive of bereaved families without ending up in an arms race of who has the most lawyers, the most expensive lawyers and so on”.

If we must use the analogy of an arms race, then at present the Government can spend money on the legal equivalent of tanks, helicopters, fleets and so on, while the families of the bereaved are left with the legal equivalent of a stick. It is all well and good for the Secretary of State to argue that we must not enter an arms race, when the Government sit in the position of power, possessing the finance to bring those legal arms to bear.

The Secretary of State also stated that he was “keen to ensure that” inquests

“continue to be essentially an inquisitorial process, rather than adversarial”.

However, I and many others in this place and beyond would argue that the process is already adversarial. While the nature of the inquest itself is not adversarial, we often find that the Government and other organisations do not fear the judgment of the coroner’s court, but that of the court of public opinion.

[Jo Stevens]

Quite often in an inquest a person will be gathering information, and that will be the only venue in which they can do so in advance of potential litigation. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important for families to have lawyers with them to enable them to carry out that process?

[Ms Rimmer]

Absolutely, and that is why I am here today. The Government and other organisations approach proceedings with the aim of damage limitation, instructing combative legal teams to defend state policies and practices, rather than to seek the truth that I spoke of earlier.

There are ways in which we can overcome that imbalance. First, automatic, non-means-tested legal aid for families would both help to level the playing field and prevent families from being burdened with crippling legal costs. It would also avoid forcing families to jump through confusing bureaucratic hoops during what can be one of the most traumatic periods, if not the most traumatic period, in their lives. Non-means-tested legal aid is provided in care and supervision proceedings in which children are to be removed from their parents, and in certain cases under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which demonstrates that there is a precedent.

Secondly, funding for families must be equivalent to that enjoyed by the state bodies, public authorities or corporate bodies represented. Ensuring like-for-like spending between the parties involved in inquests would not only further help to level the playing field for bereaved families, but would prevent the arms race that the Secretary of State alluded to in his response on 3 April. The parties mentioned would be able to spend more on lawyers only if the bereaved families received the same funding. As mentioned earlier, bereaved families do not have the means with which to outspend the Government.

I ask the Government to heed the recommendations made by the 1999 Stephen Lawrence inquiry, the 2003 independent review of coroner services, the 2004 Joint Committee on Human Rights, the 2007 Corston report, the 2015 Harris review, the 2016 report of the Chief Coroner to the Lord Chancellor, the 2017 Angiolini review, the 2017 Bach commission, the 2017 Hillsborough review, the 2017 report of the Chief Coroner to the Lord Chancellor, the 2018 Joint Committee on Human Rights and the 2018 Independent Office for Police Conduct consultation response. I ask them then to finally make the reforms necessary to give bereaved families the tools they need to achieve the fundamental goal of inquests, which is to find out the truth—the simple truth.