Draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Border Security) Regulations 2023

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 General Committees

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott.

The SNP will likewise oppose the regulations. We are very concerned about their impact on people’s fundamental right to withdraw their labour. Strikes, by their very nature, are supposed to be disruptive. If the Government are saying that Border Force should be no less effective than if a strike were not taking place, they would undermine the very point of a strike. The very point is that people should know that staff have withdrawn their labour, because they are concerned about their terms and conditions or the way their employer—in this case, the Government—are treating them.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is right that strikes are designed to be disruptive—that is their purpose—but they are not designed to be dangerous to the public. Strikes by Border Force are dangerous to the UK public, and that is the reason behind the legislation.

[Alison Thewliss]

The point the hon. Gentleman makes would be more correct if the Government were not determined to keep ports and airports open during strike action. That is a choice they have made. They want ports and airports to stay open, therefore they want a minimum service level. If the Government had said, “If you withdraw your labour, we will only be able to open the airports to an extent”, people would notice that. We notice when French air traffic controllers go on strike because it has that effect. It causes disruption and people realise there is an issue. If we have a service that is essentially no different when a strike takes place, the very nature of strike action is undermined.

The TUC has described the regulations as

“a draconian piece of legislation that attacks individuals’ fundamental rights while doing nothing to improve industrial ‘relations’”.

I remind the Minister that strikes have been more common under this Government because industrial relations have not been in a great place. That is why they are cracking down on people who wish to withdraw their labour and go on strike. It is a punishment for those people for having the temerity to exercise their fundamental rights.

I would also be very interested to know how the regulations will affect the Passport Office. I have a Passport Office in my constituency. I am not clear from the regulations how many people who work in the Passport Office in Glasgow will be affected because they are regarded as “mission critical” for national security. That is not defined in the regulations. The Government could say that everyone who works in the Passport Office is subject to the legislation, or perhaps it would be just a few people working on very sensitive passports. They have not defined that at all, and that is worrying for those who work in the Passport Office, because they do not know what their rights will be.

The issue is not just about security, as the hon. Member for Dartford suggests. The Government have talked about the free flow of goods. That is not national security: the free flow of goods is about commerce. Which is it? The Minister is disingenuous if he says it is only about national security.

On the consultation, I was surprised that we have not had a list of respondents. The consultation was open for just over a month only, from 11 August to 21 September, with 69 respondents, including employees of Border Force, industry partners and members of the public. I would be interested to know the exact mix. A further nine written responses were received from organisations such as trade unions, port operators and airlines. Again, it would be interesting to hear more about those responses. Is there a reason why those were not published ahead of the proceedings today? It would be interesting to learn about the balance of the responses. Were they from people saying they wanted their right to strike, or from people saying that nobody should ever be allowed to strike? We cannot tell from what has been provided to us.

The impact assessment contains a list of risks associated with the policy. It will have a disproportionate impact on some smaller ports and airports—mostly found in Scotland. Page 29 states:

“As Border Force staff numbers based at some smaller ports and airports are very low, Option 2”—

the Government’s preferred option—

“could mean that staff based at these locations are more likely to receive work notices, thus they are less likely to be able to undertake strike action, when compared with other staff.”

That seems to me to be discrimination: some people are not able to exercise their rights because they are seen as more critical in their roles than somebody at a much larger facility, perhaps. Take a small airport in Scotland compared with Heathrow. That is a huge difference in the number of people able to effectively exercise their right to strike.

The impact assessment goes on to say:

“Similarly, the requirement to maintain particular Border Force security functions during strike action could mean that officers trained in critical functions are less likely to be able to undertake strike action than those who have not taken the training. This IA has not assessed the impact…on staff willingness to be located at smaller Border Force outposts or to undergo the training necessary to carry out critical border security functions.”

Again, this becomes an issue of recruitment and retention in those specialist roles and those smaller ports right across these islands. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that might have on recruitment and retention in these roles and those locations? If there are difficulties in recruiting at those locations, that is surely much more important to national security than the sledgehammer to crack a nut that the Government are bringing forward this evening.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West referenced reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Government like to bandy about that other European countries do similar things, but they are not comparing like with like. What is being removed and undermined in this legislation is the right to strike, which is protected in some countries under their legislation. We are starting from a very different point and on a very different basis. This country does not have a formalised constitution. I argue very much that in a country that wishes to be independent and to have a formalised constitution these rights should be enshrined and protected and that the right to strike should not be undermined by a Government without a mandate to do so.

Asylum Applicants: Mental Health and Wellbeing

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Bacon]

I have a lot of sympathy with that point. It is critical that we process asylum claims much more quickly because while those claims are in abeyance, the asylum seekers are living in stasis. It might be that people who come to claim asylum are not asylum seekers, but economic migrants. That does not make them bad people, but it does mean that they are illegal immigrants, and they should be returned. What should not happen, as in the case of my constituent, is that they live in a state of limbo for years. That should not be acceptable in any way, shape or form.

I became aware of Mr A’s case on 14 March 2022, when a constituent made contact to request that I engage with the Home Office. Back then, my constituent had already noted Mr A’s deteriorating mental health. However, despite my office’s regular efforts to obtain updates, it was not until August 2022—five months later—that the Home Office responded, and only to say that Mr A would have to wait a further six months for an update.

I am sure the House can imagine the effect that that message had on Mr A. Indeed, only a few days after receiving that news, he climbed up Tower Bridge with the intention of attempting to kill himself. Fortunately, he was talked down. He was taken to hospital and later returned to the accommodation with which he had been provided in Biggin Hill. Given the elevated risk of harm displayed by Mr A, my office contacted the Home Office to alert it, in the hope that a sense of urgency would be felt by those in charge of processing the case. However, several more months went by without a resolution of any kind.

In January, therefore, I met with Mr A and another of my constituents, who had been helping him. During our meeting, Mr A presented me with evidence for his asylum claim. That included X-ray images of his body. Disturbingly, the images showed a large amount of metal shrapnel lodged in his torso and limbs as a result of being shot at by the Syrian regime. The evidence also included photographs of him after he had been beaten with an iron bar. Faced with this disturbing evidence and having no success at all in persuading Home Office officials to progress Mr A’s case, my office informed officials that if no progress had been made in two weeks—that is, by 3 February—I would seek a meeting with the Home Secretary to personally brief her on the situation, place the entire file in her hands and ask her to intervene. I hoped that that might lift the all-pervading sense of disinterest and inertia.

No such luck: on 31 January, I received an email from Home Office officials that gave no additional information and no indication as to when a decision would be made, and that claimed to have sent a response to Mr A on 16 January. Neither Mr A nor my other constituent who attended the meeting with me on 20 January—four days after the Home Office letter was allegedly sent—had mentioned that letter. On 1 February, my office called the Home Office hotline to request a copy of it. The response we received was that the Home Office was unable to locate the letter, and the officials stated that it had not been uploaded to the system. When they asked my staff member if he would like to request that they find the letter and send it to him, and he said he would indeed like them to do that, he was told that that would be treated as a new query and it would be sent to my office within 20 working days. You could not make this stuff up.

Later that day, I informed my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who is a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Office, of my intention to seek a meeting with the Home Secretary. He chased my request diligently, and three weeks later, on the morning of 22 February, he informed me that he had made progress on securing the meeting and asked me for Mr A’s date of birth and case reference number, which I passed to him a short while later. At 6 pm, he informed me that he had secured a meeting with the Home Secretary in her office in the House, scheduled for 6.45 pm that evening.

When I turned up for the meeting, I was brusquely turned away by a Home Office special adviser called Jake Ryan, who refused to allow me in. When my hon. Friend told him that that was unacceptable, the special adviser swore in his face. The high-handed arrogance of this unelected political appointee was staggering. I gather that my hon. Friend escalated the situation to higher authorities because at last there was movement on Mr A’s case. When I finally attended a meeting with the Home Secretary on 1 March, she informed me that officials had determined Mr A’s case. He would be granted 30 months to remain in the country and his application for asylum was refused on account of him being a Chilean national. The House will recall that I had been informed that, while Mr A had a Chilean grandmother, he is not a Chilean national, has no living Chilean relatives and, indeed, has never visited Chile.

Giving Mr A limited leave to remain means that he cannot regularise his life here or bring his family. Furthermore, giving him limited leave to remain, after which he will presumably be returned to Syria or sent to Chile, which apparently has a returns arrangement with Syria, is terrible news for Mr A because it significantly increases the likelihood of him being returned to a country where there is a direct threat to his life. The fact that the special adviser refused to allow me to see the Home Secretary on 1 March is extraordinarily frustrating, because had he not done so, I would have been able to alert her to those facts and it is possible that a different outcome to Mr A’s case would have been achieved.

In the meeting on 1 March, I asked the Home Secretary for the case to be looked at again by officials, and she assured me that it would be. Two weeks later, on 15 March, I received formal notification from the Home Office of the decision it had taken. The relevant sections of the letter read:

“On 3rd November 2020, Mr A submitted a claim for asylum; I apologise for the delay in progressing this case and any distress this may have caused.”

For the avoidance of doubt, that letter was written in March 2023. The delay referred to amounted to two years and four months. The letter continued:

“Mr A had a series of significant safeguarding issues (suicide attempts); We take the mental health and wellbeing of asylum seekers very seriously. We discussed Mr A’s case with officials and there were a number of delays due to the sensitivities and complexities of the case.”

The claim that Home Office officials take these issues seriously is one that I treat with a great deal of scepticism, certainly in the context of this particular case. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, it was the disinterest and protracted institutional inertia of Home Office officials that caused the safeguarding issues that they referred to.

The letter then stated:

“Mr A’s application was fully considered and the asylum and Humanitarian Protection aspect of the claim has been refused as Mr A does not have any individual protection needs in Chile.

However, we will be granting Mr A a period of leave of 30 months on the basis of his private life as, given his vulnerabilities, there would be insurmountable obstacles to him establishing himself in Chile.”

So on the one hand the Home Office accepts that Mr A would be unable to establish himself in Chile, but on the other it is refusing him asylum here, thereby condemning him to suffer another two and a half years of the purgatory.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the enormous amount of hard work and dedication that he has put in for what is now my constituent; it is absolutely right that he continues to deal with this case.

I am deeply concerned about the information that my hon. Friend has set out to the House. We have an excellent Minister here; I hope that she is listening carefully to what he is informing the House about, that she will go back to the Department later today, and that firm and immediate action will be taken on this matter for my constituent.

[Gareth Bacon]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

For Mr A, two and a half more years of loneliness, worry and fears for his family, as well as fear of deportation back to a country where his life is under threat, has inevitably had further detrimental impacts on his mental health. On 13 April this year, I received a further email from the constituent who attended the advice surgery with Mr A in January. She wrote:

“All of the above matters are causing Mr A great frustration and his mental health has seriously deteriorated. We have an appointment with the mental health team at the hospital in May but I personally am extremely concerned that he may harm himself if these matters are not resolved soon. Anything that you can do would be greatly appreciated. I personally cannot understand why our immigration system seems to be so complicated.”

Since I met the Home Secretary on 1 March, my office has been chasing Home Office officials, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West has been asking for updates on my behalf, but absolutely nothing has been forthcoming. We seem to be back in the cycle of disinterest and total inertia. In the meantime, Mr A continues to spiral downwards.

Dame Maria, I realise that I have talked at length about a single case, but that is precisely to highlight the wider implications of the approach of officials to processing asylum applications—an approach that is simply not delivering acceptable outcomes. The consequence is deeply damaging to people such as Mr A. I realise that Ministers cannot fix the system overnight, and I have absolutely no doubt that they are straining every sinew to improve the situation. However, they can make a significant difference in cases such as this. Small steps can lead to long strides.

I know my hon. Friend the Minister to be a woman of high integrity and compassion, so I thank her for listening to me and call on her to do the right thing in cases such as this one. Please take them back to the Home Office and fix them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Monday 22nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)]

I thank the hon. Member for her question. Full details should be coming to us to look into that. However, the Government take hate crime of any sort extremely seriously, which is why we have done basic policing and increased the number of police officers to more than ever before—over 200,000.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

T8. The right to protest is a fundamental right in this country, but that right does not extend to deliberately blocking roads and stopping people going about their daily lives. Therefore, will the Minister support the police if they choose to use their full range of powers to stop those who abuse the right to protest?

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The right to protest emphatically does not extend to trying to ruin or disrupt the lives of fellow citizens who are trying to get to hospital for treatment, to get their children to school or to get to their place of work. That is why this House recently legislated with the Public Order Act 2023. It is a great shame that the Opposition voted against it. This Government stand on the side of law-abiding citizens, and we fully support the police in using those powers.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Bill

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; that is clearly the case. It is also really important to note that the police at no point have asked for these powers on the basis of noise. The Metropolitan police said that it did

“not request the legal change on noise”.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on public order told Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights that police chiefs had asked for a “lower, broader threshold” for imposing conditions, but not a law relating to noise. Inspector Matt Parr told the JCHR that he was not asked to look specifically at whether or not noise should be included. The point of protest is to capture attention. Protests are noisy. Sometimes they are annoying, but they are as fundamental to our democracy as our Parliament.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Can the hon. Lady clarify whether or not she supports protests that cause serious disruptions to people going about their lawful business?

[Sarah Jones]

I will give to the hon. Gentleman, if he would like, a list of existing police powers and laws that do exactly that. There are many different laws from different pieces of legislation that I have here that do mean the police have the powers that they need to stop serious disruption. The increasing powers in the Bill are what we have a problem with, and where they could lead, because the definitions are so broad.

The Government published last week a draft definition of what they mean by “serious disruption”. It is very broad and it gives away a bit where all this came from in the first place, because top of the list of products and goods that are included in the legislation are time-sensitive products, including newspapers.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I thank the Bill team, the Clerks and House staff and the Library staff for facilitating debate in the House. It is a great shame that a Bill that could have commanded wide support ended up being so divisive. Indeed, Labour Members, working with other parties, campaigned for elements of the Bill: on increasing sentences for causing death by dangerous driving; on reform of the disclosure and barring service; and on sexual offences perpetrated by those in positions of trust. Some elements of the review by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) have been included, though far too few. We also welcome the introduction of a police covenant, and great credit must go to the shadow Policing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), for securing the concession to include non-Home Office police forces. That important change will make a difference. We will hold the Government to account on the implementation of the covenant, to make sure it really does make a significant difference to frontline officers.

On behalf of the Opposition, I have tabled amendments in relation to the Hillsborough disaster, in the light of the collapse of the trial of three men on 26 May. Those proposals are based on the detailed work of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), and reflect her Public Advocate Bill, together with the work of the former Member for Leigh, with the introduction of a duty of candour and equality of arms for families in inquests. We think today, first and foremost, of the Hillsborough families and their remarkable courage and determination in seeking justice over decades. We owe a duty to seek to ensure that what happened to them can never happen again. The Opposition offer their full support to achieving that, which is the purpose of placing the proposals on the record. I hope that work can now be done to move things forward, with there no longer being an ongoing trial.

Sadly, this Bill has been made a divisive Bill, because of provisions put into it that are unconscionable and because of provisions not put into it that would have addressed the priorities of the British people, by dealing with the reasons why so many women and girls feel unsafe on our streets. This Bill showed a warped sense of priorities; it does more to protect statues than it does to protect women. It is a Bill that destroys the fine British tradition of protecting the right to protest. It allows the noise generated by persons taking part as a reason to curtail protest and criminalises people—mark this—who break a condition they “ought” to have known existed. Our laws of protest have always been a balance, and the way this proposed law disturbs it is wrong. I declare an interest: as a trade unionist, I refer to my relevant entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on support from the Unite union and the GMB. Whether it is our trade unions or another group that wants to make its views known loudly in the streets, we limit their ability to do so at our peril.

[Gareth Johnson]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will not, because we are very short of time. Media reports even suggest that the National Police Chiefs Council, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services and the Metropolitan police have all stated that they did not request these noise clauses to be added to the Bill. Today, there is a piece in The Times where senior former police officers have written warning that this Bill is “dangerous” and has

“harmful implications for the ability of police officers to enforce the law and for the health of our democracy.”

Isn’t the truth that the mask has slipped? Ministers are not acting on legitimate concerns about keeping people safe; they are trying to clamp down on people’s legitimate and democratic right to protest. I wonder what it is about the appalling record of this Government that makes them so concerned about people organising protest against them. That the Government attack our democratic traditions in this way, limiting the rights of those whose beliefs are inconvenient to them, is dangerous and to their shame. The unauthorised encampments section of the Bill, clearly targeted at Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, will potentially breach the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act 2010. When Friends, Families and Travellers researched the consultation responses the Government received, it found that 84% of police responses did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments. It is unconscionable and unworkable.

This Bill is also a missed opportunity. There should be wider measures to protect the pandemic heroes, extending the protections to shop workers as well as other frontline workers. I wrote this weekend, with the general secretary of Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers that during the pandemic we united as a country to clap for our frontline workers, such as shop workers. Now is the time to deliver on this. Instead the Government MPs voted against that today. [Interruption.] Well, it is true because the amendment was down today and MPs have voted it down. The Bill also continues to ignore the disproportionality that exists from start to finish in the criminal justice system. Black people have bravely stepped forward to share their testimony of structural racism and the impact it still has. This Government seem to want to deny that structural racism even exists. Meanwhile, while communities up and down the country suffer the consequences of antisocial behaviour, this Government prefer to waste more than £200 million on a pointless yacht. Labour would invest that money in tackling crime.

When it comes to addressing the appalling issue of violence against women and girls, this is an empty Bill. Labour even published a Green Paper with suggestions for the Government to act: a rape survivors support plan, victims having the right to support, cases of rape and serious sexual violence fast-tracked, and a Minister with specific responsibility for driving change. That 1.6% of reported rapes lead to a charge is a national scandal. The Lord Chancellor offered an apology, but not the resources we need, and the Prime Minister shamefully dismissed concerns as “jabber”.

This Bill was an opportunity to show that addressing violence against women and girls was a priority for this Government, but they have failed. Women and girls who feel unsafe on our streets should have been a priority in this Bill. It should have delivered on inadequate sentences for rape, stalking, and domestic homicide. It should have addressed unacceptable and intimidating street harassment. It should have delivered properly resourced domestic abuse services.

Whether it is our frontline workers, those who have suffered as a consequence of disproportionality, or victims of antisocial behaviour, we on these Benches will continue to campaign for them and put victims first.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 1
Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

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

Just one week after celebrating the achievement of women around the world on International Women’s Day, I would like to open this debate by once again expressing my sadness at the horrific developments in the Sarah Everard case. My heartfelt thoughts and prayers are with Sarah, her family and friends at this unbearable time. This is also a stark moment to reflect on what more we can do to protect women and girls against crime, and the events of the last few days have rightly ignited anger at the danger posed to women by predatory men—an anger I feel as strongly as anyone.

This Government were elected just over a year ago on a clear manifesto commitment to support the police and to keep our country safe. It is vital that we continue to deliver on that promise to the British people, and our commitment to law and order is having a real impact across the country. There are already over 6,600 more police officers in our communities, thanks to the unprecedented campaign to recruit an additional 20,000 more police officers. Our crackdown on county line drug gangs is delivering results, particularly in London, the west midlands and Merseyside. The police have made more than 3,400 arrests, shut down more than 550 deal lines and safeguarded more than 770 vulnerable people. Last year, we saw the UK’s biggest ever law enforcement operation strike a blow against organised crime, with over 1,000 arrests, £54 million of criminal cash seized, and 77 firearms and over two tonnes of drugs seized. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will go further still in our mission to back the police, to make our communities safe and to restore confidence in the criminal justice system.

We ask our brave police officers to do the most difficult of jobs—they run towards danger to keep us all safe—and that is why I have worked closely with the Police Federation in developing this Bill. I would like to pay tribute to the chair of the Police Federation, John Apter, for his constructive way of working since I became Home Secretary, admirably fighting for his members every single day. He has voiced his members’ concerns to me directly, and I have acted upon them.

This Bill will enshrine in law a requirement to report annually to Parliament on the police covenant, which sets out our commitment to enhance support and protection for those working within or retired from policing roles, whether paid or as volunteers, and their families. The covenant will initially focus on physical protection and support for families, officers and staff, and their health and wellbeing, with a duty to report in place to ensure parliamentary scrutiny.

Despite all that they do, emergency workers are still subject to violence and abuse. The statistics paint an alarming picture. There were more than 30,000 assaults on police officers in the year to March 2020, and over the past year we have all seen the reports of people deliberately coughing at our emergency workers, claiming to have coronavirus and threatening to infect them. There have been too many disgusting examples of police officers and ambulance drivers being spat at and violently attacked as they go out to work day after day to make sure that the rest of us are safe and cared for.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

This Bill doubles the maximum sentence for an assault on emergency workers. Does the Home Secretary therefore share my astonishment at the irony that the Labour party will now be voting against that provision?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having personally spent much time with our frontline officers, the very people who put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe, I think that is a really stark point, and a reminder of which party is backing the police and which party simply is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill, which seeks to inject fairness into the criminal justice system and rights many wrongs currently in existence. The protection that clause 46 gives to war memorials and wreaths laid on them is admirable, and I am glad that the provision is being introduced. To desecrate a memorial is a particularly low thing to do and the law should reflect that.

May I also welcome the changes to sentencing powers to allow for life imprisonment for death by dangerous driving? In too many cases, the courts have been unable to deal with these matters effectively and consequently they have given inadequate sentences for even the worst incidents. That will stop, and we will all be safer as a consequence. I have to say, it would have helped if the Crown Prosecution Service had been more minded to lay manslaughter charges in many such instances. It seems to be only on the road that an offence can happen in which someone carries out a deliberate action that creates an obvious risk that is against the law, and yet the CPS is reluctant to lay manslaughter charges. That will change because of these proposals, which I welcome with open arms.

The serious violence reduction orders to be brought in by the Bill are truly groundbreaking. Knife crime is an evil that destroys lives and terrifies communities, but the Bill gives the police powers to make a difference. However, we do not want knives simply to be replaced as the weapon of choice by acid, so I ask the Minister to consider including the possession of noxious liquids in the provisions. That would build on the massive improvements that both the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office have achieved in reducing the number of such attacks.

Finally, we need to counter the serious misinformation that has been spread about proposals in the Bill to place conditions on demonstrations. The proposed extra powers are not a ban on protests—far from it. There must always be a right to protest, but there must always be rights for those going about their business, too. The Bill seeks to balance those competing rights. It will allow protests, vigils, demonstrations and marches, but not the blocking of bridges or stopping traffic and bringing cities to a standstill. Protests, yes; causing serious disruption to others, no. The Labour party’s voting against the Bill is totally wrong. The message needs to go out loud and clear that Labour Members are voting against provisions to extend sentences for death by dangerous driving, child killers, and serious violence and knife crime. They should vote for the Bill.

Serious Criminal Cases Backlog

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is an issue with, for example, the charging and prosecution of rape cases in particular, which predates the pandemic. There is a problem and it needs to be addressed. Some steps have been taken already—for example, changes to the rules around disclosure, which had been a problem in rape cases, and the provision of significant extra money even before the pandemic to support independent sexual violence advisers and rape crisis centres and to support the victims of these awful crimes, but more needs to be done. The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are conducting a rape review, which is being led by the Minister for Crime and Policing. That is due to report very shortly and will contain further actions in this very important area.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) [V]]

I worked in the Courts Service for 20 years, and there have been case delays under all colours of Government, so the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has a very selective memory on this issue. It is not surprising that this pandemic has caused delays in court cases right around the world, but will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that delays to domestic violence cases are prioritised? As he knows, often pressure grows on victims as a case progresses and too often their resolve diminishes and they feel unable to continue supporting the case.

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We are very concerned about these cases and that is why we are spending a great deal of extra money—as I say, next year, an additional £32 million—to help protect victims and witnesses of awful cases such as those of domestic violence and rape. As I have mentioned, the judiciary have already prioritised domestic violence protection orders in the magistrates courts and, although listing is a judicial function, I know that judges are prioritising very serious cases of rape and domestic violence to make sure those cases get heard quickly, for the reason that he has mentioned. In addition, we rolled out section 28, the video evidence provisions, in, I think, November last year—just a couple of months ago—to make sure vulnerable witnesses can give evidence by video quickly, well in advance of the substantive hearing, to make sure some of the issues to do with victim attrition that he mentioned are addressed quickly and as far as they possibly can be.

Scheduled Mass Deportation: Jamaica

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I have the particulars of the case in front of me. He was sentenced to four years and served two. The offences were very serious indeed. No, we certainly will not be stopping the flight, but I do know that the hon. Gentleman has written to me about this particular case and I will, of course, respond to his letter.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Will the Minister commit to review any law that prevents the deportation of these people, because no law should stop us removing foreign nationals who have committed very serious criminal offences, thereby undermining the very kindness and the hospitality that we have shown them and abusing the process in doing so?

[Chris Philp]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I can give him that assurance. He puts it very well. We have extended a welcome and hospitality to people who come to this country, and rightly so. We have a long and proud history of welcoming people who make a contribution to our society, and this Government are the first to recognise the enormous contribution that people who have come to this country as immigrants have made, and the points-based system embraces that very principle. Where people abuse our hospitality by committing serious criminal offences, it is right that we remove them.

Reading Terrorist Attack

Gareth Johnson Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right. We saw at the weekend the unarmed police officer who apprehended the suspect, and we have seen it in many other cases. At such times, these individuals are the very best of us and will have done a great deal to keep other people protected and out of danger.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Yet again, we have a terrorist attack aimed at the wholly innocent. This was an act of pure hatred. Does the Home Secretary agree that it highlights the difficulties that security forces have to contend with when trying to monitor 30,000 to 40,000 individuals who at any stage could decide to attack people? The challenges they face are huge, so we should be swift to support them, rather than swift to judge them.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work they do is vast and complicated and based on intelligence at home and sometimes abroad. We must all reflect on the way they work. They make difficult decisions and judgments based on the information they have. I commend and pay tribute to them in every way for the work they do and the way they do it.