Edward Argar
MP for Melton and Syston · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I have a lot of time for the Minister; I hope this issue is on his radar. On brownfield sites, the proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington should not be contentious; it is a sensible approach to draw together all the different strands of work that the previous Government did to push the development of brownfield sites.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is tangible investment to persuade and support local authorities to prioritise brownfield first. The problem in my patch is that the Labour Mayor of Leicester simply did not do it.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak in support of new clause 34, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. I have listened very carefully to hon. Members’ exchanges, and I have to say that I do not see what is particularly contentious about my hon. Friend’s proposal.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Take the NHS funding model, for example: in my area, the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland integrated care board is having to make in-year savings to live within its financial envelope.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My constituency has a couple of towns in it and is right on the edge of Leicester, but it goes way up into rural north-east Leicestershire. The reality is that the developments on the edges of the towns or nearer the city often work most effectively, because there are bus routes and there is access to more schools, shops, businesses and e…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That means a significant amount of development on the edges of villages—often with no bus route or only a sparse service, a full village primary school and a GP practice serving a whole range of rural communities—that are unable to meet the needs of the additional development. The pressure on local services is a real challenge.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
6,125 lines on record for Edward Argar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 10 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“I am grateful for that response but, just as my hon. Friends have highlighted in respect of the damaging impact of increases in employer national insurance contributions on GPs, hospices and care providers, I fear it was another example of the Government simply not answering the question and not having a plan yet. Either the Government have not done their homework and, as with the impact of NICs increases, they have not thought this through and do not know, or worse, they do not care—which is it?”
House of Commons19 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Despite the pledges made over the course of the election and the commitments given to the British people, in reality those words meant nothing to the Labour party once it secured the keys to No. 10. Instead, we have seen taxes hiked on working people: the people who provide food security and food every day, our farmers, hit hard by the changes that have been made. We see living standards set to fall and mortgage rates likely to rise. We see taxes up, we see borrowing up, we see debt up, and we see that growth will be down on where it could and should be. Unfortunately, I fear, that pattern of broken promises also applies to the NHS and our social care sector.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although I will say one thing for it: it would not only draw attention to his day job, but possibly even aid him in his ambitions to secure his boss’s job in due course. In respect of his comments about the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), I would only say very gently that she should probably take that as a compliment. When the right hon. Gentleman attacks someone in that way, it probably means that they are somewhat frit of her. I think he will see in the coming weeks and months why that is so. We have already seen and heard over the previous days of debate that this is unequivocally a Budget of broken promises.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure and a privilege to be working once again in health and social care, although a disappointment to be doing it from the Opposition Benches. It is a privilege because, like the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care now, I had the privilege in government of working with the amazing and dedicated people who work in our NHS and in social care up and down the country. It is a pleasure to be back. It is a pleasure to be opposite the Secretary of State, as he now is. I remember our tussles back in the day, when I was sitting over there and he was sitting here. I am sufficiently fond of the right hon. Gentleman to encourage him not to get himself fired out of a cannon, as he alluded to.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yet I fear that this risks being another broken promise. I say to him now that where he is bold and provides genuine reform to benefit patients, he will have our support. Equally, if he bows to internal pressure and backs away from the radical reform that is needed, we will hold him to account.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In his allusion to the Labour party’s inheritance, he missed the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility singularly failed to back up the assertions made about the quantum of challenge the incoming Government faced. Time and again, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), both in opposition and now as Secretary of State, has promised that any more money for the NHS has to be linked to reform. He has done that again today. The week before the Budget, he said that “extra investment in the NHS must be linked to reform”. In September, the Prime Minister himself said: “No more money without reform”. They are right on that. The Opposition support that condition, because it is only with reform that the NHS can sustainably continue to look after us for years to come.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are, as yet, no clues as to whether it will be spent on wages, recruiting more staff, medicines or equipment; no clues as to how it will deliver the 40,000 additional appointments that have been promised; and no conditions linking the funding, as yet, to productivity improvements, modernisation or better outcomes for patients. What we need to hear next week from the Secretary of State is an actual plan. As he mentioned, the right hon. Gentleman became shadow Health Secretary three years ago. I hope that in that time he has had an opportunity to think about what he wants to do and that he will actually set that out to the House next week.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will make a little progress before giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I congratulate the Health Secretary on winning round 1 with the Treasury—I look across the Chamber and see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the Government Front Bench—in securing extra investment. He has secured more than £22 billion announced for the NHS, but without, as yet, any detailed indication of where that funding will go. I look forward to him returning to the House to set out the detail—I think he said that would be next week. What it must do is genuinely improve outcomes for patients and our NHS, rather than simply be focused on the headline figure of the inputs to it.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will make a little progress, but then I will happily give way to my hon. Friend. Apart from the press releases and the reviews, where is the action? We need to see where the £22 billion will be spent. What plans does the Secretary of State have for additional investment for the NHS this winter? He knows, as I knew when I was a Minister, that winter in the NHS is always challenging. I look forward to him setting out what additional investment he plans.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) in a second. Nice try, Secretary of State. Is the right hon. Gentleman directing where that NHS funding goes himself, or will it be for his officials or NHS England to set the priorities for that, and who will be held accountable for ensuring that it is prioritised in the right places?”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Royal College of General Practitioners has warned that the extra costs of the employer’s national insurance hike could force GP surgeries to make redundancies or close altogether, and the Independent Pharmacies Association has warned that community pharmacies will have to find an extra £12,000 a year, on average, to pay for the hike.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“And let us not forget what this tax hike will mean for those providing essential services across primary, secondary and social care—the general practices, care homes, adult social care providers, community pharmacists on our high streets, hospices and charities such as Marie Curie and Macmillan which provide additional care for patients alongside the NHS. I was deeply disappointed that the Secretary of State did not take the opportunity offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) to state clearly that all those groups would be exempt and would not be hit by this hike, and I hope that when the Chief Secretary winds up the debate he will be able to give that reassurance.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The question for the Government, and the question for the Chief Secretary to answer when he winds up the debate, is: “When will that review report, and when will each and every one of those colleagues and communities who are looking forward to a new hospital know whether it will be delivered in line with the Secretary of State’s pledge, or whether the programme will be cut?” Nearly a week after the Budget, Members will be familiar with the verdict of the Office for Budget Responsibility: namely, that the £25 billion assault on businesses risks lower wages, lower living standards and lower growth.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It concerns me that, as far as I am aware, the Secretary of State has still not told us exactly when his review of the new hospital programme will report and set out the future for each and every one of the hospitals that he committed himself to delivering during the election campaign—the programme to which the previous Chancellor had committed funding, building on the original £3.7 billion allocated in 2019.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“An additional £2 billion to drive productivity is important. I fear that it is a slimmed-down version of the £3.4 billion NHS productivity plans that we announced and funded, but I will study it closely, and, similarly, the Secretary of State’s plan for mental health is deserving of serious study. On both sides of this Chamber, we recognise the importance in mental health investment of not only parity of esteem but parity of services, and it is therefore right for us to scrutinise very carefully how the right hon. Gentleman intends to build further on the success that we had in driving that agenda forward. Let me now turn to the subject of capital investment, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell).”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. You cannot tax your way to growth and you cannot invest in public services without that growth. If the predictions we are seeing about growth are borne out, there is a real risk to our public services’ sustainability in future. The Chancellor said that the funding would help to deliver 40,000 more NHS appointments a week, but again we see no reference to specific actions by which that will be achieved. The Government seem not to know the difference between a target and a plan, and simply restating their ambition while throwing money at the challenge will not be enough to deliver on that commitment. As I have said, elements of the Budget relating to the Department of Health and Social Care were welcome, one of them being the Secretary of State’s one-nil win over the Chief Secretary in respect of funding.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As a result of the increases in the national living wage and employer’s national insurance contributions, one of the UK’s largest social care charities says it is facing an unfunded increased wage bill of £12 million a year, and Marie Curie has warned that the rises in employer’s NI contributions will only serve to put the services that it delivers on behalf of the NHS under further pressure. Those charities will be looking to the Chief Secretary to say what succour he can offer them in the form of an assurance that they will not be hit.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the ill-thought-out consequences of this hike for hospices and general practices, both in Scotland and elsewhere. I would dearly love to be able to respond to his question. Sadly, however, I am on this the side of the House and not the other side, but I am sure that the Chief Secretary will attempt to do so. The Nuffield Trust has said that without additional financial support, the tax raid is likely to force social care providers to pass higher costs on to people who pay for their own care, or potentially collapse financially. Charities are not exempt either.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome the hon. Lady to her place as well. I think this is the first opportunity I have had to respond to a intervention or question from her. In fact, we put record funding into the NHS—£164.9 billion per year—and on top of that we recruited more doctors and more nurses. We did not do that by piling tax hikes on hospices and general practices, among others. I am not sure how hitting primary care, social care or charities supporting NHS services will help the Secretary of State to deliver his aim of cutting waiting lists. I hope that the Chief Secretary will tell the House what steps the Treasury is taking to ensure that those organisations are not hit by these changes. Let me take a moment to consider what was not included in the Budget.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will make a bit of progress, if I may. There were no plans for social care reform after the Chancellor broke Labour’s promise to deliver the cap on social care costs. I hear what the Secretary of State says about a willingness to work on what is a challenge facing our whole country and society: with an ageing population, how do we address the challenge of social care? There were no further detailed plans for NHS dentistry, despite the election pledge to deliver more dental appointments. There was no support for pharmacies or for the day-to-day running of general practice, and there were still no additional resources for the NHS this winter—or, indeed, the details of reform to go with them.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We increased investment significantly, not only to tackle the inevitable consequence of a global covid pandemic—which, as we all know, hit our NHS hard—but to build back better subsequently, which is the task that we began to perform. We have always said that investment in the NHS must be married to reform in order to deliver better patient outcomes and value for money, building on the reforms that we introduced in the Health and Care Act 2022 and ensuring that the NHS will be there to look after us for decades to come. The Secretary of State has worked with me before, and we will work with any party, including his.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Gentleman to be brave, to stand up to those in his party who would have him back down or water down reform, and to deliver a genuinely radical plan for the future of our NHS and for social care that works for those who work in it, but also, crucially, for all the people who rely on it. Our constituents deserve nothing less from him.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I gave way to the hon. Gentleman earlier. I am afraid I want to conclude my remarks, because I am keen for others to have a chance to speak. That offer to the Secretary of State stands. I am always happy to work constructively with him when he is willing to work constructively with me. He knows that we have done that before, not least as we emerged from the pandemic, when I was still a Minister in the Department. Unfortunately, despite the rhetoric, I fear that the Budget was a missed opportunity that will not achieve the ambitions the Government have set out. As I have said, we cannot tax our way to growth, and without growth we cannot sustainably fund public services. I urge the right hon.”
House of Commons5 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Once a licence is terminated, would the victims’ understanding be right that at that point they have no further options, because that person is deemed to have served their time and to be a free citizen? To conclude, Mr Efford, I am conscious that the previous Lord Chancellor continues to look very carefully at the issue. We saw the approach he took in the Victims and Prisoners Act, and he was clear that he would always continue to look carefully at any changes recommended by Committees or others, ensuring that balance between justice for IPP prisoners and addressing the concerns of victims and public protection. Will the Minister confirm that he and the new Lord Chancellor will continue to adopt a pragmatic and measured approach in considering this incredibly challenging issue?”
House of Commons29 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Mental health can have an impact both on those with an IPP sentence and on their families and friends, and there is a need for mental health support and care to enable that progression, both inside prison and on release so they can continue to abide by the terms of the licence. What support is available to IPP prisoners before they appear before the Parole Board to best demonstrate what they have achieved? If victims anticipate a release date further in the future, they might well be concerned about what happens if a licence is breached, or if there is suspicion of that. How is that reported—to probation, or to the police—and how is it acted on? What action would be taken?”
House of Commons29 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will put a number of questions to the Minister, and I expect he will respond in his typically helpful and constructive manner. Can he set out what progress is being made on the action plan? I think the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) touched on this, but my understanding is that, with the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act through Parliament, it was deemed that there might be an interaction between that and the action plan. That explains the delay: the plan would have been published earlier this year, but the changes made in the Act were—and are—significant. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), clearly and eloquently set out the importance of mental health considerations in this context.”
House of Commons29 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The changes to licence times, and the approach to licence termination, will help people progress, but it is important that we reflect, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, not just on those IPP prisoners but on the victims of those crimes, and it is right that we consider both in the round. Before I turn to that, I think we are beginning to see some progress. When this matter was debated in the context of the Victims and Prisoners Bill, the figures were that around 3,300 IPP prisoners were still detained; the latest figures from the House of Commons Library show that there are now just under 2,800. That is a degree of progress. Equally, it is important to remember that at that time about 1,200 had never been released or had the opportunity to make progress and be released, so more progress needs to be made.”
House of Commons29 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, although the Justice Committee recommended resentencing, that would potentially see those whom a parole board had very recently considered not safe to release on public protection grounds released immediately, even if that went contrary to the board’s view. Just last week, in her response to questions following the statement she made to the House, the new Lord Chancellor set out her view that His Majesty’s Government continue to oppose resentencing, as set out in the Justice Committee’s report. The hon. Member for York Central highlighted the huge importance of progress—of people being able to see their progression towards release and the termination of their licence. Engagement and support is absolutely central to that.”
House of Commons29 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have heard today of the huge impact that the nature of that uncertainty, lack of hope and clarity has on those serving IPP sentences. That lack of hope has an impact on those people’s mental health. The nature of the sentence has a huge impact not just on individuals but on their family, friends and others. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) set that out very eloquently, as he does. I must always be careful in lavishing praise on the right hon. Gentleman, as it will probably not do my political career much good, but I found myself reflecting carefully on what he said because he made his point in a measured, and very human, way. This is why the changes contained in the Victims and Prisoners Act were needed.”
House of Commons29 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That new test creates a presumption for licence termination unless public protection considerations mean that the Parole Board deems that licence to be needed. There is a hugely difficult balance to be struck, rightly, between the challenges the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green, among others, set out and the challenges that the sentence poses—to hope, and to the ability to see a way forward and make progress, for those serving way beyond the time that would be handed down under the current sentencing regime for the equivalent crime. That must be set against public protection considerations, which must also be at the heart of the approach. Where the Parole Board has deemed it will not agree the termination of the licence, that is because the Parole Board has refused on the grounds of public protection.”
House of Commons29 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) called for those changes to be enacted. That has already been done through that legislation, reducing the licence period from 10 years to a review at three years, reflecting what the Justice Committee said—although going a bit further than the five years it suggested—with the Parole Board then considering the termination of the licence. There is a presumption of termination, but it is a rebuttable one were there to be any other considerations to be taken into account. Were that not acted on after the three years, after a further two years the Secretary of State must terminate that licence, unless there had been a recall during that period. Those changes have already been made, and I believe the implementation was carried out relatively recently by the new Government.”
House of Commons29 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It takes a big person to acknowledge the botched introduction of the legislation in 2005 and the error that was made; it speaks well of him that he has been willing to do so. A decade on from the 2012 abolition, the Justice Committee report of September 2022 was hugely important in what it said and the look it took at this issue. It made a number of constructive recommendations, which the previous Government considered very carefully. I am pleased that in the final days of the previous Parliament, a consensus was reached that enabled the then Victims and Prisoners Bill to progress into legislation. I am grateful to the now Government for the constructive approach they took in those final days. Changes to the IPP sentence were a key part of that. The hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green and the hon.”
House of Commons29 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that he and the Minister might have another ally in their footballing cause in this House. [Clive Efford in the Chair ] As we have heard, the IPP sentence has understandably been called a stain on our justice system, not least by my predecessor in office, the former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk, among others. It is a sentence that can keep people essentially in limbo in what could be termed preventive detention, not because of something they have done, but because of something that they may do. The sentence was brought in under the previous Labour Government by the then Home Secretary, David—now Lord—Blunkett. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for what he has done subsequently. He has become one of the greatest advocates for reform, which speaks of his integrity.”
House of Commons29 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and a privilege to speak in today’s debate. Doing so from the Opposition side of the Chamber takes some getting used to, though I fear I may have time to get used to it. I am very pleased to see the Minister here; I know him well and he is a thoroughly decent and able man, so it is a pleasure to see him back in the House after a brief absence from this place. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this debate on an issue on which there are strong and sincerely held views. I know the hon. Gentleman well. He spoke eloquently and with typical decency and humanity. Before moving to the substance of the debate, as a Leicestershire MP I say to the hon.”
House of Commons29 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Finally, and most importantly, as I pressed the Lord Chancellor on last week, it is vital that the criminal justice system is not subject to a flat budget or, worse, cuts in next week’s Budget—cuts that would let down victims, those who work in the system, and the public. I fully appreciate that she will not be able to prejudge that Budget, either at the Dispatch Box or in the media, but a fair financial settlement, alongside her setting out her long-term plans for the system—a little of which I acknowledge we have seen today—will be absolutely essential if victims and the public are to have confidence in her Government on law and order.”
House of Commons22 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What steps is she taking to ensure that victims are contacted when perpetrators are released, and what additional resource is going into victim support services and probation, over and above what we had already committed to? Turning to the rehabilitation activity requirement, it is right that experienced staff judge these cases. As the Lord Chancellor knows, the smaller numbers reflect both risk assessment and the complex interaction of RAR with other release schemes. I therefore fear that the bounty she might expect to get from the changes she intends to make will be limited. Will she confirm details of those proposed changes for the House in due course?”
House of Commons22 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Lord Chancellor will appreciate that with layer upon layer of reductions, some people will struggle to see that punishment or public protection are at the fore, so can she clarify a number of further points? While most DA offences would be presumed ineligible for HDC, that presumption is not absolute, and again, many common DA offences such as ABH or common assault are not presumed ineligible. What will the Lord Chancellor do to address that issue? Does she intend to examine the list of exclusions for both schemes—SDS40 and HDC—and come back to the House with a tougher list? Tagging is a vital part of HDC, but while there may be the tags, as she has mentioned, it appears that the ability to fit them swiftly is sadly lacking at present. What reassurances can the Lord Chancellor give that there is now no backlog at all in tagging?”
House of Commons22 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will she also commit to building more prisons, over and above the six new prisons that we funded and have already been completed or are being built, and will she commit to funding that additional prison building? Home detention curfew will further reduce the time that convicted criminals spend behind bars. Someone with a four-year sentence who is not excluded from SDS40 would now be out at around 19 months; with the possibility of 12-month HDC, that could mean that they were only inside for just over six months of a four-year sentence. I recognise that the interaction between different schemes and calculations is complex and may be different in individual cases, but can the Lord Chancellor reassure the House that a fixed minimum percentage will always be served by those sentenced to prison?”
House of Commons22 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have heard little thus far about deporting FNOs, so I am pleased that she has focused on that issue in her remarks, but when will she set out more details of her plans to improve the deportation rate of FNOs, and what targets is she setting for that? Does the Lord Chancellor now acknowledge that—as we pointed out at the time, and as victims also pointed out—although the Government claimed that domestic abuse and domestic violence offences would be excluded from SDS40, that is simply not the case? DA offenders committing actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm are not excluded. Will she revisit the exclusions list to review this matter?”
House of Commons22 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand that, but we would be grateful if she could provide the date on which those statistics will be published. In the media this morning, she alluded to the rate of recalls being “very high” but disputed—based on her internal data—that it was as high as 50%, as was suggested on Radio 4. Can she expand on what that rate looks like? In response to a written question from me, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin) acknowledged that hotels are now being used in some cases to accommodate released prisoners under SDS40. In the light of the Lord Chancellor’s commitment at oral questions last month to be transparent about this matter—although it took a written question from me to get that confirmation—how many hotel rooms or places are being used, and at what cost?”
House of Commons22 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course, though, the impact on the remand population of the decisions to not mass release during the pandemic and to rightly retain jury trials, compounded by the Bar strike, undoubtedly significantly increased pressure despite our prison-building programme. The Lord Chancellor has set out her chosen approach, with more convicted criminals released today at the 40% point of their sentence, rather than the 50% point in tranche 2 of SDS40. We are seeing significant levels of concern from victims of crime about that approach—Sky News ran a powerful package this morning highlighting that concern—so I have several important questions on that aspect of the Lord Chancellor’s announcement. She said that she will publish data on SDS40 in the coming weeks in the normal run of statistics.”
House of Commons22 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Lord Chancellor has set out, prison capacity has been under significant pressure for some time, and while the situation was incredibly acute in 2008, 2009 and 2010, it remains a significant challenge. That is due to an increased average sentence length for first offenders—for which we make no apology—matched by the biggest prison-building programme since the Victorian era, with thousands of additional places built while tackling the legacy of the crumbling prison estate we inherited in 2010 and the Labour party’s absolute failure to build the 7,500 Titan prison places it promised while in government.”
House of Commons22 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is right that we look at all sentences, including tough community sentences, through the prism of what reduces reoffending, boosts rehabilitation and best protects the public. With that in mind, I know David Gauke well; he was my first boss as a Minister. He is a decent, honourable, able and thoughtful man, and I regard him as a friend, so I will not prejudge what he will conclude in his review. But the Opposition will rightly, as the Lord Chancellor would expect, scrutinise the review when it is published, and hold the Government to account on the choices they make on how to proceed subsequently. I hope the review’s terms of reference might include not just male prisoners, but female prisoners and female offenders, building on the female offenders strategy that David Gauke and I put in place many years ago.”
House of Commons22 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As always, I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for early sight of her statement, and for her coming to the House to deliver it, giving us the opportunity to ask questions. She is always unfailingly courteous in her dealings with this House. The Lord Chancellor made several announcements today. It is important that we see the detail of her sentencing review, and that, whatever the outcome, it ensures that victims’ voices are heard throughout, that the worst offenders—for example, violent or sexual offenders—stay behind bars for longer, and that, as she alluded to, prolific offenders who cause so much blight and harm can still be subject to a custodial sentence where appropriate. We saw an overall fall in reoffending since 2010 under the last Government, from around 31% to just over 25%, but there is of course still more to do.”
House of Commons22 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If she has not, we will rightly hold her to account.”
House of Commons17 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Lady explicitly referred to her prisoner early release scheme, I hope she will be able to answer all those questions, but there is also one important question that I hope she will answer today by way of reassurance: are any of the 37 prisoners released in error last month still roaming free, or have they all been safely returned to prison? I would be grateful for clarification on that, because it is important. We will find out in under two weeks whether, in pre-Budget spending discussions with the Chancellor, the right hon. Lady has successfully fought for investment and in the interests of justice and victims of crime, or whether she has sold out the victims and the systems, and conceded cuts to the Treasury. If she has succeeded in securing additional investment, she will have my gratitude and support.”
House of Commons17 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Has she conducted a complete impact assessment for the changes, and will she publish that and all the modelling on it prior to the statutory instrument being laid? How many people are currently on remand, and will she share with the House the latest, most up-to-date figure? Reports suggest that this measure will in the short term potentially increase pressure on prison places, so will she say by what amount her modelling suggests that will be? What prior consultation did she or her Department undertake with the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and the Law Society before making this decision? What assessment has she made of the impact of the decision announced today on the backlog and on the number of short custodial sentence passed by the courts? Given that the right hon.”
House of Commons17 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In 2019 there were 85,000 sitting days, and 107,700 last year. This year the cap appears to be at 105,000. That appears to be the Government’s choice, but I would welcome clarity from the Lord Chancellor on that. The changes that the Lord Chancellor has set out were characterised by the chair of the Criminal Bar Association, Mary Prior KC, in The Guardian : “This is a knee-jerk reaction, done without consulting—once again—the criminal barristers or solicitors who deal every day with these cases”. There are therefore a number of questions about that and the broader criminal justice system, given the scope of the right hon. Lady’s statement, which I hope she will be able to answer.”
House of Commons17 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“During the pandemic, supported by the then Opposition, we opted not to mass-release prisoners, as other countries did, and not to cancel jury trials. That of course led to increases in the remand population, compounded by the effect of the Bar strike. The vast bulk of the backlog is in the Crown courts, as the Lord Chancellor will know, and it is right to recognise the interrelationship between magistrates courts and Crown courts. I believe that the concordat on sitting days had not been formally signed by the former Lord Chancellor at the time of the election, and I therefore saw with concern that, in stark contrast to previous Lord Chancellors who increased sitting days, it appears we will see a reduction of 2,700 sitting days compared with last year. I would be grateful for the Lord Chancellor’s reflections on that.”
House of Commons17 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor and her civil servants for their typical courtesy in giving me early sight of her statement. I am also grateful to magistrates, to whom I pay tribute. In many ways, they are the backbone of our justice system, and like juries they root our justice system in our local communities. Their service is hugely appreciated, as is the work of the Magistrates’ Association, and I recognise their skill and dedication. The Lord Chancellor highlighted the backlog as context. As she will know, in 2010 the backlog that we inherited in the Crown courts was 48,000. It was reduced to 40,000 by 2019, but we recognise that it is a lot higher now. The change? A pandemic. She rightly referred to significant increases in the remand population.”
House of Commons17 October 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗