Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

The Minister is a fair man and a fair-minded man. He is quite right, and I am willing to countenance his appeal and give him the benefit of the doubt, and that is exactly what I am asking for the individuals subject to this legislation. He will know that we have certain inalienable constitutional rights as British citizens, which this legislation contravenes. The first is that we have a right to a fair hearing and that any action the Government take must be exercised fairly. That right has been established in the common law again and again, and most recently in 1994, in the case of ex parte Doody, when the court decided that Ministers must exercise their powers fairly.

The second inalienable right, which has been decided in the Supreme Court, is that we all have a right to access to the courts, and that cannot be unfairly restricted. As that has been decided by the Supreme Court, the Government cannot put up artificial barriers to our access, such as raising fees or making sure that we cannot physically get to the court. Indeed, as the Minister will know, I have an absolute right to defend myself in person at every stage of legal action, whether that is at first hearing or at subsequent appeal. All those powers or rights that I have as a citizen are affected by the legislation he is attempting to put through.

My amendment essentially says three things. If the Government failed to win an appeal, but wished to continue to deprive me of my citizenship pending a further appeal, they must, when seeking leave to appeal from the judge, also ask the judge for leave to continue the deprivation of citizenship. The judge basically could say no in three circumstances. First, the judge could say no if there is a real and substantial threat of serious harm to that individual if they were denied access to the United Kingdom. Some of these people will be living or operating from extremely dangerous places. If that person is likely to be killed pending further appeal on the denial of their citizenship, it would seem grossly unfair, their having already won an appeal, to deny them access to the country.

The second ground would be if their exclusion from the UK and the continuing of denial of citizenship would be deeply prejudicial to the conduct of their defence in an appeal that the Government subsequently decided to bring. In such a case, it would be impossible for me to defend myself at appeal in person, which should be my inalienable right as a British citizen. It would be impossible for me to do that remotely in some God-forsaken part of the world where I cannot Zoom in or I do not have the ability to communicate. It would be the same if I am unable to communicate with my legal team. I am sure the Minister can see that it would be unfair to interfere with someone’s ability to mount a proper defence—we should not forget that that person has already won an appeal—through the continuing denial of citizenship.

The third ground, which we covered on Second Reading, is the Government’s taking their time, achieving their objective merely by dragging their heels and playing for time, hoping that something, perhaps something untoward, will turn up. A judge should then make a judgment—the clue is in the name—on whether they are being efficient in their use of the legal system, rather than, as I am afraid happens from time to time, gaming it to their own advantage.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, I have a huge amount of respect and affection for him, and he is right to refer to the inalienable rights that a British citizen has in terms of access to justice and so forth, but surely he must accept that individuals facing deprivation of citizenship will have crossed a threshold of behaviour, or allegiance, so alien to our traditions, so alien to all the rights and responsibilities accrued over the decades of British citizenship, that in essence, in the court of public opinion, they will put themselves way beyond the pale when it comes to those issues. It would be an extreme hypocrisy for those who most seek to undermine our way of life to demand all the rights and privileges that they have sought to undermine, and possibly destroy, through their actions or foreign allegiances.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I would have more faith, or confidence, in his view if it applied to me as well, which it does not. What we are saying is that we can have two British citizens who commit the same heinous acts but receive two different kinds of treatment. One can have his or her citizenship removed and be expelled from the country, but another—say I were to do that—cannot. My view is that this is highly discriminatory, and tramples over some of the inalienable rights that my hon. Friend has mentioned. We currently have plenty of British citizens in high-security prisons who have committed acts as heinous as those committed by people whom we have deprived of British citizenship, but we have decided to deprive them of British citizenship purely because of their heritage and background—purely because they may be second-generation immigrants.

As I pointed out on Second Reading, this legislation applies to every single Jewish member of the United Kingdom citizenry. They all have an inalienable right to Israeli citizenship, and as a result, in my view, they all have second-class citizenship. I do not think that that is right. I do not think that it is fair. I think that it drives a wedge into our society, and sows a seed of doubt at the back of everyone’s mind.

This is the point that I was trying to make at the start. Those who perpetrate such heinous acts overseas absolutely should be punished. As my hon. Friend will know, over the past 10 years I have been at the forefront of trying to ensure that as many criminals as possible end up behind bars, whatever the criminality might be, but the fact is that there is a principle in British law—we are all supposed to be equal—and the Bill breaches that principle very significantly. Moreover, what the Government are attempting to do not only reinforces that breach, but aims to twist and skew fundamental tenets of British justice that have been our right for centuries.

[Simon Hoare]

Surely the fact that a remedy is not available to all does not mean that it is not a remedy. If we wish to argue for the two-tier approach, we can think of instances in which mental capacity has come into play, particularly in respect of capital offences, when those existed here. In abstract theory, that was a two-tier approach to justice, determined on the grounds of mental capacity or lack thereof. Surely remedies do not have be applicable universally to be applied fairly and within the law.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am not sure that I accept the hon. Gentleman’s logic. The test of mental capacity in the judicial system applies to everyone equally. If I were being prosecuted for an offence, I would be assessed for mental capacity, just as my hon. Friend would. The court would accept that there might be mitigations for his actions, or a requirement for a different disposal if he lacks mental capacity, but that is an external influence on him. It may come about owing to mental illness or some other kind of disability—who knows?

The point is that this comes about through no reason other than birth. My citizenship, or my lack of citizenship, is conferred on me by reason of my birth—my parentage, or my heritage. I cannot do anything about it. I cannot be treated for it, as I can be for mental illness. This is purely because my parents may have come from another country, my skin may be of a different colour, or the country of the origin of my DNA may offer particular rights of citizenship. It is something arbitrary, about which I can do nothing. We might as well have a piece of legislation that says that people with red hair receive different treatment under the law, because there is nothing they can do about that.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It is an honour and a privilege to open the debate on Third Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. It has been a long journey to get here, and I do not underestimate the significance of this day. It is not often that we are asked to wrestle with issues of morality, ethics and humanity, but with great privilege in this job comes great responsibility, and never more so than at a time like this.

Benjamin Franklin told us that

“in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

In this House we debate the latter incessantly, but here and in the country as a whole discussing death is something that we tend to shy away from, yet it will come to us all and to all those we love. We all have our own experiences of death, loss and grief. There are good deaths and bad deaths. I, like many, have experienced both.

I appreciate that, for some colleagues, the journey to this point has been a difficult one. I want to pay tribute to the way in which the overwhelming majority of Members have approached the subject. Second Reading back in November was quite rightly seen as an example of Parliament at its best. Contributions from across the Chamber were incredibly powerful, the atmosphere was respectful, and people listened with care. I hope that we will see the same today.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, and your team along with the fantastic Clerks and procedural experts who have ensured that parliamentary protocols have been followed and have guided us through the intricacies of what can be a complex parliamentary process—one that is steeped in tradition, but not always easy to follow. Of course, process is important, but it is also important to remember that we are not voting on the merits of parliamentary procedure; we are voting on an issue that matters deeply to our constituents. Indeed, the issue before us is very personal for many people—so many of our constituents, but many of us as well. It is an issue that transcends party politics. I thank colleagues from across the House who have shared their very personal stories with me.

I am grateful to all colleagues who have studied the detail of the Bill. It is essential that we come to a decision based on the content of what it actually says. I have been pleased to work with Members on all sides of the debate to ensure that the legislation is something that Parliament can be proud of—a cogent, workable Bill that has one simple thread running through it: the need to correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it.

I will not go into the amendments in detail, as I know that is not the purpose of this debate, but whether by adding further safeguards and protections for patients through additional training around coercive control, the addition of specialist expertise through the inclusion of multidisciplinary panels, widening the provision for professionals to opt out of the assisted dying process, providing additional employment protections, or prohibiting the advertising of assisted dying, cross-party working has strengthened the Bill.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. What level of concern does it give her that, between Second Reading and today, a growing canon of professionals and their independent professional bodies have urged great caution about this Bill, not on the principle, but because they are opposed to the details of this Bill and believe it should be defeated?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think what he is saying is that people have got different views, and they do have different views; we have different views in this House, and different people in different professions have different views. Every royal college has a neutral position on assisted dying because of that.

I have been pleased to work with Members on all sides of the debate to ensure that this legislation is something that Parliament can be proud of, and the many safeguards in this Bill ensure that only terminally ill patients who are eligible under the strict criteria and want to access assisted dying can do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

This may be the most fateful Bill that we discuss this Parliament. It is literally a matter of life and death. I have heard talk today of the injustices of the current situation. What could be more unjust than someone losing their life because of poorly drafted legislation?

We hear about panels. The people talking about panels presumably have not had much to do with them. I would not put my life, or the life of anyone dear to me, in the hands of a panel of officials. I stress, right from the beginning, that it is perfectly possible to support assisted dying, as I do, but not be prepared to vote for this Bill. There is so much that is problematic about it.

First, as I believe is widely understood, there has not been enough time to debate the Bill. Secondly, a Bill of this seriousness should be given more time.

[Simon Hoare]

Does the right hon. Lady find it rather peculiar that the previous Parliament spent 746 hours discussing the death of a fox and about 98 hours discussing the death of fellow humans?

[Ms Abbott]

There has been a lot of talk about there being no evidence of coercion, but within the family, the most powerful coercion is silence: it is the failure to answer when a question is put. If police cannot spot coercion in domestic violence, how can they be expected to spot coercion in assisted dying?

The Royal College of Pathologists and the former chief coroner have pointed out that without a role for a coroner, the Bill raises the possibility of foul play. When an amendment was tabled in Committee to deal with that, however, it was opposed. The Bill would allow private for-profit contractors to run an assisted dying service with no profit cap and no transparency, but when an amendment was tabled in Committee to deal with that point, it was opposed.

We have heard—and we will hear over and over again in this debate—about choice. This Bill may produce choice for those of us, like almost everybody in this House, who have for the entirety of their adult life been confident in dealing with authority and institutions, but even then, the Bill would need amendments. But what choice does the Bill hold for someone who, all their life, has lacked agency, particularly in a family context, which may be particularly the case in certain cultures and communities? And what choice does the Bill offer to those who lack access to good palliative care?

As the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has put it, our law should not

“focus on the few who wish for assisted dying and do too little to support the majority of those facing their final days who want—and deserve—access to the best of palliative care.”

What choice is it for those who think that, because their doctor raises it with them at all, they are being guided in that direction? An amendment that might have addressed that issue was rejected in Committee. It is a possibility that proponents of the Bill do not take seriously at all, but anyone who knows how institutions work should be watchful of it.

I came to this House to be a voice for the voiceless—that has not always been favoured by my own leadership, but that is why I came to the House. Who could be more voiceless than somebody who is in their sick bed and believes that they are dying? I ask Members in this debate to speak up for the voiceless one more time. There is no doubt that if the Bill is passed in its current form, there will be people among the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society who lose their lives unnecessarily. I therefore implore the House to reject this Bill—not because I am opposed to assisted dying in principle, but because my concern is for vulnerable and marginalised persons and communities.

Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of the chaos and turmoil that the Conservatives applied to our very important Probation Service when they were in government. We are putting probation back together. We have already brought 1,000 new probation officers on board, and we are committed to a further 1,300 in the coming year.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, to pick up on your statement, for which I think the whole House will be grateful, I am sure that my Committee will take up your clear urging for us to look at the issue with regard to the ministerial code.

I know the Minister will agree that domestic abuse cannot be an issue to which lip service is paid in this House and then policies seem to neglect. I make no apologies for returning to the views of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales, who issued a severe warning to the Lord Chancellor yesterday, commenting:

“I cannot stress the lack of consideration for victims’ safety and how many lives are being put in danger because of this proposed change.”

Why does the Minister think the commissioner, with all her expertise and knowledge, has arrived at that conclusion?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We have great respect for the Victims’ Commissioner. What would be letting down victims is if we allowed the prison system to get to a place where we cannot lock prisoners up—that would be unconscionable. That is why it is important that we have taken these steps. I remind the hon. Member that we are excluding those prisoners who pose the most risk and are managed under MAPPA—multi-agency public protection arrangements—levels 2 and 3. That means various agencies working together. The exclusion also includes all those convicted of terrorist and national security crimes. Proper action can be taken where agencies identify risk to move from a fixed-term recall to a standard recall.

Protection of Prison Staff

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Where an assessment is needed for stab-proof vests now, they can be deployed, but following the recent incident at HMP Frankland, HMPPS has commissioned a review to establish whether it is necessary for prison officers to wear protective body armour routinely. The review will inform any decision on the use of protective body armour on the prison estate and will report in June. June is next month, so it is happening pretty quickly, and rightly so because this is an urgent issue.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

We all understand the need to strike the right operational atmosphere and balance in prisons, but in the interests of the retention and recruitment of prison officers, which is absolutely key if our prison estate is to work effectively, I hope that—irrespective of what the review might advise—the Minister and the Department will move speedily to a position whereby the wearing of anti-stab clothing and the carrying of Tasers and other equipment becomes de facto and routine, rather than merely happening in response to gleaned internal intelligence. Otherwise, there will be a crisis in the retention and recruitment of officers.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

It is crucial that prison officers are equipped with the right protective equipment to do their job safely and securely. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that we get that right.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I thank him for it, and for his years of service as a nurse. I have spoken to many medical professionals about this issue, and they say that this is part of their job. They are very skilled and they work closely with patients, particularly dying patients, to assess their needs and to have those difficult and delicate conversations. As the KCs said, at the moment we check for coercion in cases where people have taken their own lives—when someone is dead. The Bill would make coercion a criminal offence with a sentence of up to 14 years.

Surely, by putting a legal framework around this difficult situation, we will provide an extra level of safeguarding. One psychotherapist, who is terminally ill herself, said to me recently that coercion happens when things are hidden away. The Bill would bring things out into the open. Surely, that must be safer for everyone. Let us look at what the absence of a robust legal framework looks like.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving the House the time to debate the Bill this morning. She references coercion, and I understand her point about the two medics, but medics will not be able to see or hear everything at all times. People will not be put beyond challenge, because subsequent to the death, if a relative claims coercion of another relative, investigation will remain. I am entirely unclear how, without peradventure, two clinicians can claim that there had been no coercion at any point.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Gentleman has made the point for me: within a robust system, we will check for coercion, but we do not have any of that now. At the moment, the person will be definitely be dead. We have to look at the status quo. Putting in layers of safeguarding and checking for coercion must be better than the system that we have now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful for that intervention.

The assessments have to determine whether the patient is terminally ill, whether they have mental capacity to make the decision, and then whether they have been coerced or pressured into the decision. In many ways the whole issue turns on the question of whether someone is terminally ill. I am afraid that it is a term of great elasticity, almost to the point of meaninglessness. It is well known, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said earlier, that it is impossible for doctors to predict with any accuracy that somebody will die within six months. It is a purely subjective judgment, made in this case by a doctor whose job will be approving assisted deaths. They simply have to determine not whether it is reasonably certain that death will occur, but that it can be reasonably expected—in other words, that it is possible.

[Simon Hoare]

The thrust of the Bill, as I understand it, is to ease suffering and pain in a patient who has a diagnosis and will die of the condition that has been diagnosed. But that right could only be exercised within a six-month period, and the pain and discomfort could last a lot longer than that. Has my hon. Friend heard—because I have not—what the importance of six months is? Why not eight, 10 or 12? What would stop people challenging it on the grounds that the dam has been breached, the six months is entirely arbitrary and it could, and indeed should, be extended by negative resolution in a statutory instrument?

[Danny Kruger]

My hon. Friend makes the right point, and I am afraid to say that is absolutely the case. The six-month cut-off is completely arbitrary and impossible to determine. It is a line in the sand, and of course it could be challenged, as so much of the Bill could be challenged, on human rights grounds. Every one of the safeguards that has been introduced by the hon. Member for Spen Valley would in fact be a barrier and a discrimination against the new human right that has been awarded to one group but should of course be awarded to all—if the point is conceded in this way.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes, and the answer to the last line of my right hon. Friend’s intervention is, “What is the difference here?” That is a very pertinent question, which I know the Minister will want to answer when he gets to the Dispatch Box to reply to the debate.

I wish to pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff and the inquiry team for their work and their unstinting commitment to deliver justice for those infected. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on what work the Government have been doing since the publication of the report. I accept that that is part of the Cabinet Office’s responsibility, but it sits with us this evening and, of course, Governments are supposed to be joined up. I know the House would also be grateful for an update on the expected timing of the publication of Sir Brian’s final report, as this issue affects Members across the House. In that spirit, let us try to rise to the occasion and find a way to work constructively on a cross-party basis, but crucially at speed. To be clear, I urge my hon. Friends to support new clause 27, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, should it be pressed to a Division.

New clause 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and he is absolutely right that it concerns a very serious matter. Unfortunately, given the impact of the Government’s effective destruction of the criminal justice system, we lack the infrastructure and resources to keep the public safe, should his new clause be implemented immediately. Our priority is, and always must be, the safety of the British public. We are concerned that if new clause 1 were enacted without provisioning for significant improvements in probation and parole, we would potentially significantly increase the risk to the public and to the prisoners themselves. The Government’s movement on this issue is a welcome first step. I look forward to seeing what further progress can be made by our colleagues in the other place.

On parole, I express our disappointment, generally, regarding part 3 of the Bill, the addition of which diverts attention away from the Bill being a victims Bill. However, I recognise the Government’s acceptance of the basis of our argument, which is contained in new clauses 15 and 16. Those new clauses, tabled in my name, would prevent a Justice Secretary from overturning Parole Board decisions and redirect appeals for an independent decision. I emphasise the critical need for the Government to fulfil their duty to protect citizens, rather than pursuing political gains or attempting to exert control over independent quasi-judicial entities.

The Government are right in recognising the gravity of the substantial challenges in parole, many of which, I am afraid, stem from 13 years of their own misrule, marked by systematic underfunding and undermining of our criminal justice system. We are devoted to upholding law and order, pledging to enhance the Parole Board’s effectiveness and to reinvest in our criminal justice system. We extend an invitation to the Government to align with our endeavours and aspire to foster improvements for victims and prisoners alike.

On the Government’s amendments, there are a lot of them. It is not always the case that the Government are willing to table substantive amendments in the House of Commons. I think it is the right thing to do, rather than keeping them until the Bill arrives in another place. Quite a few of the amendments represent the Government’s alignment with our previous amendments, so it would be churlish of me not to welcome them. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit!

[Kevin Brennan]

I know the hon. Gentleman is an expert on that subject.

New clauses 22 and 23 represent movement by the Government towards our long-standing campaign for a Hillsborough law. They introduce a statutory definition of “major incident” and “victims”, and legislate for a permanent advocate on the side of victims to speak to their best interests and the treatment they receive from public bodies. Ministers will be all too familiar with our commitment to bring in a Hillsborough law. We tabled new clause 14 to push the duty of candour, which we have already discussed.

I understand there is a possibility the House might divide on new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). The Conservatives’ failure to prevent illegal sewage leaks has led to a drastic increase in illegal discharges, trashing nature, damaging tourism and putting people’s health at risk. They promised us the affluent society; they gave us the effluent society. Labour believes that when Ofwat concludes that the water companies are inflicting the damage, the cost must be paid by the offending companies and not the taxpayer. The polluter should pay.

Finally, I want to refer to Jade’s law and the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside. His campaigning, along with Jade Ward’s family and the community, has been incredible; they have fought to ensure that no family endures what that family did ever again. My right hon. Friend stood by his constituents, who fought their campaign in an incredible and exemplary manner. It is welcome news that the Government will protect children where one parent murdered the other. I must state some disappointment that elements of the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge tabled in Committee were not carried over, too. None the less, it is a celebratory event for Jade Ward’s family and the community, and for my right hon. Friend. We should offer them our thanks and congratulations.

The Government have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a real change for victims. I urge them not to waste it. I hope they will support our amendments on that basis, and I hope they continue their trend in following in our footsteps.

Ten-Year Drugs Strategy

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I know that my right hon. Friend will need no persuading on this point, but will he set out his view on how the strategy will help those of us who represent rural constituencies and our rural communities? Very often, this is seen as an urban problem. He knows that county lines comes into the small, rural market towns of North Dorset, as it does into other counties, and missing the opportunity to nip that problem in the bud would be a huge omission.

[Kit Malthouse]

As a rural Member, I have seen the impact of county lines in my constituency, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that the pernicious effect of this method of distribution and marketing is felt in towns and villages across the land. Drug dealers have become very entrepreneurial, very crafty and clever in the way they do business, so we must be as well. I hope that in his county, in mine and in counties across the country, we will see a reduction in drug dealing in towns and villages and, as a result, a reduction in violence and degradation.

Sexual Misconduct in the Police

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. On her substantive point about the inquiry, she will know that a statutory inquiry is a very long-winded affair to set up, and a non-statutory inquiry can be much quicker. She will also be aware that it is contrary to regulations, since a change in the law recently, for a police officer not to co-operate with such an inquiry, whether statutory or otherwise, and they would be subject to disciplinary proceedings if they did not co-operate. Having said that, if the chair of the inquiry feels that he or she is not getting the co-operation or the information they need, we have reserved the right to convert the inquiry into a statutory one.

The hon. Lady is right that the inquiry forms part of a suite of tools that we need to restore and enhance the confidence particularly of women and girls in our police forces. One of those processes is what we are seeing with the uplift programme, which is essentially a greater feminisation of UK policing. We have moved over the past 10 years from 25% of the force being female to just over a third, and we have a number of forces where more than half of new recruits are female. I am hopeful that that progress will mean that women and girls feel that the police force better reflects them and may result in better contemplation of these issues.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that any barrel can have a rotten apple. Most of our police are law-abiding, honest folk going about their job, protecting us properly. I know also that he will agree that this is not just an issue for the Metropolitan police, but is something affecting the whole police family and the nation’s confidence in policing in our country. Can he assure me on two things? First, can he assure me that the widest part of the culture of the police understands that because they are there to enforce the law, that means they are not beyond it? Secondly, can he ensure that when a police officer changes to another force, they are vetted as if from scratch, rather than just for specific serious tasks, usually involving the carrying of a weapon? When people move too quickly between constabularies, as in any other job, it usually should ring alarm bells.

Prisons and Probation

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon]

Women’s centres play a crucial role, and their work needs to be expanded. The female prison estate is a case study in illustrating that short-term custodial sentences do more harm than good to the individual, to wider society and to the public purse. My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point.

Returning to private prisons, I want to focus on staffing levels, disproportionate violence, overcrowding, the lack of accountability, the extra costs incurred by the taxpayer, and the funds that could go towards public investment that actually go into private profits.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has been making a case predicated on ideology. To be clear, is it his view that there should be no private involvement in the prison estate whatsoever as a matter of principle, or is he arguing for a mixed economy but merely better management and supervision of private providers to ensure equity of service?

[Richard Burgon]

We are looking for an evidence-based approach. Given that privatisation in the justice system has been such a failure, it seems rather strange that the Government’s response seems to be to carry on digging while in a hole. As I will say later, even answers to parliamentary questions on private prisons often do not provide statistics and answers about, for example, the necessary staffing levels to sort out the crisis in our prison system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves). Devotees of Mortimer and the Rumpole series will well remember the Penge bungalow murders, so it is appropriate that she has spoken in this debate.

I stand to speak as neither a lawyer, a member of the Justice Committee nor indeed a former Minister, so I am tempted to say that I start with a distinct advantage. However, I particularly want to note the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis). I thought she spoke with incredible care, attention and knowledge, and we were lucky to hear what she had to say.

May I join many across the House in welcoming my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland)? He is, I am tempted to say, one of my oldest and dearest friends in politics and personally. He is godfather to my youngest daughter and she is thrilled that he is now a Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice. He is a fan and an impersonator of Mr Francis Sinatra. He will do this job his way, and he will do it magnificently.

Let me start by stating what I hope will not be controversial: our prison estate needs more money. Since 2010, I would suggest there has been too great a willingness by Ministers to accept overly zealous reductions in departmental funding in one of the most crucial areas of social and domestic policy. Those reductions have clearly affected the physical fabric of the estate, which means that the environment in which prisoners are held and in which our devoted prison staff work has gone down. It does need new funding, and I know that the ministerial team—coming, as others have referenced, from the centre ground-based, one nation Tory tradition—will make a very strong case for that to the Treasury. In making that case, I hope the Minister will underscore what I think is a feeling, certainly across the Conservative Benches, that new departmental money should not be found by milking the probate cash cow.

The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) spoke about ideology. I have some sympathy with him, but I was also confused by his argument. There is nothing more arid, given the sensitivity and importance of the subject, than rightly to clobber, as I do, those who say, in some sort of Orwellian way, that only the private sector can do these things and we must chase out the public sector—“private good; public bad”—only then to weaken one’s case by adopting at the Dispatch Box exactly the same position in reverse. He seemed to suggest that there was neither merit nor benefit in involving either the third sector or the private sector. Given the magnitude of the task and the importance of getting it right, I suggest—I say this not as a lawyer—that we should be encouraging an attitude of, “All hands to the pump.” I very much agree that we need to ensure that there is a level playing field—for want of a better phrase—in the assessment and monitoring of private and public provision.

I am lucky to have HMP Guys Marsh in my constituency. James Lucas is its first-class governor, and I have met many of the staff there and know that they are devoted in their duty. However, like many others, the prison is infested with Spice and has problems with the misuse of mobile phones and the drugs culture generally. It appeared in the national newspapers only a few weeks ago, when the entrepreneurial spirit of the criminal classes was found to be in full tilt after prison staff discovered that dead rats stuffed with SIM cards and drugs had been thrown over the fence for prisoners to find. I raised the matter with the previous Prisons Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), and I echo the point to my hon. and learned Friend the current Minister, that, given that one of the prison yards is adjacent to open farmland and a public footpath, a simple security net over the yard would make rat tennis a sport of the past.

We must take our hats off to those who devote their lives to working in our prisons. Many of those who work in our public services face threats of intimidation and violence on a daily basis, but those who work in our prisons do so in a heightened and tense environment. Prison officers face the scourge of “potting”, the uncertainty of what drug-induced state they will find a prisoner in, and worries about the impact on their own health of inhaling drug fumes in the prison environment, as the Prison Officers Association explained to me at our last meeting.

Carillion used to manage HMP Guys Marsh, and it did its best, but what sticks in my mind—this speaks to the point made by the shadow Lord Chancellor—is that a contract involving the private sector is really only as good as those who manage it. Its assessment—I have heard nobody disagree with it—is that the expertise of the National Offender Management Service in managing those contracts was pretty poor. When contract management is poor, it should not be a surprise that the outcomes of the contract are not as good as they should be.

One of the challenges, I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend, is to identify bespoke policies to drive up recruitment in our rural prisons, where property prices are high and housing is often scarce. There are some incentives that could be deployed. Certainly, having talked with the governor at HMP Guys Marsh, I think the problem is not lack of appetite for recruitment, but lack of interest from people in the immediate locality. If we are to attract high-grade prison officers, we need to do something about that.

The third sector is absolutely crucial. I have had the pleasure of meeting Clean Sheet and Astara Training, whose managing director, Victoria Smith, is based in my constituency. I have also seen the excellent work of Eva Hamilton MBE, who runs Key4Life, which has a contract with HMP Guys Marsh. Their work is focused, bespoke and attentive to detail. Those are the sorts of charitable-focused, third-party social enterprises that my hon. and learned Friend and his ministerial team should really be focusing on, to foster their support, engagement and initiative. They work in education, apprenticeships, securing vocational qualifications and drug rehabilitation.

I will close my remarks with this cri de coeur. The aridity of an Orwellian approach of “Two legs good; four legs bad”, whether from the left or the right, will not benefit our country, our society or our communities, and it will certainly not benefit those who work in our prisons or those serving sentences. The state should always have this as a final test: if it is to hold the right to deprive a man or woman of their liberty, it should always consider what impact any decision it makes will have in order to ensure that that man or woman is a one-time visitor to prison. If the state keeps that in mind when making each decision, whether it is the third sector, the private sector or public sector, and with the instincts and experience of the Lord Chancellor and the new Prisons Minister, I have every hope that we can get this right.

Children’s Funeral Fund

Simon Hoare Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Mr Speaker, as it highlights the importance of this debate and—I say this having known you before you were Speaker—your interest in this area.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this hugely important debate. It gives me the opportunity to update the House and to reaffirm the commitment made by the Prime Minister on something of huge importance not only to this House but across our country.

Before I begin, I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her tireless campaigning on this important issue, which, as she says, sadly touches the lives of many families. As she has so incredibly movingly reminded us today, she has herself suffered the tragic loss of a child—her son, Martin, who I appreciate will always be her little boy—and I feel deeply for her.

It is to the hon. Lady’s outstanding credit that she has been willing and able to draw on that most painful of experiences to press for so positive and important a measure. Her constituents and this House should be incredibly proud to have someone such as her representing them and as a Member of our legislature. I am very proud to say that, having got to know her since I have been in this House, but particularly since last year when I took up ministerial office, I can begin to call her a friend as well.

I know that many hon. Members across this House have supported the hon. Lady in her endeavour. It is right that I mention my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who is now also the junior Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions with responsibility for this area—jointly with us in the Ministry of Justice. When it comes to delivering this, I hope she will accept that she would struggle to find two junior Ministers more determined and willing to deliver for her, both because it is the right thing to do for our country and because it is the right thing to do for her and for many other parents across the country. I pay tribute to the work of a number of campaigners and organisations across the country, and to bereaved parents who, like the hon. Lady, have summoned up the courage—however hard that is—to speak up and join this campaign.

The commitment to develop a children’s funeral fund for England was announced by the Prime Minister at Easter last year. As she said in that announcement, no parent should ever have to endure the unbearable loss of a child. Although nothing can ever truly heal the pain of such a loss, as the hon. Lady has shown, we must recognise that, as the Prime Minister said, in the darkest moment of any parent’s life there can still be a little light if there is the support and care that they need. The Government are committed to ensuring that that support exists for those who lose a child. I have known this Prime Minister for a very long time, and while she has many priorities, there are some that are particularly important and personal to her, which run through everything she tries to do, and I think that her personal commitment on this issue is very much there.

The children’s funeral fund is being established in recognition of the fact that it cannot be right for grieving parents to have to worry about meeting the cost of burying or cremating their child. It is in memory of the hon. Lady’s son Martin, and in support and memory of all parents who experience this most painful and tragic of losses, that the Prime Minister made the commitment to establish this scheme. Under the scheme, parents will no longer have to meet the costs of burial or cremation. These will instead be met by Government funding, meaning that parents will no longer be subject to the sometimes significant variation in charges across the country. The hon. Lady also highlighted the elements that she considers the basic essentials that need to be covered: the fees from the local authority and others, and the coffin. I share her view.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I echo everything that everybody has said. I also consider the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) a friend. She has dealt with this campaign with what we Welsh would call hwyl, and she is to be congratulated on that. When these final decisions are being taken, may I just urge the Minister to bear in mind the phraseology that the hon. Lady used—that this is the last gift of a parent to a dead child? It is not just a pounds, shillings and pence coffin and headstone; it is the whole emotional issue. If we keep that in mind, we will get the right outcome.

[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.