Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
The Government have taken a dual approach to tackling serious violence, combining tough enforcement with programmes steering people away from crime. Since 2019, we have invested £170 million in the areas most affected by violence to boost the police response, and we have invested a further £170 million in developing violence reduction units to tackle the root causes of violent crime. These programmes together have been assessed as preventing 49,000 violent offences in their first two years.
Chris Philp
I completely agree with my hon. Friend; the Knife Angel and other organisations do fantastic work, and I strongly commend them. It is exactly that kind of initiative that some of the funding streams I mentioned earlier are designed to support.
Alex Cunningham
A couple of weeks ago, I watched film from a security camera in Stockton showing two men; one used a chainsaw to cut through the door of a house while the other set about smashing all the windows in a bid to get to the resident. Who knows what would have happened if they had got in? That is another example of terrifying attacks by dangerous, organised criminals determined to silence our communities as they fight to control their illegal drug businesses on Teesside. The Government love to spin a story about police recruitment, but will Cleveland police ever get back the hundreds of police officers cut since 2010 and the resources needed to protect our communities and catch these criminals?
Chris Philp
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that the kind of crime he describes is despicable and that those who commit it should be pursued, prosecuted and imprisoned. I met the excellent police and crime commissioner for Cleveland, Steve Turner, just a short time ago—
Chris Philp
I also met the chief constable, Mark Webster, just a week ago. The hon. Gentleman mentions resources, and of course Cleveland this year is receiving an extra £7.8 million compared with what it received last year and it has been allocated 239 extra officers as part of the police uplift programme, 197 of whom are already in post.
Western Jet Foil and Manston Asylum Processing Centres
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Suella Braverman
As I said, Albania is a signatory to the European convention on action against trafficking in human beings. That is the originating international convention, which underlines our modern slavery laws. There is absolutely no reason in law why an Albanian national cannot claim modern slavery protection in Albania.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I do not think that it was unkind of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) to remind the Home Secretary that the system that she has rubbished time and again today is a product of 12 years of Tory Government.
Staff who are employed at Manston are extremely anxious about their responsibilities and roles and how law-breaking decisions affect them. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that staff will remain free from personal liability for any illegal decisions taken by others, including Ministers, about extended detention?
Suella Braverman
I am very proud of this Government’s track record on helping some of the most vulnerable people come to this country from some of the most dangerous parts of the world. Fifty-five thousand visas have been issued under the Ukraine family scheme and there have been 138,000 Ukrainian sponsorship scheme visas. Fifteen thousand individuals were evacuated from Afghanistan under Operation Pitting and 5,000 people have arrived in the year since, and 20,000 people will be resettled under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. That is a record of which I am proud.
Remote Observation and Recording (Courts and Tribunals) Regulations 2022
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Davies, and I will not detain the Committee long. What a Committee it is, littered with former Ministers who will doubtless demonstrate their considerable expertise. In fact, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) has already done so, asking some searching questions of the Minister.
I welcome the Minister to her role. We have been on a couple of Bill Committees together, and I serve notice that I have seen off two of her predecessors, and we politicians just love a hat trick. I do wish her well, though, and she has picked up probably the heaviest bag in the Ministry of Justice with the ongoing crisis in the courts. When she responds to my comments, can she give us a little insight into how she will drive the change needed to deliver timely justice for victims and defendants and secure the much-needed resources to do so?
In fact, as I believe this is the Minister’s first parliamentary engagement in her new role, I am sure we would all welcome a serious commitment from her to supporting all victims of crime. There has been some serious reservation and concern among parliamentarians at her elevation to this role, given her alleged handling of the assault claims against the former Tory deputy Chief Whip. It has been reported that the Minister asked one of the victims in the aftermath of the assault whether or not he was gay, as if that would have some bearing on the relevant accountability processes that followed.
Alex Cunningham
I accept what you say, Mr Davies; I was just hoping to seek a commitment from the Minister that she will give full support to LGBT+ victims and perhaps apologise for how she dealt with matters previously, but I will move on to the statutory instrument before us today.
Given some of the recent legislation to restrict people in so many ways, it is good to work on something that is positive. The Minister will be pleased to know that Labour supports these provisions, which as she outlined will replace and extend the temporary emergency provisions included in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which allows for certain proceedings to be observed remotely and recorded. Labour firmly believes in the principle of open justice and that the public should have a right to witness proceedings taking place, unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so. However, legal proceedings often cover sensitive and painful topics, and attending court or tribunal can be a difficult experience. For that reason, decisions regarding which types of proceedings should be broadcast should not be taken lightly. These provisions are still novel to our justice system, so it is important that they are monitored and assessed to ensure they have no adverse impact on the privacy of court users and wider justice outcomes.
During the Committee sittings of the Bill that gave birth to these provisions, I expressed concerns about the decision-making process for determining what can and cannot be open for recording and broadcast. I moved an amendment to seek some expert input into that decision-making process, suggesting that the regulations should not be introduced before discussion with the existing senior data governance panel, the SDGP. It was useful when the former Minister before last, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) outlined how it would all work and what he saw as protections. He said:
“It is important to stress that at all times the judge retains control of the proceedings and it is ultimately for the judge in any particular hearing or trial to decide what is appropriate. Nothing in the provisions fetters that important judicial discretion and safeguard over the management of any individual hearing or proceeding.”
The Minister has reiterated some of those comments today.
Later in the Committee, in response to an amendment, the then Minister acknowledged the need for wider consultation when decisions are made in this area:
“Of course, in the formulation of regulations of this nature, informal consultation will take place with a number of bodies, including the SDGP, the judiciary, court practitioners, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and other interested parties.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 17 June 2021; c. 629-630.]
I therefore ask the Minister what informal or other consultation took place with the various organisations outlined by her former colleague before the draft regulations came before the Committee today? Is she satisfied that the pledge made by the previous Minister during the Bill Committee has been delivered and that the regulations are as robust as they need to be? Will she also confirm that she is personally satisfied that all the necessary protections are in place, and that witnesses and victims in particular will not suffer additional anxiety nor fear as a result of the regulations?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South talked about that, and the Minister talked about extra funding being made available. I would like to understand what that extra funding is, and how much money is being brought to the table.
Finally—others have raised this issue as well—will the Minister tell me what measures she plans to put in place to monitor the practical outcomes from the draft regulations and whether she will report to Parliament on their operation? As I said at the outset, we do not oppose the regulations—we see them as a step towards more open justice—but I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Miss Dines
As I mentioned earlier, under section 199 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, it is an offence punishable by a fine of £1,000 and up to two years in prison if found to be a contempt. That is a high level of punishment for any unexpected forward transmission, which would be against the law. The courts take this extremely seriously. The hon. Member will probably recall from newspapers and the media that contempt of court has been dealt with extremely seriously by judges. I have no doubt that this would be dealt with in the same way. I emphasise that the measure is to create more open justice, but in a safe way, where there has been proper evaluation.
Alex Cunningham
May I invite the Minister to address the question about whether or what consultations took place with the various organisations outlined by her predecessor?
Miss Dines
I do not have chapter and verse on the consultations, but I am advised that there have been substantive consultation, including at a very high level. The judiciary and the chairmen of tribunals have been very much involved. We have seen from how things worked during coronavirus, it is possible and appropriate to police the arrangements as set out in the draft regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Miners Strike 1984-85: UK-wide Inquiry
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I am sorry for my dodgy voice; excuse me occasionally if I have to drink.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing this debate. He spoke powerfully to the experience of miners and their communities throughout the strikes, and of how the Scottish review has helped to begin to heal some decades-old wounds. He referred to bowling green bevvies among police and miners; sadly they are no more, and I do not think it is a legacy any of them would have wanted.
I pay tribute to the Orgreave Truth and Justice campaign and all those who have campaigned to shine a light on the policing of the 1984-85 strike. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) spoke of the police charges, but she also spoke of her pride in her dad. It is lovely to hear people talk about pride in their dads. My dad is nearly 91, and his dad worked in the mines, so I also have that legacy—it helped to shape me as well.
Labour has long supported calls for a full and independent public inquiry into the matter, and particularly into the events at the Orgreave coking plant on 18 June 1984. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) spoke of the horrors of what happened there. As I have indicated, I grew up in a mining community with a proud family heritage in the industry, so I understand the impact of the Government’s handling of the strikes on miners and their families and communities. It is an impact that endures to this day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) spoke openly and honestly about his own history, but also spoke about those hard-working individuals in the mines who were criminalised during the strike. He also spoke of his continuing pride in his colleagues.
In 2015, and for most of 2016, it looked as though the Government were moving in the right direction on the issue. Following the findings of the Independent Police Complaints Commission scoping exercise in June 2015, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), then Home Secretary, invited submissions for why a public inquiry was needed. In September 2016, a meeting took place with the subsequent Home Secretary, the former Member for Hastings and Rye, at which the potential format of an inquiry or investigation was discussed.
Many across the House were understandably confused and deeply disappointed when, only a couple of months later in October 2016, the then Home Secretary confirmed, in response to a parliamentary question, that no inquiry of any kind would take place. There was great sadness on that day. Will the Minister confirm that that was not for the reasons raised in Sasha Swire’s book—that an inquiry into Orgreave would
“slur the memory of Thatcher and the…party won’t like it”?
If that was true, it would be disgraceful. That said, even the official reasons given by the former Member for Hastings and Rye are extremely thin.
It is important that we address the wrongdoings of the past—not just for Orgreave, but across the whole country. Just because no one died as a result of the state’s handling of the strikes does not mean there are not valuable lessons to be learned from examining them. This morning, I spoke to Chris Pearce from the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, who reminded me that time is of the essence. Many of the miners affected have already died; others are elderly, but still hope for a fair hearing.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
We all have history on this. As a youngster, I was the deputy head of the social insurance department at the National Union of Mineworkers, managing the mineworkers’ pension scheme. As my hon. Friend says, many of the miners are now elderly. They, or their widows, are pensioners. There could be an act of good will by the Government on this matter by their implementing the recommendations of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee on the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The elderly mineworkers and their widows could then have a greater share of the pension scheme that they funded throughout their lives.
Alex Cunningham
My right hon. Friend makes the point clearly and concisely: action needs to be taken. It is about not just the miners who have died, but their families who follow them.
As has been outlined in this debate, a number of developments have occurred since 2016. Home Office files from ’84 and ’85 have been released to the National Archives. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has disclosed the existence and location of files from the Association of Chief Police Officers relating to Orgreave and the miners strike, which I understand were actually embargoed until 2066. I will be 111 in 2066, if I live that long. New evidence has come to light as a result of the ongoing undercover police inquiry, to which others have referred, in which the National Union of Mineworkers is a core participant. I hope the Minister gives each of those developments full and proper consideration.
Perhaps more significant is the trigger for this debate: the findings of the Scottish miners review. I wonder if seeing the support from MSP colleagues for the Scottish review and its outcome will encourage the Minister, Conservative MPs and the rest of the UK to reconsider their position. I certainly hope it will. Over the past six years, however, the Government have continually rejected calls for an inquiry. In November 2021, the Minister present said that such an inquiry:
“is not in the wider public interest or required for any other reason.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2021; Vol. 704, c. 2P.]
Opposition Members completely disagree. We believe that it is only by properly investigating those events that we can secure the justice that has long evaded all those affected.
In the words of the former Conservative Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, in her speech to the Police Federation annual conference in 2016, we must all understand
“the need to face up to the past and right the wrongs that continue to jeopardise the work of police officers today. Because historical inquiries are not archaeological excavations. They are not purely exercises in truth and reconciliation…they are about ensuring justice is done…We must never underestimate how the poison of decades-old misdeeds seeps down through the years and is just as toxic today as it was then. That’s why difficult truths, however unpalatable they may be, must be confronted head on.”
No matter how long it takes, justice must be done and be seen to be done. The Labour party does not turn a blind eye to and shrug off historic injustices; from the quote I have just read from the former Home Secretary and Prime Minister, we can see that there was once a time that the Conservative party did not, either.
Instead of heeding the lessons of historic heavy policing, the Home Office is presiding over draconian changes in protest legislation, some of which came into force just yesterday, and expanding police powers for protest disproportionately through the Public Order Bill. The deplorable actions of this Home Office show more than ever why learning the lessons of the past through inquiries such as the one we are discussing is the necessary work of good government. I hope the Minister will do the right thing and order the inquiry without further delay.
Public Order Bill (Fifth sitting)
Alex Cunningham ExcerptsThursday 16th June 2022
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 June 2022 - (16 Jun 2022)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will recollect that when she and I worked on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, many issues were raised about the disproportionate effect that that legislation would have on young black people. The same applies here. What comments would she make about how, yet again, we will see a disproportionate effect on people of ethnic minorities?
Sarah Jones
As always, my hon. Friend makes a good point. I will come on to talk about that in my later remarks.
Lord Kennedy, in the Lords, said:
“the Government are mirroring laws that currently exist for serious violence and knife crime.”
He went on to say that
“these measures apply to peaceful protesters, not people carrying knives or causing violence.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 November 2021; Vol. 816, c. 992-993.]
Matt Parr, Her Majesty’s inspector, said that current suspicionless stop and search powers
“are intended to be used by the police to combat serious violence and the carriage of ‘dangerous instruments or offensive weapons’. Using a similar suspicion-less power to target peaceful protesters, who may cause serious (but non-violent) disruption, is a significantly different proposition. Given the potential ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of assembly and expression in terms of discouraging people from attending protests where they may be stopped and searched, we would expect any new suspicion-less powers to be subject to very careful scrutiny by the courts.”
In the same document, it was said that
“police officers highlighted operational difficulties in the targeted use of the power. Others were also concerned over the proportionality of any search as well as the potentially intrusive nature when looking for small items.
One officer reflected that the proposal had ‘complications’ – for instance, whether an otherwise innocuous items was really intended to be used to lock-on. He said that having a tube of superglue in your pocket, or chain and padlock that you intend to use to lock your bike, ‘doesn’t prove intent and presents difficulties’.”
Public Order Bill (Third sitting)
Alex Cunningham ExcerptsTuesday 14th June 2022
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 June 2022 - (14 Jun 2022)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Amendments 29, 46 and 30 target clause 1, which introduces a new offence of locking on. Locking on is an extremely disruptive and often dangerous tactic that can place both protesters and police at extreme risk. It is unacceptable that protesters can use bike locks, glue and an imaginative range of other equipment to inflict disruption on businesses and the public, and the testimony we heard in the oral evidence sessions highlights the need for the Government to act.
Amendment 29 would raise the threshold of the offence by requiring a person’s lock-on to have caused, rather than be capable of causing, serious disruption before they were liable for the offence. That would not account for situations where, for example, a person locks on with intent to cause serious disruption but is quickly removed by the police before serious disruption can be inflicted. If there is to be a deterrent effect, it is important that those who commit acts that could cause serious disruption face appropriate penalties. I do not see the value of accepting the amendment.
Amendment 46 would inadvertently lower the threshold for serious disruption; it would remove the statement that serious disruption is caused by a lock-on only if the disruption applies to two or more individuals or the activities of an organisation. It is entirely reasonable to assume that if someone commits a lock-on that causes serious disruption to one or more person, they may be arrested and charged with the offence. I am not sure the hon. Member had the intention of lowering the threshold of application of this clause.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am looking at subsection (2) which says:
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for the act mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection.”
Will the Minister please explain what is meant by that, and who might be caught by the Act? Who would actually have a reasonable excuse? Can he give us an example?
Kit Malthouse
The notion of reasonable excuse is well defined in our common law and is adjudged by courts daily, particularly in protest situations. We have seen that over the last few months. Although I assume that the hon. Gentleman seeks some precision in definition, “reasonable excuse” is for the courts to define, and they do so regularly.
Amendment 30 would raise the threshold for the offence of locking on by requiring individuals to have intended their lock-on to cause disruption, rather than having been reckless about that. Recklessness is, however, also a very well understood term in criminal law, and it applies to numerous criminal offences. I do not see the value in removing it from this clause, not least because, as I am sure the hon. Member for North East Fife knows, it is a well-known term in Scottish law and is often used in Scottish courts to adjudge an offence. For the reasons I have set out, I ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.
Sarah Jones
The point is that the offence would not be a deterrent, given that there are plenty of other things that people are charged with, and imprisoned and fined for. It would not be a deterrent to those difficult people who come back time and again, as they can already be arrested, charged and sent to prison for a multitude of existing offences.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend is correct. I was surprised to hear the Minister say, “It’s okay: we can already charge these people. There are plenty of offences that they can be charged with and fined for.” Why the new legislation, then? I do not quite understand the Minister.
Sarah Jones
I absolutely agree. In addition—this is most peculiar—a whole raft of legislation on protest has been passed by this House but not yet implemented. We are layering legislation on top of a whole raft of legislation that has passed but not yet implemented, before we even know whether the previous legislation has worked.
Amendment 46 aims to amend clause 1 so that it actually deals with the scale of the disruption that our witnesses were concerned with. In doing so, it will also address the concerns of the public. I do not think that the public are much interested in protests that cause disruption to just two people. That is not so egregious, and certainly not egregious enough to risk seriously harming the right to protest. The National Police Chiefs’ Council agrees; it states in its written evidence that:
“we believe using the definition of ‘serious disruption to the community’ may be preferable to ‘two or more people, or an organisation’, as the former is more widely understood and will allow more effective application consistent with human rights legislation.”
Amendment 30, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife, would
“limit the new offence to ensure that there must be intent to cause serious disruption.”
As I have mentioned, one of our key concerns with this clause is how widely drawn it is. With such broad wording, it is fair to ask the police to determine whether there is genuine intent to cause serious disruption. As has been pointed out by Liberty and other organisations, the Bill already carries the danger of criminalising peaceful protest, and has the potential to sweep up many peaceful protesters. Recklessness is not a good measure in the law. How should the police try to prove that an individual has been particularly reckless? Recklessness is not a good measure in the law. Can the Minister say what “recklessness” is? Is it defined by a lack or an abundance of action? What would his definition be?
Kit Malthouse
That is just nonsense. The hon. Lady will not address the issue of disruption or reasonable excuse. I am sure the police are able to determine and the courts will interpret what is designed in this legislation. She has said rightly that the people we are talking about should go to prison. She said they are committing crimes. The only dispute between the two sides of the Committee is what offence they should be charged with, which is what we seek to provide.
Opposition Members have sought clarity and precision. We have seen that those who are arrested and charged in these circumstances are charged with a range of offences—obstruction of the highway, aggravated trespass, which the hon. Lady referred to, and criminal damage and public nuisance, depending on where the offence occurred and the circumstances. Unfortunately, we have seen situations where, on technicalities, a lack of precision in our ability to deal with the offence has meant that people have got off. For example—
Kit Malthouse
As the hon. Gentleman will know, there were protesters who locked on to a printing press in Knowsley in Liverpool. They were charged with aggravated trespass, but avoided conviction because the prosecution was unable to prove where the boundary was between the private and the public land. We are trying to provide precision in that offence area, and that is what this part of the legislation does. Aside from the disruption and anger that they cause, lock ons also waste considerable amounts of police resource and time, with specialist teams often required to attend protest sites to safely remove those who have locked on.
The hon. Member for Croydon Central seems to imply that we should have at-height removal teams on stand-by in all parts of the country 24 hours a day, but it is not realistic for British policing to do that. Some lock ons, particularly those that occur at height, place both the police and protesters at serious risk of injury and even death. For example, protesters at HS2 sites have deployed bamboo structures, necessitating the deployment of specialist teams who are trained to remove them at height at considerable risk to themselves and the protesters they are removing. That is why the Metropolitan Police have asked us to provide them with more powers to tackle that kind of reckless behaviour, and the Government have now responded.
Kit Malthouse
Just a minute.
The clause creates a new offence of locking on that will be committed when an individual causes serious disruption by attaching either themselves or someone else to another individual, an object or to land, or attaching an object to another object or land. Their act must cause or be capable of causing serious disruption to an organisation or two or more individuals, and the person intends or is reckless as to that consequence. The offence carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine.
Referring only to the act of locking on rather than to the equipment used recognises that protesters deploy a wide range of equipment to lock on, from chains and bike locks to bespoke devices, and ensures that the offence will keep pace with evolving lock-on tactics. The offence can be committed on either public or private land, and that ensures that those who use that tactic in, say, an oil refinery do not evade arrest and prosecution for the offence. Furthermore, new stop and search powers that we will consider shortly will allow the police to take proactive action to prevent locking on in the first place, by seizing items that they believe will be used by protesters to lock on.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister has just referred to oil refineries and private space. Chris Noble said in his evidence
“If we moved more into a private space than currently, we would see that as potentially being incredibly significant for money and opportunity lost in terms of policing communities. Those abstractions would probably quite fundamentally change my local model of policing, in terms of being able to maintain that.”––[Official Report, Public Order Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2022; c. 13, Q17.]
Does the Minister accept that he is putting greater pressure on the police, and certainly on their resources?
Kit Malthouse
As I said earlier, I do not accept that because if we get the cocktail of deterrent correct, and get those protesters—
Kit Malthouse
He has to see all the clauses in the round. If we get those protesters to think twice about their actions, we hope that they will desist—
Kit Malthouse
Or at least they will be incarcerated, such that they will not be able to continue with their protests.
Public Order Bill (Fourth sitting)
Alex Cunningham ExcerptsTuesday 14th June 2022
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 June 2022 - (14 Jun 2022)
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am extremely concerned about the unintended consequences that will result from the introduction not just of this clause but of the other provisions as more and more people are criminalised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central said. We have already heard from police chief Chris Noble about the additional stresses the Bill’s contents will have on the police service and the difficulty the police may well have in interpreting which action they can take in which circumstances.
As the Government strive to build up the number of officers, and to replace at least some of those whom consecutive Governments have got rid of, we can expect more arrests, more charges, and perhaps even more convictions, and there will be a knock-on effect on our prisons. I have another interest, alongside that of improving public protection: my nephew Lewis Cunningham, who lives in Beverley, starts his police training in September. I am sure that colleagues across the House will join me in wishing him well. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank them for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central has outlined in great detail the flaws in the clause and in the rest of the Bill. There will be another major knock-on effect of the Government’s measures, which will potentially criminalise thousands of people: the measures will affect our courts, which still have dire backlogs. The most recent statistics from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services reveal that the Crown court backlog remains great, and despite various measures having been put in place—they range from extra sitting days to Nightingale courts—it will take years to get the backlog down to a reasonable and manageable level. In the autumn Budget statement, the Treasury claimed that the backlog was caused by the coronavirus pandemic. That is completely false.
The Chair
Order. I appreciate that this is an important matter, but I must ask the Member to stick to the clause, which is on the obstruction of major transport works.
Alex Cunningham
I accept the reprimand, Mr Dowd, but I wanted to emphasise that the Bill has unintended consequences. It will have a knock-on effect on the number of arrests made, the number of police available, the number of court days required, and the number of officers called to court. Those are all consequences of this legislation, which I submit is totally unnecessary, and will criminalise many people. The crisis in the justice system could have been avoided, but this legislation may add to the problem. I am skipping over some of the stuff in my notes that relates directly to courts.
The Chancellor talked about providing more police officers; the same 20,000 were promised years ago, many of whom remain to be recruited. If that promise is fulfilled and more people are brought to justice—I keep saying this—it will mean more officers in court, more arrests, and more stress on the system. The Government need to account for that. We have seen some changes. There have been supportive comments from some people in the justice system, but the bottom line is that the impact on the courts will be tremendous. A National Audit Office report says,
“The Ministry has removed the limit on the number of Crown Court sitting days, but their use relies on courts having enough physical and judicial capacity.”
That capacity does not exist.
The Chair
Order. I appreciate the wider ramifications of the issue, but I must exhort the Member to focus his attention on the clause.
Alex Cunningham
I recognise that, Mr Dowd, but the whole system is in crisis, and the point that I am trying to get across is that the Government have not properly addressed the Bill’s impact on the entire justice system. We cannot look at these measures in isolation; we have to look at their effect across the whole system. The measures could needlessly criminalise hundreds, if not thousands, of people, so we have to consider their knock-on effects.
The crisis in the system means that justice can often be denied, even to those impacted by protesters or those locking on. Those affected deserve justice; unfortunately, it will have to come in the longer term, given the breakdown in the system.
I was going to quote former Member Anna Soubry on the problems that she had in court, but I will not. The Government must look at these measures in the round, rather than in isolation. Resources will need to be available across the piece, and there is no provision in this clause, or any other clause, to ensure that the entire system operates effectively. The time for action is well past. I submit to the Minister that instead of messing around with clauses as simple as this one, the Government should start tackling the crisis in policing, the rise in violent crime, the epidemic in antisocial behaviour and the massive courts backlog.
Kit Malthouse
I think we can take from that that the hon. Gentleman is voting against the clause. As the hon. Member for Croydon Central says, the clause creates a new offence of obstructing major transport works. We heard in strong evidence from the police, High Speed 2 and others why the offence is needed, and why the offence should ensure that all stages of construction and maintenance are protected from disruptive action, including necessary steps prior to construction, such as ecological surveys, and why the offence should also cover the removal of, or interference with, apparatus needed for construction.
I reassure the hon. Lady that “apparatus” is a usual term in legal circles; any strict definition in the Bill might result in the Bill not being future-proof, or in its being too definitive in a way that protesters could find a way around. I am sure that it will not be beyond the wit of courts to interpret what “apparatus” means. When they do, anyone found guilty of the offence will face a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.
As with other offences in the Bill, we have provided a reasonable excuse defence. In reference to something the hon. Lady said earlier, there is a defence for trade disputes, so those on strike will have a defence against this kind of offence. As she pointed out, “major transport works” are defined as works that have either been authorised by an Act of Parliament, such as HS2, or by a development consent order under section 114 of the Planning Act 2008, such as the Silvertown tunnel. The definition ensures that transport works of strategic importance in England and Wales are protected.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of human rights. That is a common issue that courts have to address when looking at offences committed by all sorts of people in all sorts of circumstances, and it is something we are used to. I confess that I am confused by the hon. Lady’s position. She is encouraging and supportive of national injunctions, which carry unlimited fines and prison terms that depend on the views of the judge at the time. They also provide less protection for the accused, as judges generally require a lower burden of proof in deciding whether the case is proven. Of course, we heard strong evidence last week that injunctions are cumbersome, long-winded, expensive for people to put in place and unpredictable in their efficacy.
Public Order Bill
Alex Cunningham ExcerptsMonday 23rd May 2022
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
This is the first Bill of the Queen’s Speech and it is stark proof that the Government are out of steam and out of ideas. It is a sad day for democracy, as was best illustrated by some of the contributions that we heard from the Government Benches. Instead of the ambitious reforms that our country needs and deserves at a time when the cost of living is spiralling out of control for many of our constituents, the Government have served up these reheated proposals that contribute little, if anything, to the law. We on Teesside do not have a problem with protests, but we do have a huge problem with the massive increase in violent crime and antisocial behaviour. We also have a big problem with health inequalities and the fact that unemployment in our area remains over 30% higher than the national average. Dissatisfied by her attacks on our historical right to peacefully protest in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which has yet to come into force, the Home Secretary is trying to have a second bite of the cherry. However, if she thinks it is so important to restrict protests, why has she not introduced any of the statutory instruments to implement the measures in the Act before bringing forward yet another Bill this year? The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) also questioned that. It is just more evidence that she is more interested in headlines than real practical policies.
We on these Benches believe that the vital infrastructure and services on which we all rely must be protected from serious disruption and that protests must not put others at risk, but the police and courts already have powers to deal with such dangerous and disruptive protests, including the use of injunctions and existing criminal offences such as the obstruction of a highway and criminal damage, among others. It is worth noting that these existing powers have already been used to arrest people and to prosecute cases of obstructing infrastructure and locking on during the Insulate Britain blockade of the M25 and the Just Stop Oil blockade of Kingsbury refinery.
This Bill’s assortment of new offences will do nothing to actually safeguard vital national infrastructure and ensure that it is protected from serious disruption, and we know that the most effective measures for preventing such disruption already exist, and that is with injunctions. We do, however, recognise that there can be a real problem with delays in seeking injunctions, and a lack of preparation, planning and co-ordination between different private and public authorities. So why is the Home Secretary not focusing on this issue, and including provisions for co-operation between the police and public and private authorities to improve resilience and prevent serious disruption? That is what we would do.
We have already heard the Home Secretary blow and bluster at the Dispatch Box after the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act was passed, deploying all manner of dodgy statements about the Opposition’s approach to law and order. She could have had our full co-operation with that Bill—there were some very good proposals in it—but she chose to play silly political games by introducing other measures that served to shackle our people and diminish their rights. She knew all too well the game she was playing, but so did the public, who recognise that the Tory Government, rather than getting on with fixing crime, prefer to muck about with the rights to protest.
This new Bill introduces powers that are far too widely drawn and that could criminalise protesters and even passers-by. All of us who work here will have seen many enthusiastic protests outside in Parliament Square. It is what we expect while working in this the seat of democracy. Many of us, more likely those on this side, have enjoyed many a protest. My favourite goes back 50 years to when students were demanding a better deal from Ted Heath’s Government. It was very noisy, but very successful. The morning chant was simple: “Heath out, Heath out!” No one was more surprised than me when the chant changed later to “Heath’s out, Heath’s out!” because that was the day he called the general election.
If Parliament Square were designated as an area for suspicionless stop and search, which the Bill introduces, could Members of Parliament and our staff coming to work on the estate be stopped and searched by police? It seems far-fetched, but that may be a logical conclusion of the measures in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister shared his thoughts on his staff potentially being caught by these measures as they head into the office. As Justice has said, this Bill will
“criminalise a breathtakingly wide range of peaceful behaviour”.
As well as rapid injunctions to protect infrastructure against serious disruption, we would create a fast-track buffer zone outside schools and vaccine clinics to protect children and those accessing medical care from dangerous anti-vaxxers. What we have opposed and will continue to oppose is the criminalisation of peaceful protesters and passers-by. The Home Secretary has said this Bill is necessary to prevent “mob rule”, but would she call those protesting against the Russian invasion of Ukraine a mob? Is that the term she would use to describe the thousands of women who have gathered together for vigils to demand action on violence against women and girls? It is gatherings such as those on which her Bill will impact, not just potentially dangerous and disruptive ones. Why introduce a new offence of locking on when it is effectively covered by existing offences such as criminal damage, public nuisance and obstructing a road? Why introduce SDPOs when the Home Office’s own response was initially to reject them on the grounds that they would stop individuals exercising their right to protest?
It is time for the Home Secretary to stop playing petty political games, and time for the Government to stop wasting legislative time on the Home Secretary’s hunt for headlines and to bring forward legislation that will actually address the many issues facing our constituents.
Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Anderson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, as he makes a perfect point. Not only is it a great deterrent, but the longer those people are locked up in prison, the longer they cannot commit these horrible crimes.
As I was saying, the hon. Member for St Helens North made some great comments about food banks. My invitation is to every Opposition Member: come to Ashfield, work with me for a day in my local food bank and see the brilliant scheme we have in place. When people come for a food parcel now, they have to register for a budgeting course and a cooking course. We show them how to cook cheap and nutritious meals on a budget; we can make a meal for about 30p a day, and this is cooking from scratch.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Can the hon. Gentleman answer a simple question for me: should it be necessary to have food banks in 21st century Britain?
Lee Anderson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, as he makes a great point. Indeed, it is exactly my point, so I invite him personally to come to Ashfield to look at how our food bank works. He will see at first hand that there is not this massive use for food banks in this country. We have generation after generation who cannot cook properly—they cannot cook a meal from scratch—and they cannot budget. The challenge is there. I make that offer to anybody. Opposition Members are sitting there with glazed expressions on their faces, looking at me as though I have landed from a different planet. They should come to Ashfield, next week or the week after, and come to a real food bank that is making a real difference to people’s lives.
I will end now, because Opposition Members are not listening; these are a generation of MPs who never listen. The bad news is that this Labour party is out of control and out of touch, but , thankfully, it is out of power. That is me done, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, an unusual pleasure, for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick). Perhaps the Government have not been able to muster enough MPs to speak in support of their legislative programme and defend it—perhaps because it is impossible to defend.
The problems our constituents face are grave and numerous: a snowballing cost of living crisis, stagnated growth, energy bills soaring by 54%, inflation at a 30-year high, the tax burden at a 50-year high, record-length NHS waiting lists and criminal prosecutions at an all-time low. The logbook of Tory failures grows more comprehensive by the day.
Our inboxes are full of correspondence from people who are struggling to make ends meet. There are schoolchildren who have to go hungry in the holidays and pensioners who are forced to choose between heating and eating—the same pensioners who suffered yet another of the Government’s broken promises when they ditched the pledge to maintain the triple lock on pensions. More than 2 million adults across the UK have gone without food for a whole day over the past month because they simply cannot afford to eat. It is a national scandal that brings shame on the Government.
Professor Sir Michael Marmot, a public health expert at University College London, said it best:
“If one household in seven is food insecure, society is failing in a fundamental way. These figures on food insecurity are all the more chilling because the problem is solvable. But, far from being solved, it is getting worse.”
In a Queen’s Speech with 38 Bills, there was nothing that would help to address the worsening cost of living crisis. In the face of the obvious need for ambitious reform and support, the Government have offered nothing in response.
It is no wonder that our regional newspaper, The Northern Echo, ran the headline today, “Have they run out of ideas?” The answer is an overwhelming, “Yes, they have,” and the people of Hartlepool agree. Last week, they cast 8,316 votes for the Labour party and 6,487 for the Government’s party. The Government have even dropped plans for the employment Bill that was promised in the last Queen’s Speech. That means that at a time when everyone is straining to make their pay packet go further and they need their wages to be protected, the Government have rolled over at the feet of the likes of P&O Ferries and others who fire and rehire at will, screwing down wages and treating loyal workers like dirt. Of course, there is nothing about slave labour in the Bills either.
The Queen’s Speech lacked any of the real substance needed to address the challenges that the UK faces. Sadly, we know that that deficiency of leadership in Government will hit low-income families hardest. Regions such as mine, where income levels are the lowest in the country and poverty rates are among the highest, will bear the brunt of the crisis.
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—he of the funny voices on television this morning—even admitted in the media over the weekend that the Government-created cost of living crisis will further entrench the existing inequalities across our regions. In some ways, that is no surprise. We know from experience that inequalities widen when the Conservatives are in power. By their own admission, their economic mismanagement has now made it more difficult to achieve their flagship policy of levelling up.
As we have long suspected, the Government’s apparent commitment to supporting growth in our regions is nothing more than bluster and electioneering, and they completely lack the ambition and will to do so. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill in the Queen’s Speech is inexplicably thin. With so much inequality ripe to be addressed, it is ridiculous that getting the funding needed is a lottery for local authorities.
In the place of bold reforms, we have a centralised pot of money, controlled by Whitehall. Overworked councils that are trying to provide services to the communities that the Government left behind have to bid against one another for scraps. Even when they have a demonstrable need, they may still fail, as Billingham in my constituency did, and all the while, leafy suburbs nearby were somehow successful in their bids. Perhaps the Queen’s Speech should have had a Bill compelling the Government to be fair to all our communities.
The Secretary of State said that the Government would employ levelling-up directors to help councils to write their bids—so the Government will use taxpayer money to employ people to help places that the Government have disproportionately cut funding from to bid for pots of money that the Government control. Why do they insist on making areas that have been left behind by their failed policies jump through ridiculous hoops just to access basic pots of funding?
However, the scandal of growing poverty is what is really on my mind. I agree completely with the director of the North East Child Poverty Commission, Amanda Bailey, who said yesterday:
“We all want a North East in which every child can thrive and fulfil their potential—including through education—but they cannot do that whilst already high levels of hardship continue to grow.”
Through their failure to take decisive action, the Government are removing opportunities from children and young people in my constituency. As the Child Poverty Action Group said:
“This is a legislative agenda that risks leaving increased levels of child poverty—currently at almost 4 million and expected to rise further—as its only real legacy.”
The failure to deliver levelling up can also be seen in our struggling town centres. I will be interested to see the detail of the Government’s non-domestic rating Bill, but from the little information available, I am concerned that it will not provide the overhaul that is needed. I urge the Government instead to look at Labour’s ambitious plans to scrap and replace the outdated business rates system that disincentivises investment and holds back growth. Labour would also immediately cut tax for small business by raising the threshold for small business rate relief, supporting cash flow and investment this year.
It is time that we made the Amazons of this world pay their fair share, too. Huge online companies have thrived throughout the pandemic, and it is important that their tax burden appropriately reflects that. It is not fair that high street businesses are taxed more heavily than online giants. It is high time the Government levelled the playing field and brought business taxation into the 21st century.
Central to the rise in the cost of living is the increase in energy prices. It affects domestic consumers all over the country, but it is also felt tremendously by industries, particularly energy-intensive industries such as those in my constituency. There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech to support them, despite many months of dire warnings to the Government that some will simply no longer be able to produce their materials competitively in the UK. The job market in constituencies such as mine relies on the sector. Once again, it is my constituents who will be the hardest hit if the Government do not get a grip on the issue. Production lines across the country are dependent on the industries continuing to function, as was dramatically shown in the carbon dioxide crisis last year. If the Government were serious about keeping down prices for consumer goods for our constituents who are struggling with rising prices, they would have provided comprehensive support for those industries.
Another area in which the Queen’s Speech is completely lacking is health. The pandemic brutally exposed the cracks in our healthcare system, but the Government have done nothing to fix them. Instead, they have allowed them to yawn even wider, with gaping holes in provision. A record 6 million people are waiting for NHS treatment; they are waiting longer than ever before, often in serious pain and discomfort, limiting their ability to carry out their lives as normal.
I have said this in every Queen’s Speech and Budget debate since I was elected 12 years ago, and I call for it again: my constituents need a new hospital. To be clear, they need a proper, whole new hospital that will help my community to address the health inequalities that blight it—not a refurbishment or a single new wing added to an existing hospital, which is what the Government are currently counting among their hospital builds. They just try to fudge the numbers all the time.
This Queen’s Speech shows that Tory Ministers simply do not understand the enormity of the cost of living crisis that people on Teesside and across the country face. Instead of introducing measures to deal with rocketing food and energy costs, the Government are choosing to forge ahead with a tranche of half-baked and recycled ideas from previous Queen’s Speeches that they have failed to implement and, worse still, with unnecessary ideological Bills that will do nothing to help the people of this country.
Why are the Government ploughing ahead with a media Bill that will see Channel 4—a unique institution that is owned by the British public but costs them nothing—sold to a foreign bidder? All that demonstrates is that the Government are not serious about supporting British-made programming and our home-grown creative industries across the UK.
Another broken promise is action on conversion therapy. The Government promised a comprehensive ban, so why will their ban not cover trans people or consenting adults? It is now time to end that cruel practice for all, with no exceptions.
The transport Bill is yet more evidence of a Government who are out of touch with the country. Under the Tories, rail passengers are paying more but getting less in return. Fares have risen twice as fast as wages, but services have been slashed and our constituents are being priced out of rail travel. Constituencies such as mine do not even have proper infrastructure to support improved rail services for constituents, so how do they stand to benefit from the Bill? There is nothing to improve our dire bus services either.
At the same time, the Tory Mayor has poured tens of millions of pounds into Teesside International airport, which continues to lose money. Those losses may increase after Loganair ends flights to Heathrow and Southampton, as was announced yesterday. The Mayor has blamed Heathrow charges, but I met Heathrow airport this morning and I suspect that the decision has more to do with Loganair’s arrangements with the Mayor and the extremely low usage rates. I am determined to get to the bottom of it. Perhaps I might suggest to the Government a Bill to ensure full transparency where public money is being used. I think that that would be a very good idea.
We needed a Queen’s Speech that would tackle the cost of living crisis, with an emergency budget, including a windfall tax, to get money off people’s energy bills. Instead, we got the last scrapings of the barrel from a Government who have run out of ideas and are unable to tackle the challenges that our country is facing. They should make way for a party that will do so.
Draft Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2022
Alex Cunningham Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, I believe, Mr Dowd. I welcome you to the Chair and am pleased to advise you that I will not detain you for very long this morning.
The Minister mentioned the EU. Our divorce from our European partners two years ago was the saddest divorce of all for me. I know that we have to accept it and get on with it, but it is sad all the same.
As the Minister has explained, this statutory instrument makes a number of amendments to existing legislation that are consequential on the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which will come into effect this coming April. Labour very much welcomed that Act and supported its passage through Parliament. It introduces a common-sense approach to divorces and allows people to avoid unnecessary additional conflict and cost when dealing with divorces, while continuing to respect the institution of marriage and civil partnerships.
It will therefore be no surprise to the Minister that we support this statutory instrument, as we supported the Act itself. We are pleased by how the Act has modernised the language of divorce to introduce more accessible phrasing, some of which is used in this statutory instrument. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said on Second Reading:
“It is a reminder that the law must serve all people, not just those who are legally trained.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 107.]
I will, however, take this opportunity to press the Minister on a matter that was raised by the Opposition as the Bill passed through the Commons, regarding the provision of legal aid in these cases. He knows, as I do, that legal aid in all manner of legal proceedings has been decimated in recent years, and it is often the case that only those with the means can afford proper representation. While it is hoped that the system introduced by this Act will help to reduce the cost of divorces, the Minister will know that that cost can still be very high indeed. Without legal aid, the issue of access to divorce for those on low incomes is still very much a concern, and I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that matter and any proposals he might have to make life easier for those who have been unable to achieve the final separation needed.
The Minister will also be aware that there can be tremendous inequality in representation, where one partner may be controlling the finances and is able to access support and advice, leaving the other with no resources at all. I am sure he will agree that it is important that there is equality under the law in such circumstances, and that no one is placed at a disadvantage. I look forward to the Minister’s response.