Fleet Solid Support Ships

Debate between Alex Chalk and Alex Cunningham

Friday 18th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend made an excellent point at the beginning, because never was such good news more surprisingly UQ’d. This is excellent news for the United Kingdom and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans)—who is very kind and courteous in his dealings with me, for which I am grateful—for having done so. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Royal Navy is critical to the safety and security of this island nation. I was at Devonport earlier this week to see the work of an amazing crew on HMS Portland. To see the determination, commitment to the mission and sense of duty from those sailors and their captain was hugely inspirational. It is important for them to have confidence in their mission. We have confidence in them. That is important for the security of the United Kingdom.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

As both a newspaper and radio reporter, I had the privilege of seeing British-built ships launched on both Clydeside and Teesside. It was exciting and I admit it really engendered pride in being British, but can the Minister tell me why the Government appear to have so little pride and confidence in the UK shipbuilding industry and are prepared to turn their collective backs on British workers? Can he confirm how many jobs will be created or protected abroad, rather than at home?

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Member is right: it is a matter of pride to see a British ship going into the water. However, I say respectfully that characterising things in the way that he does is a great mistake. I am happy to make it clear that the overwhelming majority of the jobs will be here in the UK. However, just as it would be absurd for the United States to say, “We will not have any British involvement in the production of the F-35”, it would be absurd for us to say that we will turn our face against some of the best expertise in the world. That would also be counterproductive, because we would be setting our face against the technological know-how that will secure British jobs in the future. I am pleased to say that this decision does two things: first, it secures British jobs; secondly, it secures the British know-how that we need for a thriving and prosperous shipbuilding industry in the future. I hope that the hon. Member will therefore, in the fullness of time, enjoy the pride of seeing many more ships go into the water.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Chalk and Alex Cunningham

Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General (Alex Chalk)]

The Law Officers regularly meet ministerial colleagues, as well as the Director of Public Prosecutions and others, to drive forward progress on what we all want to see: justice for victims of rape and serious sexual offences. Last week, I went to meet RASSO—rape and serious sexual offences—prosecutors at the Crown Prosecution Service west midlands, and was pleased to congratulate them on helping to secure several recent convictions, including that of a double rapist, Daniel Jones, who was later imprisoned for 17 years for his appalling crimes.

[Alex Cunningham]

A recent report from the National Audit Office states that rape cases are most at risk of collapse as people withdraw. Does the Minister agree that the Government are failing rape victims, who can wait years for their cases to be heard, leading many of them to withdraw from the process? Can he explain why the Government opposed Labour’s proposals, which would have enabled the fast-tracking of rape cases and the pre-recording of victims’ evidence?

[The Solicitor General]

That is because there are already active measures to pre-record evidence, as the hon. Gentleman should know. He is absolutely right that we need to speed up the system. That is why “RASSO 2025” was published by the CPS; that is why there is a joint national action plan between the police and the CPS to improve file quality; that is why there is an end-to-end rape review; and that is why the Government have put £80 million into the CPS to ensure that justice can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Chalk and Alex Cunningham

Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

My hon. Friend raises a critical point, and we agree, which is why we have invested £100 million in gate security to ensure, for example, that body scanners can be installed to allow concealed items to be detected, that there is money for counter-corruption, and that rehabilitation and treatment can take place in jail. A time when our jails are completely drug free is something that we aspire to, and we are making important progress.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

At the last Justice questions, I raised the issue of the wrongful prosecution and conviction of British citizens under schedule 22 to the Coronavirus Act 2020, an issue that has been publicised by Big Brother Watch, Fair Trials, and The Guardian newspaper. Sadly, the Minister blamed the Crown Prosecution Service and did not promise to correct this injustice, and more people might have been wrongly convicted since then. That said, following our intervention, the Government have expired the schedule. I am grateful for that, but can the Lord Chancellor tell us what action he is taking to quash all the illegal convictions?

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Alex Chalk and Alex Cunningham

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

That is most certainly the case. I go back to my Second Reading speech. This is about the individual. This is about one of the most serious things we can do as a nation to somebody—take away their liberty. We should do anything and everything we can do to ensure that they have every single piece of support before that decision is taken, effectively, to lock them up. I agree with my hon. Friend.

I was quoting Age UK, which believes that everybody should have access to an advocate and that a person who chooses not be represented can then opt out. The quote continues:

“This will greatly improve the Bill and give clarity to the cared for person and the responsible body.”

Mencap believes, as I do, that independent advocacy is vital to help vulnerable people to understand and exercise their rights under the law. We have had several examples of that this morning.

Rethink Mental Illness is also on board with the amendment. I appeal to the Minister to provide an opt-out approach, which would greatly improve this Bill, as others have said, and give clarity to service users and providers.

I mentioned care home managers, but the risk of independent hospitals being responsible for assessments is another concern about the Bill, and as we said the other day, we hope the Minister will ramp up the assurances in this area. I have another real-life example for her. A man was held in hospital for almost a year—with no advocate for 10 months. He was angry because he wanted to go back to his two-bedroom home, but the local authority wanted him to move into accommodation with 24-hour support and to not return home. The reason given was that the brother had moved into the spare room at the cared-for person’s home and there had to be a spare room for any overnight carer, should the man return home.

What did the advocate find out by talking to the cared-for person? They found that, when he had been living at home, he had been sleeping in a chair in the lounge while his brother had his room and his carer had the spare bed. Then he had fallen and not been found for two days, as a succession of carers had failed to attend. The cared-for person’s statements were not taken into account by the social worker involved. If they had been, the process might have been very different. The man needed an advocate from day one.

The case eventually went to court, and the judge accepted evidence from the advocate and ordered the cared-for person to be returned home—[Interruption.] Bless you!

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I wonder how Hansard records a sneeze.