Justice and Security Bill [Lords]
Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Nigel Evans(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think you are asking me to be very brief.
Jeremy Corbyn
Oh, you are asking me to do maths as well. I will be extremely brief.
I have no quarrel with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) in respect of his sincerity, honesty or support for human rights or how he put his case today. I disagree with his final point, but I have no quarrel with the judgment he reached or why he reached it, because I have observed him and his general approach to human rights in the House for a long time. When I say that I do not agree with him, it is not out of anger; it is out of sorrow. I am sure that in the next five minutes he will change his mind and take a different approach, or perhaps he will not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) put it well when he said that the House has to make decisions on important issues of human rights, liberty, the rule of law and the role of Parliament. Successively over the past 30 years, and even before that, we have enshrined in law on many occasions various forms of secrecy, denials of justice and denials of evidence, and people have been wrongly prosecuted as a result. There is a litany of miscarriages of justice that many Members of this House have been involved in over many years, most of which have centred on withholding evidence, secrecy or, in some cases, confessional evidence.
Since 2001, there has been a significant game change. Draconian anti-terror laws have been introduced in this country and many others. As a result, the most grotesque miscarriages of justice have taken place, including Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition. All the legislation has been enshrined on the basis that we have to protect the security services and prevent what they do from seeing the light of day.
As I understand it, the Government’s position is that they cannot defend cases where there has been British involvement with other security services in the abuse of human rights when the individuals involved seek restitution in the British courts because it would mean identifying where their evidence came from. They have therefore paid out millions of pounds. Instead of admitting that we have been a party to human rights abuses, we are passing legislation to bring a new process into law.
I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), when he said that the Bill is not as bad as when it started its journey. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, has done a lot of good work to improve the Bill, as he has for many other pieces of legislation.
However, I feel that the Bill sends out the wrong message. We should have had a debate and a vote on the removal of part 2 on Monday. It is regrettable that we did not. I am opposed to the Bill because I do not like the secrecy or the protection of those who commit human rights abuses, whether they be in the pay of this state, another state or somebody else. The use of open courts and criminal law where appropriate is far more satisfactory. I therefore register my dissent against the Bill.
Point of Order
Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Nigel Evans(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is a lack of recent Government statements on the deployment of British forces in Mali and other parts of north Africa. Last weekend, the Prime Minister undertook an arduous visit to the area, which included serious discussions with the Algerian Government and others. When the initial statements on Mali were made, we were promised that the House would be regularly updated. Nearly 400 British service personnel are now involved in the operation and we have not had a statement in the House for almost a week. I believe we deserve one.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank you for the point of order, Mr Corbyn. I have received no notification that any statement will be made on that issue today. Should that alter, the House will be notified in the usual manner, but I am sure those on the Treasury Bench have heard your request.
HEALTH
Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Nigel Evans(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson). I pay tribute to him for the incredible campaign he has run in support of the workers in his constituency and the skills that have been brought to the country by the decades—over a century—of train manufacturing in Derby. It would be a crime if we lost that. The danger is that, unless the Bombardier contract is issued, there will be further job losses and further loss of train-making skills in this country.
We do not understand or value enough the heritage of the rail industry in this country, the skills involved in train manufacture and railway development, or the future of the industry. Following the closures, we have around 10,000 miles of track. We have a programme of railway network expansion, and more people travel by train than at any time since the second world war. The majority of the public who have access to railways prefer to use them—there is no question about that.
If we involve ourselves in a procurement process that specifically encourages sustainable, local-ish or UK-based employment, we will develop our industrial base and provide great opportunities for railway expansion in this country and other places. However, sadly, the model of privatisation adopted by the Conservative Government in the 1990s not only broke up our railway system but handed all the rolling stock to rather dubious leasing companies. Huge profits were made as a result, but 10 years into privatisation the Department for Transport’s procurement policies have moved much more into a totally market-based international comparator system rather than the system used for Transport for London, which has deliberately sought to develop UK-based employment, and fair wages and employment practices and so on.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Nigel Evans(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his brevity.
Jeremy Corbyn
Like other speakers, I shall be as brief as possible, because a good many Members clearly want to say something about this issue. I commend the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the way in which he presented them, and the background information he provided.
New clause 26 first saw the light of day only a few days ago. This is effectively a Second Reading debate, but it provides the only chance that the House will have to discuss a major change in legislation that will result in criminalisation. I predict that in years to come, Government and, indeed, Opposition Members will complain that a person has been criminalised because they were homeless—that a person who occupied someone else’s house was put in prison for a year, which would cost the rest of the community about £50,000.
This country has a long and chequered history when it comes to squatting. It goes back to the Forcible Entry Act 1381, which became law during the Black Death. The issue has arisen time and again during periods of great stress: it arose at the end of the Napoleonic wars, at the end of the first world war and at the end of the second world war, when there was widespread squatting because of a terrible shortage of housing.
The Criminal Law Act 1977, which I mentioned in an intervention earlier, was introduced after a great deal of consultation by the then Labour Government. There was a fair amount of opposition to the legislation, which distinguished specifically between the act of taking someone’s house when that person was occupying it and the act of occupying a property that was being kept empty. The property might be empty as a result of the inefficiency of a local authority or housing association—or, in some cases, a charitable landlord—but more often it would be kept empty deliberately while a property speculator waited for its value to rise before seeking to possess it and sell it to someone else; and, at the same time, a large number of people were homeless on our streets.
Crisis and other charities have produced interesting statistics and arguments. It has been claimed that 40% of homeless people in the country have squatted at some point, and that because the housing crisis means that there will be more people on the housing waiting lists and more without access to houses, there is likely to be more squatting.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) that it is very easy to stand up in the House and say that no one should ever occupy any empty property, but it is another matter for someone who is homeless, has applied for local authority housing but is deemed not to be vulnerable as a single person, and is therefore not eligible to be nominated for a council or housing authority property. Those who try to rent a property in the private sector anywhere in London will find that renting a one-bedroom flat costs a minimum of £150 to £200 a week, renting a two-bedroom flat costs £250, and renting a house costs between £400 and £500. When the very same Government who are lecturing someone about occupying a property that has been deliberately left vacant are preventing that person from obtaining housing benefit to pay such rents, what can the person do? It is all very well for us to lecture, but what can that person actually do?
I believe that the existing law can deal with most of the concerns that have been expressed. There are some cases in which people have behaved disgracefully and driven others out of their homes when they should not have done so, but the 1977 Act is designed to deal with such cases. They can be dealt with through selective, specific and well-thought-out legislation, rather than through the approach that is being adopted in the House this evening.
We shall press amendment (a), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, to a Division. It covers only residential property that “has been empty for six months or more”. Parliament has a responsibility to recognise that there are 700,000 empty properties across the country and a very large number of people who are either homeless and sleeping on the street, sofa-surfing before they run out of friends entirely, sleeping in cars, or just trying to get somebody to put them up for a night before they move on. I assume all Members have met such people in their advice surgeries. What do we say to them? Do we say, “It’s your problem; you go and solve it,” or are we a society that tries to help everyone and make sure everyone gets somewhere to live and has a secure roof over their head?
Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill
Debate between Jeremy Corbyn and Nigel Evans(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been trying to follow what the Minister is saying, and it appears to me—I do not know whether you have the same impression—that he is deviating a long way from the terms of the Bill. He is giving his view of the history of industrial relations in the 1980s and early 1990s, when he should be addressing whatever concerns the Government have about my hon. Friend’s Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am listening to what the Minister has to say, and if I consider that he is out of order, I will certainly call him to order. However, I know that he will want to relate his comments more directly to the Bill.