Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Jarvis

Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Richard Bacon—not here.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

T3. Given the proximity to the local and general elections, can Ministers give an assurance that the joint election security preparedness unit has all the resources it needs to do the job?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Jarvis

Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner said last year that our policing and security services were technologically vulnerable because of their use of Chinese-made equipment, including CCTV, drones and body cameras. Can the Minister say whether the digital asbestos of Chinese-made technology is still used in our policing and security infrastructure—yes or no?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Jarvis

Thursday 26th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am not quite sure that answer was as linked as it should have been.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

The Government have said that every penny that would have been spent on HS2 will now be reinvested in local and regional transport infrastructure. To be clear, and so that South Yorkshire can get organised, may I ask the Minister to confirm that the city region sustainable transport settlements round 2 uplift for South Yorkshire will be £543 million, and that he will work with the Mayor and others to maximise the benefit of that investment?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Jarvis

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the shadow Minister, Dan Jarvis.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is good to be back, Mr Speaker. The number of people arriving on dangerous small boats is now 150 times higher than it was five years ago. Meanwhile, convictions of people smugglers are 30% down. Our border security is not working. The Home Office has already spent £140 million on a flawed Rwanda scheme, but would not taxpayers’ money be better spent recruiting hundreds more police and investigators to defeat the criminal gang networks and prevent the dangerous boat crossings?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Jarvis

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Have you got the rail ticket to visit, though?

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

The Minister and I have worked closely together supporting foreign and Commonwealth soldiers and veterans, so I wonder if he shares my concern about the case of Vilikesa Tubuitamana. He proudly served for 18 years, including two tours of Afghanistan and two tours of Iraq, but sadly his service resulted in severe PTSD. He was honourably discharged on medical grounds and awarded £46,000 to help fund his medical needs and a new life. Shockingly, however, it appears that the Ministry of Defence has used the money awarded for his PTSD to settle an administrative mix-up, leaving him—a father of three—penniless. Will the Minister have a look and see what can be done to support him?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Jarvis

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Do not forget that the Minister for Sport is a rugby league man. At least now he can do both codes.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

9. Whether she plans to implement the recommendations of the Fan-Led Review of Football Governance.

Ukraine: UK and NATO Military Commitment

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Jarvis

Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). May I thank him for doing the reading this morning?

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It was my pleasure, Mr Speaker.

Members across the House will have seen the recent assessment by the incoming Chief of the General Staff:

“There is now a burning imperative to forge an army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battle.”

With those words in mind, and further to the letter that the Secretary of State sent to the Chancellor back in March, is the Minister—who I know thinks about these things very carefully—absolutely certain that there is not a requirement to go back to the Treasury and secure additional resource to ensure that our armed forces are properly prepared and have the capabilities they need to respond to the threats that undoubtedly exist?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Jarvis

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Bell Ribeiro-Addy. She is not here.

[Dan Jarvis]

Mariupol has been described as a living hell by those who have been subject to the vicious bombardment in the city. What are the Government doing to get people who are under siege, including brave HALO Trust staff, rescued into some safety?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Jarvis

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

This is a very closed question—I am sure Barnsley must be linked somehow.

[Dan Jarvis]

As you and the House will know, Mr Speaker, flooding is of course a challenge right around the country. I am grateful for the Minister’s support today, and as she knows, tomorrow we are launching Connected by Water, which is a pioneering regional flooding strategy for South Yorkshire. It is the first of its kind and will protect thousands of businesses and homes, but as the Minister also knows, there is a bit more to do. Will she commit to working with us to secure the additional £76 million that we need to deliver it?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that is the worst connected question I’ve ever heard in this House. Perhaps the Minister wants to be generous and say very briefly how it could possibly be connected.

Covid-19 Restrictions: South Yorkshire

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Jarvis

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s head up to South Yorkshire, to visit the Mayor, no less—Dan Jarvis.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]]

As Mayor, I think that this is the right course of action for South Yorkshire. The financial support will provide some help for our people and our economy, but we all understand that it will also mean sacrifice. Families will be separated, workers will suffer, and businesses will face uncertainty, so we need the Minister and the Government to repay that sacrifice by working closely with us, with our local authorities and with our NHS. Together, we need to do everything we can to get a grip of this disease, so that our region can move out of these restrictions as soon as possible.

Public Health Restrictions: Government Economic Support

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Jarvis

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Especially when the Member does not want an answer, Minister! [Laughter.]

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]]

Without additional financial support, the restrictions to which South Yorkshire will be subject will deal a hammer blow to businesses and high streets across our region. Can I ask the Chief Secretary what assessment the Treasury has done on the economic effect of the tier 2 measures, and whether he is personally satisfied that the current support available will be enough to save jobs and businesses here in South Yorkshire?

Covid-19 Response

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Jarvis

Monday 18th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We go next, with audio only, to Dan Jarvis.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Inequality is nothing new—[Inaudible.] The mortality rate for the poorest 10% is around double that of the most affluent. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must tackle this disparity? Will he commit to building a healthier country as we emerge from this crisis?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Secretary of State got that.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Jarvis

Thursday 5th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Help is on its way.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Private Joseph Berry, a 21-year-old soldier who sadly lost his life while deployed on operations in Kabul serving with the second battalion of the Parachute Regiment. This tragedy coincides with the announcement that a peace deal has been reached by the US Government and the Taliban. There are many concerns about the agreement, not least the degree to which the Afghan Government have or have not been involved. Given the commitment our country has made to Afghanistan and the lives that have been lost, does the Leader of the House think we need a debate on the political situation in Afghanistan so that hon. and right hon. Members are afforded the opportunity to discuss these important matters?

First World War (Commemoration)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Jarvis

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I was not aware of that, so, again I am grateful for that intervention, from which I have learned something.

I was reflecting on the impact that the war had on this House and speaking about those Members of Parliament who went to serve, but we should be mindful of the fact that the war would not just be experienced by those on the front line. When the Lochnagar mine was detonated at 7.28 am on 1 July 1916 by the Royal Engineers at the start of the battle of the Somme, the noise was heard in Downing street. That same year, all three party leaders would lose a son in the war in the space of six months. In December 1917, the Speaker at the time was forced to adjourn a debate so that hon. Members could, as Hansard records it, “'retreat to the cellars” during a German air raid.

These commemorations, as well as looking back, should also be about looking forward, because if we get this right and if we dedicate ourselves to these commemorations in the right way, they should also be relevant to the lives we live today. We should be mindful of the fact that 100 years ago, on 22 May 1914, suffragettes were being arrested at the gates of Buckingham palace, petitioning for the right to vote, whereas on 22 May 2014 nearly two thirds of a country with universal suffrage decided they were better off staying at home on election day. One hundred years ago the debate was about whether women should be allowed in the polling booth and whether they could do jobs that only men had done before. Today, the debate needs to be about getting more women on to ballot papers and into boardrooms at the top of our work force.

One hundred years ago, nobody had ever heard of shellshock or post-traumatic stress disorder. Today, the issue is not just what more we can do for our veterans returning from action, but how we prioritise the mental health of everyone. One hundred years ago, people from all over the world fought and died to protect this country. Today we need to remember the debt that we owe to people who were not born here, but who helped make this country what it is. One hundred years ago, the first world war changed the role of the state. Government took action on food, rents and wages, and that links to one of the central arguments in our public life today: what Government should and should not do in the 21st century.

I began by reflecting on a quote of David Lloyd George on Armistice day. Let me finish with some words from a week later. On 18 November 1918, this House gathered again to debate an address to the King on a victorious peace. These are the words spoken that day by Herbert Asquith, who began the war as Prime Minister and ended it as Leader of the Opposition. This was his reflection:

“When history comes to tell the tale of these four years, it will recount a story the like of which is not to be found in any epic in any literature. It is and will remain by itself as a record of everything humanity can dare or endure--of the extremes of possible heroism and of possible baseness…The old world has been laid waste…All things have become new.”—[Official Report, 18 November 1918; Vol. 110, c. 3237.]

Nearly a century on, those words have lost none of their power or their resonance, and they reflect what should be our guiding light in these commemorations. We should remember that sacrifice that was laid to dust and reflect on what changed and what became new. If someone is to look back in 50 or 100 years to what was said when this House and this country marked the centenary of the first world war, let us hope that it will be said that we kept true to that—that we kept the memory of those who served burning brightly, not wearied by the passage of time, and that we took this important opportunity to reflect on how we became the country we are today and on all those who made it possible.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. As there are important and relevant speeches to be made, may I suggest to all Members that they aim to speak for about 10 minutes each? That will give everyone a fair chance to make their speech and to raise their constituency issues.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Dan Jarvis

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I beg to move amendment 18, page 19, line 4, leave out clause 19.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 14, page 19, line 16, at end insert—

‘(2A) A young woman may not be placed in a secure college established under subsection (1)(c).’.

Amendment 15, page 19, line 16, at end insert—

‘(2A) No person who is aged under 15 shall be detained in a secure college established under subsection (1)(c).’.

Amendment 12, page 20, line 30, at end insert—

‘(14) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure there is adequate specialist provision to cater for the health and wellbeing needs of all young persons detained in a secure college.’.

Amendment 13, page 20, line 30, at end insert—

‘(14) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that sufficient places are available in secure children’s homes to enable young persons, for whom detention in a secure children’s home is deemed more appropriate by the relevant authority than detention in a secure college or young offender institution, to be so detained.’.

Amendment 16, page 20, line 37 leave out clause 20.

Amendment 21, page 71, line 1 leave out schedule 3.

Government amendments 5 and 6.

Amendment 17, page 76, line 10, leave out schedule 4.

Amendment 10, in schedule 4, page 74, line 17, at end insert—

‘Staff

4A (1) All staff employed as teachers, counsellors or nurses at a secure unit must hold qualifications as one of the following—

(a) qualified teachers;

(b) accredited member of the British Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists; and

(c) registered nurse (children).’.

Amendment 19, page 76, line 16, at end insert—

‘(3) The Principal shall—

(a) keep special educational provision in the secure college under review;

(b) keep SEN and disability training of secure college workforce under review;

(c) ensure persons detained who may have a special educational need are brought to the attention of their home local authority; and

(d) carry out (a), (b) and (c) with advice from the secure college SEN co-ordinator.’.

Amendment 11, page 77, line 20, leave out from ‘where’ until the end of line 21 and insert

‘a young person poses an imminent threat of injury to himself or others, and only when all other means of control have been exhausted.’.

Government amendments 3 and 4.

[Dan Jarvis]

Amendments 10 to 19, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), relate to the Government’s proposed introduction of secure colleges. Let me set out some context. It is welcome that youth crime has come down substantially since the late 1990s, but it has led to new challenges in our youth justice system that need to be addressed. Reoffending rates are too high, and the cohort of young people in custody is a lot smaller now compared with a decade ago. These young people have complex needs and present very different challenges. We need a youth custody regime that can effectively meet those challenges, and effectively punish, rehabilitate and bring down reoffending. The question is whether creating secure colleges is the most effective solution.

More than a year has now passed since the Government consulted on these proposals, but in all that time, the key facts have remained the same. The Government have come to the House today with a set of proposals that they claim “will transform youth custody”, but there are no expert organisations expressing any enthusiasm for secure colleges. The Government claim that the colleges will put education at the heart of rehabilitation, but they cannot say how it will be delivered in practice. They claim the proposals will reduce the cost of youth custody, but it is not clear where the £85 million is coming from, and they have not produced any hard evidence to support this policy.

When we debated these changes in Committee, we said that we would listen to what the Government had to say and work with them constructively to improve the legislation. We also said that if Ministers wanted our support, they would need to present proper supporting evidence to justify going ahead with this experiment and address the serious concerns being raised by experts in the justice sector. Alas, no such evidence or improvements to the Bill have been forthcoming, which is why we cannot support these proposals, and why we have tabled amendments 16 to 18 to delete the secure college proposal from the Bill.

We all know the value of education, and how it can and should play an important role in rehabilitating young offenders. I am sure that everyone across the House agrees with that. The issue is that there are four areas where Ministers have plainly failed to make the case for secure colleges. Let me take each in turn. First, there has been a chronic lack of evidence to justify the creation of secure colleges. It is true that levels of educational attainment and purposeful activity are not good enough in many young offender institutions, and that education provision in the youth estate can and should be improved. We are agreed on that, but it seems the Justice Secretary is the only person who believes that the only way these problems can be solved is to plough tens of millions of pounds of public money into creating an entirely new type of institution.

Members of the Bill Committee took evidence for two full days, yet not one witness had a single word of support to offer for the Government’s plans for secure colleges. The deputy children’s commissioner, Sue Berelowitz, said that

“a 300-bed secure college will result in a large impersonal environment that does not adequately meet the emotional and mental health needs of children in custody.”

Similar concerns have been echoed by experts across the sector, including the Prison Reform Trust, the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, and the Howard League for Penal Reform. Even the Government’s own impact assessment states:

“The Secure College model has never previously been tested.”

It confirms that these plans are untried, untested and that the results would be unpredictable. There is no quantifiable evidence that the secure colleges would reduce reoffending rates. Such little detail has been provided that it is hard to see how the reduction will be achieved in practice. So what alternatives to secure colleges has the Minister’s Department considered? He will recall that I asked him in Committee what assessment his Department had made of how the £85 million budget for the secure college could be alternatively spent. For example, instead of building the secure college, that money could be invested in improving educational provision in the existing youth estate. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that option has been considered, and if not, why not.

The second failure relates to education and welfare provision and goes to the heart of this debate. The Government’s objective is for secure colleges to transform the rehabilitation of young offenders through better education and training. That is a laudable ambition, but it needs to be placed in the context of the existing cohort of young people in custody. We know that the lives of the majority of those young people are characterised by multiple layers of complex disadvantages that include mental health issues, learning disabilities, self-harm issues, and problems with drugs, alcohol and family breakdown. That raises two fundamental points. First, those are not challenges that can be overcome through education alone—significant specialist health and welfare provision would also be required. Secondly, if secure colleges are to deliver educational outcomes over and above what has been achieved in the youth estate before, one of several things would need to happen: secure colleges would need to offer more hours of education and purposeful activity than existing institutions; they would need to have a higher calibre of teaching staff and a higher student-staff ratio; or they would need to offer some new model of transformative teaching that we have not seen before.

Secure colleges would also need to overcome a particular challenge identified by the Justice Committee in its youth justice report last year. It pointed out that the average time spent in custody is only 79 days.