Public Order Bill (Fifth sitting)

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

It is worth being clear about what stop and search is used for now. It is so intrusive because it is used for very serious offences. Police stop and search for drugs, weapons, knives and guns. We know that it can be a useful tool and has the potential to stop murder, serious violence and acts of terror. While we do not disagree with the premise of stop and search and recognise that it can be very helpful—I am sure we have all had conversations with both police and communities who talk of its benefits—the clauses in the Bill are a big expansion of powers.

[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 (Fourth sitting)

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

The reality is that the Bill will not make it easier to minimise the disruption from protests on major transport works. It will just bring more and more people who are peacefully protesting into the criminal justice system.

[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.

[The Chair]

I must ask the Member to stick to the clause. I have asked three times now.

[Alex Cunningham]

With that third reprimand, Chair, I shall wind up my remarks.

[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 (Third sitting)

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Alex Cunningham]

rose—

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Alex Cunningham]

It is not going to be a deterrent.

[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—

[Alex Cunningham]

But they won’t!

[Kit Malthouse]

Or at least they will be incarcerated, such that they will not be able to continue with their protests.

Public Order Bill

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd May 2022 Commons Chamber

[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

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Tuesday 8th February 2022 General Committees

[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.

Delivering Justice for Victims

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving me early sight of his statement, which is welcomed by Labour Members. Goodness knows it has been a long time coming, having been promised time and again over several years. I only hope that the proposed consultation exercise is dealt with rapidly, that people are listened to and that we see proposed legislation with no further delay. I also hope that the Minister will tell us what he understands to be the timescale for that to happen. I can inform him that we will work constructively with the Government to ensure that the new victims’ law is fit for purpose, and is a law of which we can all be proud. He could even save himself some time by simply adopting Labour’s victims Bill, which actually does the job.

The Minister’s words were not just an illustration of how much the new law is needed, but a damning indictment of the Government’s inaction over the past decade. The number of victims who have dropped out of the system has doubled in the last five years, and a record of number of cases have collapsed over the last year. I know that the Minister has not been in his post for long, but he must be embarrassed to stand before us today and tell us that confidence in the justice system is so poor. Three in every five victims do not even report a crime, a third of victims would not report a crime again, and a third of victims who do go to the police drop out of the process before any case can come to court.

If we are to help victims, we must get the court system correct. In October 2021, the National Audit Office released a damning report on the Government’s handling of the court backlog. It found that the Crown court backlog had already increased by 23% in the year leading up to the pandemic, and had increased a further 48% since its onset. Not to put too fine a point on it, the NAO said that both the Ministry of Justice and its courts agency were not working together properly to solve problems which had their roots in pre-pandemic cuts.

The Government have their work cut out to deal effectively with rape cases alone. One in 67 rape complainants actually see a case come to court, and it can take four years for that process to be completed. The latest data from the Crown Prosecution Service shows that the number of rape convictions fell by 6.7% in the last quarter, and we have seen the conviction rate fall considerably, from 72.9% in quarter 1 of 2020-21 to 66.2% in quarter 1 of 2021-22, a reduction of 6.7%. The number of days from receipt to charge has been increasing quarter on quarter: according to the latest figures, it increased from 125 days to 170 days in the same period. Under this Prime Minister, rape victims are being abandoned by the justice system. At the current rate, it would take the Government 18 years to return to the pre-2016 levels of prosecution, which they promised to reach by the end of this Parliament.

We welcome the fact that section 28 is being rolled out, but it is all well and good for the Lord Chancellor to commit himself to overseeing that national roll-out; what I want to know is why it has taken so long. He could have got it moving much more quickly and saved more victims from the stresses of court if his Government had supported Labour’s amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill back in the summer. Can the Minister tell us what the timeframe is for this roll-out?

As for scorecards, perhaps the Minister can tell us what score he thinks we should give the Government with numbers like these. There are 3,357 victims of violent and sexual crime who have already been waiting over a year for their day in court, and a further 654 victims of these horrific crimes have been waiting over two years. Will he also assure us that he will have the extra resources to ensure that all his proposals can be implemented?

Five previous Justice Secretaries have promised a victims Bill, and all five have failed to deliver. Victims will have very little confidence that the current Justice Secretary will succeed where his predecessors have failed. It is damning that victims now tell us that their experience of the justice system was worse than the crime itself. Just 19% of victims believe that judges take account of the impact of crimes on them, and just 18% believe that they are given enough support. Fighting to overturn CPS decisions not to prosecute, lengthy court delays and people waiting years for their day in court—all this sends a very bad signal about how victims are treated by the justice system. We can see why women and girls, in particular, give up.

Since 2010, the CPS has faced a 25% budget cut and a 30% reduction in staff. Police forces in England and Wales lost 21,732 officers between March 2010 and March 2018—that is 15% of their total number. More than half of all magistrates courts in England and Wales have closed since 2010. It is an abysmal record.

Victims do not want a consultation; they want action. Labour has a ready-made Bill to end violence against women and girls, to clear the backlog through an increase in Nightingale courts and to fast-track rape and sexual violence cases. Our victims Bill would also improve rights, strengthen protections and accountability, improve communications and ensure that victims were no longer treated as an afterthought. This Government have come out with a statement today. They must now match their warm words with deeds and ensure that they fulfil their promise to put victims at the very heart of our criminal justice system.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was sorry to see his announcement last week that he would be stepping down from the House at the next general election. Having been a Government Whip, I have spent many hours with him on Bill Committees, and I have always appreciated the way in which he has gone about his business here in the House. I also appreciated the constructive tone that ran through at least the start of his response to my statement.

One thing that I am particularly concerned about in the approach that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to adopt here is that he keeps talking about a Bill that he and his colleagues have prepared. I do not think that being prescriptive about all this is the right approach. This is a fundamental reform and a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver meaningful reforms and get this right, and I think the right approach is to have meaningful consultations with the sector, with victims, and with those with knowledge and experience in these matters, in order to deliver a policy that is fit for purpose and delivers on the aims that I would like to think all of us in this House agree on. At the end of the day, we are talking about the victims of crime. Some of them have been through horrendous, unthinkable trauma, and we owe it to them to come together constructively and responsibly and to debate these matters in a measured way to ensure that we get the response right for them. That is my job, and it is the responsibility of Members of this House and certainly of the ministerial team at the Ministry of Justice to get this right.

We have a strong record on crime, and of course the ultimate objective is to ensure that there are no victims in the first place. That is why we are committed, for example, to rolling out 20,000 extra police officers. We want to prevent crime from happening, and we want more police officers out on the beat catching criminals and deterring crime. That is exactly what we are doing. I repeat that our plan for victims will deliver a world-class service to them by amplifying the victims’ voice, by increasing transparency in the system—Members across the House will recognise the real importance and value of that—by strengthening accountability, by improving support for victims, including through criminals paying more towards the support we put in place, and by generally providing better tools to protect victims and prosecute criminals.

The approach that we take to these matters as a Department and as a Government is one of non-defensive transparency around the policy. Some of what we are announcing today is a starting point. This is an iterative process, for example, with the scorecards. I would welcome input from Members across the House about the scorecards and what more we can do to improve transparency so that we can drive genuine improvement.

The hon. Gentleman specifically raised the issue of the courts backlog. We have taken comprehensive action to address the backlog. As part of the spending review, we are investing £477 million in the criminal justice system over the next three years to help to reduce the backlog and to deliver the swift access to justice that victims deserve. We have taken decisive action, but the shadow team seems to have a pretty short memory. Prior to the pandemic, in February 2020, the courts backlog was 19% lower than it was in the last year of the Labour Government. Meanwhile, we have kept the wheels of justice moving in unprecedented circumstances, so the Opposition really do not have a leg to stand on in this regard. The courts Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is here in the Chamber and is overseeing this important work.

Despite the Opposition’s criticism, the funding that we are putting in place is far in excess of anything that was ever put in place by the previous Labour Government. Our £185 million package is over four times as much as was spent in the last year of the previous Labour Government. Our record shows that we are on the side of the victims, while Labour failed to support them in the way that we are doing now.

On the issue of rape prosecutions, I would just draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that the data on the scorecards relates to quarter 2. That provides important context, and we are obviously now six months on from that. Our plans will significantly improve the way in which the criminal justice system responds to rape. Before the end of the year, we will publish the first ever adult rape scorecard; introduce a single source of 24/7 support for victims of rape and sexual violence; roll out a new investigatory model—Operation Soteria—that focuses on the suspects’ behaviour rather than that of the victims; and expand pre-recorded cross-examination through section 28 for victims of rape and sexual violence. The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the implementation of that last policy, and it is of course crucial that we get it right and that it is delivered appropriately and sensitively. That is why we are working with our criminal justice partners and the judiciary to deliver that roll-out as quickly as possible and in an appropriate manner.

The point that I made at the start applies to how we debate these matters. We are talking about victims of crime, and I want us to have a constructive debate over the course of the next eight weeks as we consult on these measures. There is a comprehensive engagement plan in place to do that, and I would really welcome Members from across the House contributing their ideas, helping to shape this, and encouraging their constituents and the organisations that they work with in their constituencies to make their views and experiences known so that we can get this right and deliver the meaningful change that victims deserve.

Vulnerable Asylum Seeker Services: Stockton

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate. Before I start I would like to put on the record my thanks to local organisations Asylum Matter North East and Justice First for the vital work they do supporting asylum seekers in our area, and for the constructive and helpful engagement we have had over the years, which has ensured that problems such as the one I am about to discuss with the Minister are brought to my attention.

The asylum accommodation system has been run by the Home Office through private contractors for the past 20 years, without enough investment in local communities or adequate consultation with them. The outsourcing of these contracts with little oversight from or accountability to the Home Office, coupled with poor planning and ever-lengthier delays in decision making, has meant the accommodation system has lurched from crisis to crisis. The backlog of asylum claims waiting to be dealt with is at a record high, with 67,547 people waiting for even an initial decision and more than 125,000 either waiting for a further decision or due to be removed from the UK. A total of 37,562 applications were made in the year to September, which is more than were made in any 12-month period since the year to June 2004.

As a result of the Government’s failure to deal with processing in a timely fashion, on multiple occasions the Home Office has had to rely on contingency accommodation which, as the Minister knows, means the use of hotels, hostels or other institutional settings on an emergency basis. There are currently around 6,000 asylum seekers in hotels but, contrary to the views of some, they are not living in five-star accommodation.

Stockton’s experience of hosting supposedly “short-term” contingency hotel accommodation over the past two years has demonstrated how unsuitable this institutionalised accommodation is for people seeking sanctuary. Despite the huge efforts of people and organisations across Stockton to welcome and support the women and children accommodated, I have no doubt that they have suffered both physical and mental health harm.

I wish to paint a picture for the Minister of the current circumstances of some of the most vulnerable women in the country, who we as a nation are forcing to live in appalling conditions. I will focus in particular on certain asylum accommodation in my hometown of Stockton. Because of the vulnerabilities of many of the women who find their way to Stockton, I will not closely identify where they are accommodated, although I expect the Minister will be aware of the one establishment that I am going to discuss more fully.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)]

For the benefit of the House, I confirm that I am aware of the place to which the hon. Gentleman refers but, like him, I think that in this forum it is best not to specifically identify the property.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

That is very helpful.

Some of the women housed in so-called hotel accommodation in Stockton are pregnant and some have their young children with them. I am told that many of these women are particularly vulnerable because they are victims of human trafficking, brought here by the very worst of people and exposed to sexual exploitation. They are modern-day slaves, abused, beaten and controlled, with little hope of the kind of life we would want for ourselves or our children. It is important, then, that when they escape their abusers and are able to claim asylum, we honour our duty of care to them—a duty to protect them and keep them safe, to provide somewhere for them to live while their asylum applications are being considered, to ensure they are able to eat, and to give them access to the healthcare that many of them so desperately need.

Let me return to the image I was illustrating. The place in which these women are being accommodated is totally unsuitable and is the subject of much concern among those who work with asylum seekers in our area. I remember that, before it was used as asylum accommodation, it was a low-budget hotel, part of a large chain that has long since abandoned it as few people wanted to spend the night there. I dropped by again on Friday and saw the security man guarding the door at the front and the tatty grounds that double as an outside and play space for the residents and their children.

I confess that I have not been inside the building, but for years I have heard at first hand from those who have. The rooms offer only a very few square metres of accommodation and do not even have a private toilet, never mind a shower or proper washing facilities. The shared facilities have become a particular source of concern during the pandemic as, realistically, no person in the accommodation is able to self-isolate. There is nowhere to cook and no proper place to do the washing. The residents have to rely on the food provided, which they often find they are unable to eat, whether for cultural or dietary reasons. I have heard there are frequent complaints about the inability to access nutritional food, which is important for all but especially vital for pregnant women.

In addition, as the Minister will know, pregnant women deal with all manner of difficulties throughout their pregnancy and can experience nausea and problems with certain foods, which makes the lack of cooking facilities even more problematic. Indeed, there have been reports of pregnant women suffering from malnutrition in the accommodation and of women with babies having to use the communal toilet areas to sterilise their babies’ bottles. I have been told about rubbish piling up without being regularly cleared, which means flies and other pests are attracted to the complex. This particular accommodation is also especially poorly situated. It is a mile or more from the nearest homes, nearly two miles from the nearest school, and half a mile from the nearest shop. It is in the middle of an industrial estate, which means that any kind of integration into a wider community is extremely difficult.

In a recent submission on asylum service providers in the pandemic, Tees Valley City of Sanctuary said:

“The size of rooms vary, and double rooms can be so small as to have bunk beds. There are bathrooms shared by around 10 women, no communal areas, just two small rooms where meals are served and a small reception foyer. There is a car park with a few picnic tables outside. This means that during the pandemic there is virtually nowhere for the women to meet with each other or anyone else if they are to keep to rules about social distancing.”

Organisations in Stockton report that the women in the hotel are at serious risk of deteriorating mental health. People do not know how long they will be there, and where they will be sent next. Many women, once they have spent months in Stockton and managed to make some contacts and friends in the town, are then sent elsewhere in the country with very little notice.

Does the Minister agree that this is no place for vulnerable women to be placed—a slum hotel in the middle of an industrial estate with food that they cannot eat and completely shut off from the rest of society? Is he content that vulnerable women who have been abused are even safe in the accommodation that I have described? The fact that anyone has been housed in such a place is truly disgraceful, let alone the vulnerable victims of heinous organised criminals.

This experience mirrors that of communities across the UK. We have seen clearly over past years that putting people in institutionalised accommodation—be that hotels or barracks—causes them harm. People seeking asylum belong in our communities, where they can rebuild their lives. They should not be warehoused and isolated.

Before I discuss my further concerns about what is happening to young women and their children in our asylum system, I am pleased to say that, after much haranguing of Mears, which provides this particular accommodation on behalf of the Home Office, it has finally served notice on the owners of the so-called hotel and will quit using it by the end of next month. I received news of this development just after Mr Speaker granted me this Adjournment debate.

We have been in a similar place previously. I met people from Mears many months ago and they agreed with me then that the accommodation was not fit for purpose—accommodation that had been approved by the Home Office for housing extremely vulnerable women, as I have described. They said that they would stop using it within three months, but, nine months later, not only was it still in use, but more vulnerable young women had been accommodated there. That is certainly a failure on its part, but it is also a failure on the part of the Government who authorised the use of such a building in the first place.

Can the Minister explain to the House what criteria the Home Office uses when approving a hotel for this sort of use? Does anyone ever attend and check these places to see whether they are fit for purpose? It is deeply concerning and upsetting that the Government have overseen such schemes. I could go on for some time about the issues with this specific accommodation, but what I really want are solutions for these young women, who deserve so much from the country in which they have found themselves stranded. To anyone out there who would suggest that these vulnerable women and children should be removed from the country, I say that they need to understand that that would be all but impossible. Indeed, many of these women would find themselves back in the hands of the very gangs that forced them to travel here in the first place. The Minister knows that and so do I.

I recognise and understand that any Government need to get value for money for the public services that they provide and that of course includes asylum seekers’ accommodation. It is true that providers can only work within the budget provided, but what checks are in place to ensure that they are delivering on what they have promised? What checks does the Home Office do when agreeing a contract with a new provider to ensure that they have enough capacity to fulfil it?

I was not the only person who celebrated when G4S and its subcontractors, Jomast, lost the contract to provide accommodation and other services across the north of England, including in Stockton. I well remember the plastic plates provided to people, and will never ever forget the bed quilts that were so thin that a whole one could be stuffed into a pillowcase with plenty of room left. It was left to charities, such as Justice First, to provide people with quilts to keep them warm at night. I pay tribute again to the amazing work of all those who work to support asylum seekers in the Tees valley, such as Justice First, but it is not right that such basic provision has to come from charitable donations rather than the Government.

I remember the awful scandal, when Jomast painted all the doors of houses with asylum seekers in residence the same colour, with a job lot of paint. On the face of it, that was a simple oversight, but the trouble and abuse that those people got as a result was horrendous. Even when the issue was pointed out, Jomast would not change the doors, and we had to push and push and push until it eventually agreed to repaint them.

Along with people across the sector, I was keen to hear how Mears would handle and fulfil the new contract. I always remember one of its executives telling me how the company differed from those it was taking over from, and that it ran housing services, not prisons. I understood exactly what was meant by that and I shared the high hopes of many that things would get better, and they did—to a point. But Mears appeared to have overstretched itself. It did not have sufficient accommodation to fulfil the need and could not reach agreement with a third party that had the required supply. I know that that was about quality rather than price; I understand that Mears wanted to do better, and to end the need for people who were often from different countries and cultures to share bedrooms. I am pleased that over time good progress has been made, but more needs to be done, particularly for the group of people I have been talking about this evening.

Another concern that is regularly raised with me is that there is a lack of transparency and accountability in these accommodation centres. Some organisations in Stockton have flagged that they are aware of people living in deeply inappropriate accommodation, such as the type that I have described. They report that the systems by which people living in asylum accommodation can complain and resolve issues is via Migrant Help, and that the Home Office is opaque and difficult to access and navigate.

People have to log an issue or the need for a repair with Migrant Help. However, organisations and people seeking safety in Stockton report that the current waiting times for Migrant Help to answer the phone are far beyond contractual requirements, and that some requests for repairs are not recorded or passed on to the accommodation provider. Too often, this translates into people being left in limbo, unsure how to resolve urgent issues, and being forced to continue living in inappropriate or even unsafe accommodation.

Despite these clear issues, information about how the providers are performing and meeting the terms of the contracts in Stockton, regionally and nationally remains closely guarded by the Home Office. Only three key performance indicators are published for each provider, making scrutiny and accountability almost impossible. Some contracts are run by multi-billion-pound companies, and while they make a profit, people in the asylum system are left in severely substandard accommodation. Will the Minister commit to the regular publication of detailed performance management information on both the asylum accommodation and support services contract, and the advice, issue reporting and eligibility contract? This should ensure that the performance management regime is open and accountable, and designed to assess whether services are genuinely meeting the needs of people in the asylum system.

I am pleased to tell the Minister and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the borough of Stockton-on-Tees is welcoming to refugees and asylum seekers, and I am proud that it is. Our churches run drop-ins, organisations such as Justice First provide all manner of support, and our schools and health services have done a grand job in giving education and support to many. Although there is a small number of people who take issue with our area’s refugees and asylum seekers, generally our people want fairness and justice. They want to see individuals, families, women and children treated with compassion, to be given a chance and to be safe.

As the welcoming and dedicated people of Stockton have shown, local communities, charities and faith groups often step in to support people seeking asylum when Home Office provision falls short. Again, as we have seen in Stockton, statutory duties and safeguarding obligations mean that at times local authorities are obliged to step in, and many have dedicated staff in their teams to support and welcome people seeking asylum. Despite this, no funding is allocated to dispersal areas to support them and their communities.

The Home Affairs Committee has on multiple occasions recommended that the Home Office must give due regard to the financial and capacity constraints placed on dispersal authorities and provide dedicated funding—in part to give non-participating local authorities the confidence that they would be supported if they opted to become a dispersal local authority. Will the Minister consider the costs and impact of local dispersal with a view to directly funding areas that take in new arrivals in order to support them and their communities? The experience of women and children asylum seekers in Stockton brings into sharp focus the cruelty of the Government’s plans in the Nationality and Borders Bill to massively expand the use of institutionalised accommodation by setting up “accommodation centres”. I worry that these centres will enact more harm on people seeking sanctuary on an unprecedented scale.

While I recognise that Mears has said that it will deliver on its promise to me and cease to use the accommodation I have described, I ask the Minister for some help to ensure that this time Mears does deliver and that this dreadful accommodation in Stockton is taken out of use by asylum seekers once and for all. I ask him to mount a review of the quality and delivery of accommodation and services to the vulnerable women and children I have spoken about, not just in Stockton but across the country; to reassess the criteria for approving accommodation for use by Home Office contractors with a view to improving standards so that accommodation as poor as this cannot be approved again; to urgently address the long-standing structural issues in the management and monitoring of contracted provision, and significantly invest in improvements to the current stock of dispersal housing; and, finally, to give hope to these women and children that while we may not be able to provide all that they want, we will make sure that they are safe, secure, fed and healthy for as long as we need to fulfil that duty of care to them. It is what we would do for our own.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

Recent conversations have been positive, and we are exploring all the options to ensure that people are moved on from hotels as quickly as possible, including through the very welcome conversations we have had with our local partners in Stockton. We have also been working collaboratively with colleagues across Government, particularly in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to identify empty homes across the UK that could be utilised for this purpose now and potentially as affordable accommodation more widely in future.

Furthermore, we are taking a number of steps to increase the part local authorities play in helping us meet our statutory obligations towards asylum seekers of all ages. I make clear from this Dispatch Box that it is only right that we all do our bit, and not just a small number of areas. We have therefore recently issued the relevant notice to mandate all local authorities to participate in the national transfer scheme, to ensure that the responsibility for caring for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is shared fairly across the entire United Kingdom. I am grateful for the continued and invaluable support of local authorities across the country, which continue to provide crucial placements to vulnerable young asylum seekers. It is right we do all we can to protect unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, many of whom have been exploited by people smugglers during their journey.

The high number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children over recent months, alongside limited local authority participation in some cases, has placed unprecedented pressure on the national transfer scheme. Out of necessity, and with the children’s best interests in mind, we accommodated these children on an emergency and temporary basis in hotels while placements with local authorities were vigorously pursued. Intake remains very high and the situation remains extremely challenging. Hence, as I have already outlined, the Government have now taken the decision to mandate local authority participation in the scheme, although we are still in the period when local authorities can make representations about their individual circumstances.

[Alex Cunningham]

I place on record that coming from an area where we have almost the maximum recommended number of people, in Middlesbrough and Stockton, we very much welcome the fact that the Government have taken the step to mandate all other areas, because we are at saturation point, as I think they say. It is only right and proper that other communities also welcome refugees.

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. There are other parts of this policy area where we will not agree, so it is pleasing to hear that this is one where we do. My own local authority has participated in the voluntary rota and is taking its share. As he touches on, it is only right that all local councils are doing their fair share unless there are circumstances that mitigate against their being part of it, and are not, for example, not taking part and therefore requiring others to do even more than their fair share of this work.

We have not taken this step lightly, but we believe it acts in the best interests of the children concerned. The main focus of the mandating is to end the use of hotels for accommodating unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. For clarity, we aim to return to a voluntary scheme in future, but only when the use of hotels is ended and the system is on a sustainable basis in terms of capacity and likely participation in a voluntary rota.

Alongside the moves to increase participation in the national transfer scheme, we are also working to increase participation in the asylum dispersal scheme to ensure that the local authorities working with us, including Stockton, are not unduly pressured as the high demand continues. We continue to work with local authorities to identify opportunities to increase the number of areas that accommodate asylum seekers across the UK, and we have produced a change plan designed in conjunction with local councils and the local government associations across the UK to achieve a more equitable distribution of service users across the UK.

We are in the process of reviewing the change plan through a number of dedicated forums, and I look forward to confirming more details of the changes we plan to make shortly. Those changes will recognise the points made by local authorities that have been part of the system for a long time—in many cases, they first volunteered to be part of it in 1999 or 2000—about funding and the wider impact of having larger numbers in certain communities. As I say, we are very much engaging with them and look forward to confirming some changes that we believe will address many of the points that have been raised and will actively encourage other authorities to take part.

Despite the challenges that we have faced, we have consistently met our statutory obligations towards destitute asylum seekers. We expect the highest standards from our service providers, including while utilising hotels, and we monitor them closely to ensure that they meet those standards. Where essential living needs are not already provided for in hotels, a cash allowance is provided. Extra assistance is provided for those who can show that they have exceptional needs, and additional support is also available for special cases—for example, further top-ups are available for families with pregnant mothers or very young children.

All asylum seekers have access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to the advice, issue reporting and eligibility service provided for the Home Office by Migrant Help, through which they can raise any concerns regarding accommodation or support services and get information about how to obtain further support.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Minister heard my concerns about the level of service provided by Migrant Help, including the time it takes to answer the phone and that it often does not even pass on particular complaints. Will he review what is happening there to ensure that it delivers the standards that he expects?

[Kevin Foster]

I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman again on those points, and I am happy to review that. We welcome feedback about how the service is performing, particularly from Members of Parliament who represent constituencies where a larger number of service users are likely to be accessing it. We certainly encourage hon. Members to come forward if there are particular problems or issues. I appreciate that some service users may not necessarily want to approach the Home Office directly, but we welcome it when they make representations to alert us to issues via a local Member of Parliament.

I turn to the specific situation in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. While I am at the Dispatch Box I take the opportunity to thank Julie Danks, the managing director of Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, for the progressive and collaborative approach taken in working with us to help to understand the local issues and to raise the standard of services delivered.

I will not name it, but one of the hotels that we have been using in Stockton has been used exclusively for women and women with children, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. We have agreed to move away from that hotel and to move women with children as a priority to our community-based dispersal accommodation. Single women will also be moved to an alternative location within the community. I thank the council again for the constructive engagement that we have had about providing an alternative to the use of that particular hotel.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands why, for obvious reasons, given the vulnerability of those people, I will not go into the details of those arrangements on the Floor of the House. I would be happy to brief him separately about the arrangements being made, if he is not already aware of them. I hope that that is acceptable to other hon. Members present and that they understand why I make that offer separately rather than detailing them in this speech at the Dispatch Box.

We believe the changes we are putting in place will significantly improve access to the specialist support services available for all those in need. As background, our standard services include health and wellbeing screenings, an on-site resident welfare manager during business hours, appropriate contacts available outside business hours to ensure any urgent issues are resolved, and an induction pack in a number of languages that is made available on arrival. Alongside our standard support services, a range of on-site activities has also been available in the facilities we have used, and these include classes for mothers and babies, playgroups for toddlers, language lessons and careers support, recreational activities and wellbeing classes. Pregnant women have been supported and then, where possible, moved into mother and baby units close to the hotels we have been using. However, as I have touched on, we do want to move away from the hotel to which the hon. Gentleman referred in particular.

While I am at the Dispatch Box, I would really like to highlight the community and charity organisations in the area that have been helping to support us. One of them, working in collaboration with our contractor, has provided additional items for service users and a range of activities and classes to help women access services and support. We will continue to work with all partners to ensure that mothers with young children are supported locally and are able to access local networks and services. We do not underestimate the importance of these services and the value they provide, especially to women with babies, who may find the first few months of motherhood challenging, and those with young children trying to adjust to life here in the UK. In all cases, we will seek to ensure that relocation of any individual is appropriate, and decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Let me conclude by again expressing my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue in the House. Again, I really want to thank all in Stockton—MPs, councillors and the wider community—for the commitment they are showing. I do encourage more local authorities from across the UK to engage with the Home Office, through the strategic migration partnership, to increase dispersal and relieve overall pressures on the system and the need to use hotels as contingency accommodation.

As I said earlier, the United Kingdom has a proud record of giving refuge, sanctuary and support to some of the world’s most vulnerable and oppressed people, and the communities of Stockton North have provided us with invaluable support in doing just that. However, we cannot do this without the support—the active, engaged support—of local communities, and I believe the hon. Gentleman can be proud that this is something his community has provided for many years, is continuing to provide to this day and will I am sure go on providing for many years to come. With that, and having paid tribute to those who are doing their bit, we would now encourage others to step forward in this way and do theirs as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Daly]

No, I will not.

I am rather curious. We have heard comments from Opposition Members that they support heavier sentences and further action being taken, quite rightly, to protect the victims of serious sexual violence, so why in Committee did they vote against what was then clause 106—the clause that will abolish the automatic halfway release for certain serious violent or sexual offenders? We have a Leader of the Opposition with a terrible record of leading the CPS, and we have an Opposition who have recently voted against more serious sentences and more deterrent sentences.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Not against rape sentences.

[James Daly]

I have been absolutely amazed by the comments of some Opposition Members that deterrent sentences do not work. The point of the Bill—and the point of the responsibilities that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has—is to increase sentences and increase public confidence in the justice system. That is exactly what he is doing.

[Alex Cunningham]

What about rape—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Please do not shout.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

New clauses 57 to 59 have already been debated.

New Clause 60

Time limits for prosecutions for common assault in domestic abuse cases

‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of section 39 insert—

“(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, summary proceedings for an offence of common assault or battery involving domestic abuse may be brought within a period of six months from the date on which a report of the offence was made to the police.

(4) No such proceedings shall be brought by virtue of this section more than two years after the commission of the offence.

(5) For the purposes of this section “domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”’—(Alex Cunningham.)

This new clause seeks to extend the existing six month time limit for common assault in cases of domestic abuse.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 61—Discretion to bring proceedings in a case of common assault involving domestic abuse—

‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of section 39 insert—

“(3) Any limitation of time on the bringing of proceedings in a case of common assault or battery involving domestic abuse shall not apply if, in the opinion of the court, it is in the interests of justice for proceedings to be brought.

(4) For the purposes of this section “domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”’

This new clause seeks to give magistrates discretion to extend the reporting period beyond six months in cases where someone hasn’t reported it sooner due to domestic abuse.

[Alex Cunningham]

New clauses 60 and 61 were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), whom I commend for her considered and forensic work on this issue. Our consideration of the matter is particularly timely, as the national lockdowns of the past year have seen an associated increase in domestic abuse. The crime survey for England and Wales showed that 1.6 million women and 757,000 men had experienced domestic abuse between March 2019 and March 2020, with a 7% growth in police-recorded domestic abuse crimes. The national domestic abuse hotline saw a 65% increase in calls during the first lockdown last year. Research by Women’s Aid discovered that one in seven victims currently enduring abuse at the hands of their partners said that it had got worse in the wake of the pandemic. It has been called an epidemic within the pandemic, and the time is ripe to improve the criminal justice response to these awful offences.

Women experiencing domestic abuse often delay reporting incidents of common assault to the police. Sometimes that is because they feel traumatised or unsafe immediately after the incident. Sometimes it may be because they have an ongoing relationship with the perpetrator. Sometimes it might just be because they are dealing with the traumatic and logistical challenges of fleeing the abuse. Because of the six-month time limit on charging summary common assault offences, by the time that many women have the courage to come forward and are ready to speak to the police, they are told that the charging time limit has passed and that there are no further opportunities for them to seek justice against their perpetrator.

Even when women do report within the six-month time limit—say, three or four months after the incident—their cases can be timed out because the police, for whatever reason, do not complete their investigation within the time remaining. As a result, many victims are left feeling unsafe and unprotected from their perpetrators, who might continue to harass, stalk and terrorise these women for a long time to come.

New clause 60 would address this issue by changing the time limit for common assault prosecutions in domestic abuse cases, so that it was six months from the time of reporting rather than six months from the time of the offence. It would provide that charges still needed to be brought within two years of the offence. That would give survivors of domestic abuse longer to report to the police, but it would also retain a time limit to ensure that there was a safeguard against cases being dragged out.

New clause 61 would address the same issue, but take a different approach by introducing discretion for magistrates to extend the six-month time limit in cases in which someone has not come forward to report an assault, because of domestic abuse. Taken together, the new clauses would extend the window in which victims can access justice safely, while ensuring that the police conducted common assault investigations expeditiously. Both new clauses have the support of Refuge, Women’s Aid, the Centre for Women’s Justice and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. I look forward to the Minister’s considered remarks on both approaches later in our debate.

To illustrate the importance of reform in this area, I will share some testimony from a victim of these deplorable crimes that has been shared by Women’s Aid, because it is important that we listen to the voices of women who are calling for this change. This woman said:

“I am a victim of domestic abuse. I was in a violent relationship that ended late last year when I decided to leave. I have 4 accounts of physical assault which were sent to the CPS with evidence by the police.

I had a phone call from my police officer explaining that the CPS have come back and said that they are charging my abuser with only 2 counts of assault, as the other 2 accounts of assault are outside of the 6-month prosecution limit…It took strength and courage for me to come forward and now I’m being dismissed.”

I will finish with a quote from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, who puts it so well:

“Too many domestic abuse cases are currently not prosecuted because they are timed out by a six-month limit on common assault prosecutions. But unlike with other crimes, in domestic abuse cases, there are obvious and serious reasons why victims may take more time to report the abuse to the police, especially where there is an ongoing abusive relationship. This means many women who do find the courage to come forward and report these incidents are being badly let down because time has run out and the perpetrator is never charged. That can leave victims feeling more vulnerable than ever, while the perpetrators go on to commit more crimes.”

My right hon. Friend says that if the Government are serious about tackling violence against women and girls, they have to tackle this injustice. She is exactly right. We have heard much from the Government, throughout these Bill Committee proceedings, about how seriously they take tackling violence against women and girls, so I hope that they listen seriously to these calls for change and accept these new clauses.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

I can be brief in responding. I have met the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford to discuss a particular case in her constituency that appeared, on the face of it, to fall within the circumstances that she is trying to address through these new clauses. I take very seriously the concerns of the right hon. Member and, indeed, those of Refuge and Women’s Aid, and I am pleased to tell the Committee that we are looking into this issue very carefully.

The Committee will appreciate that we need to measure the problem and understand the scale of it before we can put measures before the House, or indeed in our domestic abuse strategy. On the basis that we are looking into this issue seriously and gathering the data—on the understanding that this is an active piece of work by the Government—I understand that the hon. Gentleman might be minded not to push the new clause to a vote on this occasion.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Minister is correct: I do not intend to push this new clause to a vote at this stage. However, my right hon. Friend might well choose to push it to a vote later in the process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 63

Offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation

“(1) It is an offence for a person (A) to require or accept from a person (B) sexual relations as a condition of access to or retention of accommodation or related services or transactions.

(2) For the purposes of this section, A is—

(a) a provider of accommodation,

(b) an employee of a provider of accommodation,

(c) an agent of a provider of accommodation, or

(d) a contractor of a provider of accommodation.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a maximum of 7 years.”—(Alex Cunningham.)

This new clause would create an offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation, sometimes known as “sex for rent”. This would be punishable on indictment with a prison term of a maximum of 7 years.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alex Cunningham]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 64—Offence of arranging or facilitating the requirement or acceptance of sexual relations as a condition of accommodation—

“(1) It is an offence for a person, who may be a publisher, to arrange or facilitate an offence under section [offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation].

(2) A person commits an offence if they intend to arrange or know that their actions would facilitate an offence under section [offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation].

(3) A publisher commits an offence if they—

(a) know they are arranging or facilitating an offence under section [offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation]; or

(b) reasonably should know their actions would enable the arrangement of or facilitate an offence under section [offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation]; or

(c) were informed that their actions had enabled the arrangement of or facilitated an offence under section [offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation], and they failed to take remedial action within a reasonable time.

(4) A person found guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine of £50,000.”

This new clause is contingent on NC63. It creates an offence of arranging or facilitating an offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation. This is intended to capture, for example, publishers or hosts of advertisements for such arrangements. The penalty for this offence would be a fine of £50,000.

[Alex Cunningham]

Before I speak to these clauses, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) on his tireless work in bringing attention to the terrible crime of sex for rent, as well as on his work on the topic of criminal child exploitation, which I will come to in due course. As my hon. Friend wrote to the Lord Chancellor back in January, the Opposition believe that people must be able to live in a safe home, free from the risk of exploitation, yet today many vulnerable young people in particular are being coerced into engaging in sex simply to keep a roof over their head. They are forced into the horrific situation of giving sex for rent, something that, to most, is unthinkable, yet this is by no means rare or unusual. Research by the housing charity Shelter estimates that 30,000 young women have been propositioned with sex-for-rent offers since the beginning of the pandemic. Meanwhile, investigations by the Daily Mail have found lists of sex-for-rent advertisements on the website Craigslist, with telephone numbers of landlords included.

While offering sex for rent is technically incitement to prostitution and a crime under section 52 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, at present the legal framework requires the victim to self-define as a prostitute in order to secure a conviction. Not only is this morally wrong, it acts as a clear disincentive to victims of this repugnant crime coming forward to the police. It is little wonder, therefore, that despite up to 30,000 people being propositioned with sex-for-rent offers during the pandemic alone, only a handful of charges have ever been brought against offenders using existing legislation. Despite repeated warnings from campaigners and the Opposition, the Government have done little to halt the sex-for-rent phenomenon. In particular, they have failed to create a new specific offence of sex for rent. That is why the Opposition have tabled new clause 63, which would create a new specific offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation.

[Sarah Champion]

I fully support the arguments that my hon. Friend is making and the new clauses that he has tabled. They lead into arguments that I have been making myself, in that I do not think one ought to be able to buy consent, and that is fundamentally what is happening in this situation.

[Alex Cunningham]

That is exactly the point. If people have actually undertaken that sexual relationship with a landlord, apparently, they are seen to have been doing so willingly, which most certainly should not be the case.

Unlike section 52 of the Sexual Offences Act, new clause 63 would not require a victim of sex for rent to self-identify as a prostitute in order to secure a conviction. Put simply, it would allow victims of this horrendous crime to come forward without any fear of retribution or damage to their reputation. Similarly, it would give the police the powers they need to pursue a prosecution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

Does my hon. Friend accept that some wider societal issues are pushing people into this situation? I had a constituent who had no recourse to public funds who had a child. She was working all the hours that she could for a cleaning company, but she was not earning enough, so she was renting somewhere with that very low pay, and the landlord asked her for sex in order to pay the rent. She chose not to do that and ended up literally street homeless, because she had no recourse to public funds. In the end, the council intervened, and she got housing, but she was in a very difficult position. The idea that she, in that situation, would have consent is not right.

[Alex Cunningham]

No one should ever be placed in that situation. My hon. Friend and I were both members of the shadow housing team when we discussed the housing crisis that faces many people, especially young people. No one should ever be in that situation. Perhaps a whole-society approach is required. If we did not have a problem with housing, perhaps young people such as my hon. Friend’s constituent would not find themselves in that sort of situation.

This offence would also extend to those who facilitate sex for rent directly—for example, by driving so-called tenants to and from their accommodation or by disguising sex for rent arrangements. Put simply, if it were not for those who actively promote or facilitate acts of sex for rent, the problem would not be a fraction of the size it is today. I hope the Minister will support new clause 64 and act today.

[Victoria Atkins]

I think that everyone who has heard about the work of the campaign of the hon. Member for Hove, as set out by the shadow Minister, will have deep worries and concerns about this appalling practice, and we welcome the work that the hon. Member is doing to raise awareness of it.

We are unequivocal that so-called sex for rent has no place in our society. We know that it often involves the exploitation of vulnerable people. Rape, sexual violence and sexual exploitation are devastating crimes, and we are determined to bring offenders to justice. There are existing offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that may be used to prosecute this practice, including the section 52 offence of causing or inciting prostitution for gain and the section 53 offence of controlling prostitution for gain. Both offences carry a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Minister cites a prostitution law, but these people are not prostitutes. Surely she accepts that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I welcome the Government’s work in this area. The fact that the number of prosecutions, and even of reports, is not reflected in the numbers reported through the likes of Shelter is a tragedy in many ways. Perhaps the Government should think about what they can actually do to encourage more people to come forward and report these offences.

I do not want to be insensitive about this in any way at all, but it would appear from what the Minister said—she did not spell it out as explicitly as I am going to—that the letter of the law would apply the word “prostitute” to a person who has provided sex for rent. I would be very happy to be corrected about that, but that is the whole implication: if the person has to identify as a prostitute under the law in order for the prosecution to take place, she is being called a prostitute. That is where the tremendous barrier exists to people coming forward. Is there a reason for that?

[Victoria Atkins]

To clarify, looking at section 52 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in particular, I would not want a victim who is going into a police station to report this offence to be under the impression—this is what I was trying to address—that she has to sit there and declare, “I am a prostitute.” That is absolutely not what is required. Section 52 states:

“A person commits an offence if… he intentionally causes or incites another person to become a prostitute”.

As I say, it is semantics, and there is a wafer-thin cigarette paper between us, but I would not want vulnerable people to think that they have to go into a police station and declare themselves to be that, because, of course, they are victims of a crime.

[Alex Cunningham]

I appreciate that clarification, but the fact remains that the prosecution requires that word to be used in the system. For me, that means that we need a newly defined clause in this area, so I am going to press new clause 63 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alex Cunningham]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 67—Crossing a significant age threshold between commission of offence and sentence—

“The Sentencing Act 2020 is amended by the insertion after section 58 of the following—

‘Chapter 1A

Crossing a significant age threshold between commission of offence and sentence

58A Crossing a significant age threshold between commission of offence and sentence

Where because of the age of the offender there is a difference between the sentence which may be imposed at the date of conviction and the sentence which could have been imposed on the date on which the offence was committed, a court may only pass a more severe sentence than the maximum that the court could have imposed at the time the offence was committed if there are exceptional reasons to do so.’”

This new clause is intended to put into law the advice at para 6.3 of the Sentencing Guideline on sentencing children and young people regarding sentencing when a significant age threshold is passed between the date of conviction and the date of the offence.

[Alex Cunningham]

This is an issue that I am personally very passionate about, so I am pleased to speak to these new clauses. The Minister will remember our long exchanges on maturity and young people during our debates last year on the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021. My sincere thanks go to Just For Kids Law for the vital work that it does supporting the legal rights and entitlements of children and young people and for its informed and extremely helpful input on these new clauses. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove for the energetic campaigning that he did in this area, standing up for young people in our justice system.

New clauses 66 and 67 address the issue of unjust outcomes for young people who commit offences while they are still children but, because of delays that are not within their control, are not convicted and sentenced until they have turned 18 and so are legally adults. Each year, approximately 2,500 children offend as children but turn 18 prior to conviction. Turning 18 prior to plea or conviction is likely to impact around one in 10 children who are cautioned or sentenced, so we are talking about a significant number of youth cases.

New clause 66 would mean that the reduced rehabilitation period provided for by section 5(2) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 applied to all those who committed an offence while under the age of 18, instead of only those who were convicted of an offence when under 18. This would provide a consistent approach to childhood offending by ensuring that the same rehabilitation period was applied to all those who committed an offence while under the age of 18, including those who turned 18 prior to conviction or sentence, instead of only those who were convicted of an offence when under 18.

[Sarah Champion]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, because the courts are clogged up, such examples are likely to become more and more pronounced in the coming months and years?

[Alex Cunningham]

Indeed, yes. I know that the Government are working hard to clear the backlog, but the fact remains that the backlog is considerable, and it will impact on young people in the system. As a direct result of those problems, many young people will turn 18 before they have their trial and their case heard.

Our idea would mean that children who committed offences as children received a child’s spending period, which is a principle with which I would have thought all members of the Committee could agree. The criminal records system for children in England and Wales is already highly punitive compared with such systems in other countries. The Opposition are enthusiastically supportive of the Government’s direction of travel on criminal records, as shown with respect to our consideration of clause 163. None the less, as I said then and say again now, there is room to go further.

As Just for Kids Law notes, rehabilitation periods for those who turn 18 will generally remain more than double those for under 18s. For example, following custodial sentences of more than one year and up to four years, rehabilitation will be four years for those convicted over the age of 18, compared with two years for those convicted under 18, and that is regardless of the age of the person on the date the offence was committed. We know, and have discussed previously in Committee, the serious impact that disclosure of a criminal record can have on an individual’s access to employment, which in turn can have consequential impact on the individual’s ability to move on to a crime-free life.

That issue is especially pertinent to very young adults. In an excellent submission to the Committee, the Transition to Adulthood Alliance said:

“In young adulthood, there is a crucial window of opportunity where a pro-social identity and desistance from crime can be cultivated. The ‘plasticity’ of their brains means that it is a particularly good time for learning, personal growth and the development of pro-social identity… However, by virtue of their stage of development, young adults can quickly become disillusioned and disengaged from professionals if support is not forthcoming, appropriate or timely.”

It concludes:

“Young adults’ experiences of the justice system are therefore of utmost importance in determining their capacity to build a crime-free future, develop their potential, and contribute to society.”

The Transition to Adulthood Alliance is referring to young adults as those aged up to their mid-20s, and it bases its case on an irrefutable and growing body of evidence that the brain is not fully formed until at least the mid-20s, which means that young adults typically have more psychosocial similarities to children than to older adults in their reasoning and decision-making.

I have said throughout our consideration in Committee that the Bill does not do enough to recognise those maturity issues, but the injustice created by the Government’s lack of consideration of the issue of maturity is felt most keenly here—when we treat a child of 17 years and 364 days as a child, but treat the same person completely differently when only a day more has passed. Surely our intention is to support youth offenders to rebuild their lives far from patterns of offending, yet imposing longer rehabilitation periods on some child offenders—those unfortunate enough to have been convicted after they turned 18 because of some delay in court listing or a police investigative delay—will make it harder for them to do so, and indeed may even contribute further to their disengagement and disillusionment with the system.

I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that is something the Government could consider addressing. We are enthusiastic about the direction of travel on criminal records, and I hope that this proposal might be something he feels his Department could include in its ongoing work on criminal records reform.

Let me turn to new clause 67, which would put in law the advice at paragraph 6.3 of the guidelines on sentencing children and young people, which states:

“When any significant age threshold is passed it will rarely be appropriate that a more severe sentence than the maximum that the court could have imposed at the time the offence was committed should be imposed.”

That principle already has cross-party support, as well as wide support in the sector among lawyers and academics alike.

I recognise the great work that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) has done on the issue and acknowledge the wealth of professional experience and wisdom that he brings to it. If a child is convicted but turns 18 prior to sentence, they are entitled to receive a youth sentence. If they turn 18 before conviction, the youth court may retain sentence if crossing the age threshold would occur during proceedings, but if they turn 18 before proceedings start, they can no longer receive youth sentences even if they committed the offence as a child.

Just for Kids Law has pointed out what that means:

“Only adult disposals will be available to the court, despite the defendant being sentenced for offences committed as a child. As a result, they become subject to the purposes of adult sentences which include deterrence, punishment of the offender and protection of the public. This is a significant shift from the purposes of child sentences, which have the prevention of reoffending as the principal aim, and the welfare of the child as a central consideration.”

Surely sentences are meant to reflect the criminality of the offence, which is determined by the circumstances of that offence, not the random date on which the case was finalised.

I have mentioned this matter time and again—it needs to be addressed—but the overwhelming backlog of court cases further exacerbates such injustices. According to Crest Advisory, Ministry of Justice figures published this week show that at the end of March the number of outstanding cases in magistrates courts was 396,419—21% higher than in March 2020. Outstanding cases in Crown court at the end of March were up 45% and at their highest since records have been compiled in such a way, with 59,532 cases still not completed.

It is particularly relevant to our discussion that timeliness has got much worse. It is taking far longer for cases to be resolved. In magistrates court, at the start of this year the average period from an offence being committed to a case being completed was 200 days—nearly seven months. Even at the start of 2020 it took 175 days. In Crown court it is even worse, and the median period for a case to go from offence to completion is 363 days—almost a year. That is a long time in which a child may turn 18. That would be no fault of their own, but it would be the fault of the Government with respect to tackling the backlog. Turning 18 during that time has significant impact on the outcome of children’s cases: they are prosecuted in adult courts, so the opportunity to benefit from the youth justice system is lost.

Does the Minister think that the aims of the youth justice system—preventing reoffending and protecting the welfare of children—should expire because of his backlog? He and I have butted heads over the backlog many times, and he often points towards the impact that covid has had on the justice system. I agree that that has been significant, although there were serious issues before the pandemic. Does he think the aims of the youth justice system should be allowed to expire because of the pandemic? Is that a reasonable justification for denying children who later move officially into adulthood the benefits of the youth justice system? I hope he agrees that it is not and that he will support the aim of the new clause, which would provide a consistent approach to childhood offending and ensure that those who turned 18 between the offence being committed and sentencing were not subject to more severe sentences than the maximum the court could have imposed when the offence was committed, unless there were exceptional reasons to do so.

[Sarah Champion]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the point of our justice system is to be seen to be acting without fear or favour in a fair way, and that for a child this would not be considered fair?

[Alex Cunningham]

Exactly that. I am sure that young people will be confused by a system in which, all of a sudden, they find themselves appearing in adult court instead of youth court, particularly if they have previous convictions. They will be bamboozled by it all and frightened by the process.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has been clear:

“Child justice systems should also extend protection to children who were below the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the offence but who turn 18 during the trial or sentencing process.”

Children who offend as children should feel the benefit of the youth justice system and should be afforded access to the same sentencing framework. That would give those children a better opportunity to be diverted from a cycle of reoffending and help them to rebuild their lives, which is something I am sure every member of the Committee thinks is worth aspiring to. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Chris Philp]

I am conscious of time, so I will try to respond concisely. On new clause 67, when the offender has crossed a significant age threshold such as the age of 18 between committing the offence and being convicted and sentenced, the sentencing guidelines already say that the sentence that should be adopted as a starting point is that which would have applied at the time of the offence—that is to say, when the offender was younger.

Courts already have a duty under section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to have regard to sentencing guidelines in those cases unless that would be clearly contrary to the interests of justice. The new clause would not make any material difference to the way the system operates because of the sentencing guidelines currently in force.

On the more general points about maturity and how people take until the age of 25 to mature, as the shadow Minister said, we have debated the issue many times—in particular, almost exactly a year ago during the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021. Pre-sentencing reports, which are prepared, take into account, and judges then take into account on sentencing, the maturity of the defendant when they are being sentenced.

The shadow Minister made some points about court backlogs, which I am going to address only briefly. Obviously, court backlogs have developed as a consequence of coronavirus, which is the case across the world. Huge extra resources—more than half a billion pounds—have been put into reducing those outstanding case loads, which in the magistrates court are falling consistently, as they have been for quite some time. Of the excess case load caused by coronavirus, about half has been eliminated already. Every week that goes by, the outstanding case load drops by—the last time I checked—about 2,000 cases.

On the Crown court, we have nightingale courts. There are no limitations on sitting days, and I believe the corner has been turned. Looking forward to a time when social distancing is eased in the very near future, I expect the courts will be running even more cases.

As the shadow Minister generously recognised, the Bill significantly reduces rehabilitation periods for children and for adults, which I think we welcome across the Committee. On the starting point, or the rehabilitation point, the regime that applies is calculated from the point of conviction, rather than the point of offence.

[Alex Cunningham]

Regardless of the duty on the court to which the Minister refers, it remains a fact that children are receiving sentences under the adult regime. There is no two ways about that. What concerns me most is the rehabilitation period. A child who commits an offence as a 17-year-old who does not appear in court until he is 18 can end up with a rehabilitation period of four years, which takes him to his early 20s. All that time, if he is applying for a job or with respect to other activities, he must declare that. That is a real concern for me.

I am not going to push the new clauses to the vote at this time, but the Government need to do much more thinking in this area and start treating children as children. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 69

Poaching of game

“(1) The Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 2(1), after “committing” insert “or has committed”.

(3) In section 4(1)—

(a) after “section thirty” insert “or section thirty two”, and

(b) at end insert “or any animal, vehicle, or other article belonging to him, or in his possession or under his control at the relevant time.”

(4) In section 4(2), after “gun” in lines 2 and 4 insert “, animal,”.

(5) In section 4, at end insert—

“(6) The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under either the Night Poaching Act 1828 or the Game Act 1831 may order the offender to reimburse any expenses incurred by the police in connection with the keeping of any animal seized in connection with the offence.”

(6) In section 4A(1)—

(a) in line 1, after “under” insert “section one or section 9 of the Night Poaching Act 1828 or”,

(b) after “thirty” insert “or section thirty two”, and

(c) omit “as one of five or more persons liable under that section.””.—(Mr Goodwill.)

This new clause is intended to broaden the powers available to the police and the courts for dealing with illegal hare coursers, measures include providing for forfeiture of animals on conviction and permitting the recovery of expenses incurred by the police in housing a seized animal.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Goodwill]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I am pleased to hear what the Minister has said and I am satisfied that the Government take this issue seriously—not just because of the words that I have heard her say now, but also because I was contacted by the office of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who has asked me for a meeting on the strength of the new clauses. It makes a nice change for Cabinet Ministers to ask Back Benchers to meet them to discuss issues. I am optimistic that action will be taken and hope that tabling the two new clauses has done precisely that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 71

Child criminal exploitation (No.2)

“(1) A person (A) commits the offence of child criminal exploitation if—

(a) A intentionally takes advantage of an imbalance of power over another person (B) to coerce, control, manipulate or deceive B into committing a criminal offence,

(b) A is aged 18 or over, and

(c) B is under 18.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a maximum of 14 years.”—(Alex Cunningham.)

This new clause would define and create an offence of child criminal exploitation with a maximum prison term on conviction on indictment of 14 years.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alex Cunningham]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss

New clause 72—Internal concealment of banned substances—

“(1) A person (A) commits the offence of internal concealment of banned substances if—

(a) A inserts packages of banned substances into the body of another person (B), with or without B’s consent, or

(b) A intentionally takes advantage of an imbalance of power over B to coerce, control, manipulate or deceive B into inserting packages of banned substances into B’s own body,

with the purpose of concealing the transport of those banned substances.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a maximum of 10 years.”

This new clause would create an offence of internal concealment of banned substances, meaning inserting packages of banned substances into the body of another person, or coercing another to insert banned substances into their own body, for the purpose of concealing the transport of those banned substances. This would be punishable on indictment with a prison term of a maximum of 10 years.

[Alex Cunningham]

Child criminal exploitation—the grooming and forcing of children to commit criminal acts by adults—is an emerging and fast-growing phenomenon. I have terrible problems saying the word “phenomenon”. Maybe I should have a drink—I assure you it is water, Mr McCabe.

Child criminal exploitation is often present in, but is not limited to, county lines activity. According to analysis by Labour of national referral mechanism statistics, up to 3,000 children are known to be criminally exploited every year, yet the real number is likely to be significantly higher, given that these figures are based only on the children known to services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said in her speech on new clause 17, the Children’s Commissioner estimates that at least 27,000 children are at high risk of gang exploitation. That is a truly horrifying figure.

Under the law as it currently stands, the only way to prosecute child criminal exploitation is through subsidiary offences—for example, possession with intent to supply—or under modern slavery legislation. The problem is that modern slavery legislation is poorly suited to the specific nature of child criminal exploitation. As written answers to parliamentary questions submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove show, only a handful of modern slavery orders are handed out each year. We also know that between 2019 and 2020 only 30 charges were flagged as child abuse under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We need a specific, singular offence of child criminal exploitation with a maximum tariff that acts as a real deterrent to those who exploit vulnerable children in this way. That is what new clause 71 seeks to do.

Under the new clause, an adult would commit an offence if he or she intentionally took advantage of an imbalance of power over a child in order to coerce, control, manipulate or deceive the child into committing a criminal offence. Any person found guilty of this offence would be liable to imprisonment for up to 14 years, in keeping with the maximum sentences applicable for causing or inciting the sexual exploitation of a child. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said during our sixth Committee sitting, all too frequently it is the children who have been exploited who end up taking the rap, rather than being recognised for what they are—victims.

It is hardly surprising that in 2019-20 1,400 children were first-time entrants in the youth justice system due to drug offences and around 2,000 were first-time entrants due to weapons offences. Both crimes are heavily associated with child criminal exploitation, which raises the question: how many children are currently in custody as a direct consequence of being exploited by an adult? It would be interesting to know just how many children are in custody, so does the Minister have any information on that? As my hon. Friend has said, they are not criminals, but victims—in other words, children who have been exploited by adults to commit crime. And we can repeat that sentence time and again.

While the child victims of this horrendous crime languish in jail, their future prospects almost certainly ruined, the failings of the criminal justice system mean that the real criminals go untouched. We have raised this issue in previous speeches, particularly in relation to young people carrying knives or drugs, the latter on behalf of a controlling adult who is part of an organised criminal gang.

By creating a new specific offence of child criminal exploitation, we would allow for direct action to crack down on the gang leaders who are currently committing their crimes with total impunity. The Minister must recognise that the current law is not working. It is letting down child victims of horrendous crimes, while letting gang members off the hook.

The Government must take far more radical action to combat this crime. Creating a legal framework specific to child criminal exploitation is key to that. The Government say they take child criminal exploitation seriously, but now it is time for them to show it, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on new clause 71.

I will now speak, relatively briefly, about new clause 72. Once more, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove for tabling new clause 72, and I wish him well in his new post as shadow Schools Minister—a job I would have quite fancied myself. New clause 72 would create a new criminal offence of plugging, or the placing of banned substances into the body of another person, or coercing another to insert banned substances into their own body, for the purpose of transporting and concealing them.

As we heard from Iryna Pona of the Children’s Society during our evidence session on 23 May:

“Plugging is when young people are exploited by criminal groups to deliver drugs across the country and—sometimes—they are delivering those drugs inserted in cavities in their bodies.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 23 May 2021; c. 127.]

Plugging has been specifically recognised by the National Crime Agency as a particularly malicious form of child criminal exploitation perpetrated across county lines. For the children who are exploited to carry drugs in this way, the experience they suffer is simply horrendous. Naturally, it is also a great risk to their health and could even cause their death.

As is the case with child criminal exploitation, there is currently no specific area of law that criminalises those who exploit children to carry drugs in this way. Likewise, they cannot be prosecuted under existing sexual offences legislation, due to a lack of sexual intent. Again, we are left with a gap in legislation, which categorically fails victims of this horrendous crime, many of whom will be children, while letting the real criminals—dangerous criminals—off the hook.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central asked the witness from the Children’s Society whether they thought there would be a benefit in trying to define plugging in terms of a specific criminal offence, the answer was instantaneous: yes.

Once again, as with child criminal exploitation, the Opposition are pleased to give the Government a chance to come up with the goods. New clause 72 would create a new and specific offence to criminalise the act of placing drugs into a person’s body for the purposes of trafficking them or coercing a person to do it themselves. Those found guilty of this new offence could expect to serve a custodial sentence of up to 10 years’ imprisonment.

By creating a specific offence, we could introduce a significant deterrent to gang leaders and extend the time spent in prison by those convicted of child criminal exploitation. I look forward to receiving the Minister’s support.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am conscious that we have already touched on some of these issues in the debate on new clause 17, which I will try not to repeat. Child criminal exploitation is a heinous form of abuse, and the Government are determined to tackle it. The exploitation, degradation and assault of a young person to conceal drugs internally for transportation, known as plugging, is immoral and unlawful and, again, the Government condemn it.

We are taking action to target those who seek to exploit vulnerable children through county lines operations. Earlier this year, we announced £148 million of investment to tackle drugs misuse and supply, along with county lines activity. That includes £40 million of investment dedicated to tackling drugs supply and county lines activities, and represents a surge in our activity against those ruthless gangs. That will allow us to expand and build on the results of our existing county lines programme, through which we have set up the National County Lines Co-ordination Centre to improve the intelligence picture and co-ordinate the national law-enforcement response, which includes protecting those young people who are abused and exploited.

Turning to the question of creating a specific offence of child criminal exploitation, we have discussed this issue carefully with law enforcement and others and, on balance, we are of the view that existing legislation is sufficient to address the exploitation of young people for criminal purposes. In particular, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 provides for the offences of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour, as well as human trafficking for all types exploitation. For child victims, it is sufficient to show that they have been chosen for exploitation because of their youth. There is no requirement to prove force, threats or deception, which may, in particular circumstances, be difficult to prove. A range of civil orders are available to law enforcement partners to respond to county lines and child criminal exploitation, including modern slavery and trafficking prevention orders, and modern slavery and trafficking risk orders.

To promote good use of those orders, the NCLCC has established a dedicated orders team to identify children and the perpetrators who exploit them, and to help forces with the application of such orders; to disseminate guidance and deliver training to local forces to upskill local force understanding; and to work with regional leads to improve best practice in gathering data on the use of orders in a county lines context. We are also committed to improving local safeguarding arrangements.

With the Department for Education, we commissioned Liverpool John Moores University to examine the effectiveness of multi-agency safeguarding partnerships in dealing with young people who are at risk or who are involved in serious violence and county lines. It has reported, and we are considering its recommendations. In addition, we have funded dedicated support for those who are at risk and who are involved in county lines. Between June 2020 and June this year, that work was carried out by the St Giles Trust, which worked with 170 young people to help them leave exploitation and exit gangs and other forms of coercion.

We continue to fund the Missing People SafeCall service, which is a national confidential helpline for young people, families and carers who are concerned about county lines exploitation, and we are funding the Children’s Society Prevention programme, which works to tackle and prevent child criminal exploitation as well as other forms of abuse and exploitation. We are therefore committed to tackling child criminal exploitation and bringing the perpetrators to justice, but we do not, on balance, believe that a specific offence would change the way in which young people are supported. Our efforts focus on improving the practical response to such criminality. We keep the legislative framework in connection with child criminal exploitation under review, and of course we will consider any additional evidence that supports the view that additional legislation is required as it arises.

--- Later in debate ---

We are committed to protecting vulnerable children against that pernicious practice, but we do not believe that a specific offence of plugging is needed at this time. We should continue to focus our efforts by working with law enforcement and safeguarding partners to strengthen their response to the threat.

[Alex Cunningham]

I agree with the Minister that a lot of work has to be done with support, safeguarding and everything else, but the income of local authorities has been devastated in recent years and the ability to provide the range of services required is somewhat compromised. That makes such situations all the more difficult for young people.

The Minister talked about the Modern Slavery Act, and so did I. Although it is a relatively young piece of legislation, it has rarely been used. I am not aware of any prosecutions whatever to do with the issues I have raised today—

[Victoria Atkins]

indicated dissent.

[Alex Cunningham]

I did say I was not aware.

[Victoria Atkins]

I will not cite cases, but I believe the first prosecution was in Cardiff Crown court, involving a county lines gang who originated in the south-east. I do not recall the details, but I would not want the Committee to think that it had not been used. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman said that he was “not aware” that it had been.

[Alex Cunningham]

I was referring specifically to the child exploitation element and the plugging offence. I am aware of no specific prosecution on those things. For me, it is a matter of child protection—of adult protection as well, in some cases—and we feel strongly about both the new clauses. We intend to press both new clauses to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

I thank the Minister for that response, and I am grateful for the news that there are continuing discussions with the Welsh Government even at this rather late stage in the consideration of the Bill.

Obviously, we have a fundamental disagreement. I would hold that the context in Wales is sufficiently different to require a specific assessment. That context is not only the fact that policy may diverge, but the fact that there is specifically Welsh legislation that may impact the provision. However, at this point I am content to withdraw the new clause and possibly bring it back at some other time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 75

Automatic exemption from jury service for those who are pregnant, breastfeeding or on parental leave

‘(1) The Juries Act 1974 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 9, after subsection (2B), insert—

“(2C) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, the appropriate officer shall excuse a person from attending in pursuance of a summons if—

(a) that person is pregnant,

(b) that person is breastfeeding, or

(c) that person is on parental leave.”’—(Alex Cunningham.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alex Cunningham]

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

Motherhood has featured well in our deliberations today, and we are going to turn to it again, but first I want to pay tribute to all mothers. I am going to be a bit cheeky here and pay particular tribute to my own mother, who will be 88 in five weeks’ time, and to my dad, who will be 90 a few weeks later and who still looks after her in their own home—just a little indulgence there.

New clause 75 would provide an automatic exemption from jury service for those who are on maternity leave, breastfeeding, or pregnant. The Opposition have tabled it because the Government have yet to take the action called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), who has been leading an important campaign on this topic in recent months. The issue is that there is no default exception from jury service for mothers of newborn babies who are still breastfeeding, and this can cause serious difficulties for the mother. I do not need to go into the proven benefits of breastfeeding because—perhaps unusually, given the general content of the Bill—I have already rehearsed those arguments in my speech on new clause 27.

Jury service is an important civic duty that we should all engage in, as I am sure every member of the Committee agrees—indeed, in our debate on clause 164 we all recognised the importance of extending possible engagement with jury service to more citizens. However, that cannot be done at any expense, and certainly not at the expense of the wellbeing and health of newborn babies and of mothers.

My hon. Friend shared a case in which an expectant mother deferred her jury service because it coincided with her due date. That much was fine, as the initial deferral went through, but her postponed jury service then fell within the first six months of her son’s life, during which she was exclusively breastfeeding him about every two hours. As my hon. Friend explained in her letter to the Lord Chancellor:

“The Court she has been asked to attend—York Crown Court—does not offer child-minding facilities. This creates a number of problems. As she cannot defer a second time and despite appealing the decision she is being forced to attend jury service even though it will compromise her ability to breastfeed her son during the first six months of his life. If there are no child-minding facilities, she cannot be with her son to breastfeed him unless she is allowed to bring him into the courtroom which clearly presents its own difficulties. Even if there are child-minding services made available at the Court, she will have to leave once every 2 hours to breastfeed her son.”

The Minister’s response to the case was:

“Your letter refers to your constituent making an application for a second deferral but does not mention whether she applied for an excusal. The gov.uk website provides examples of possible reasons for excusal but there is no exhaustive list. Though I cannot say that an application for excusal would have been granted in this case, potential jurors must have a good reason for applying which could include exclusively breastfeeding a child. Each application is considered on its own merit and if not granted in the first instance, there is a route of appeal whereby a judge would consider the application, either by considering the information available or arranging a short hearing to speak to the potential juror in person to discuss their reasons.”

Imagine someone undergoing postpartum recovery and caring for a newborn—up at all hours of the day and night, with all their days filled with responding to the needs of their new baby. Is it really appropriate that the Government should expect them to trawl though the Government website and go through an application process that may then be denied and need to be appealed by attending the court to speak to the judge? As my hon. Friend noted in her follow-up letter, absence of an exemption means that a new mother has to

“deal with the effort and stress of navigating a bureaucratic process to secure exemption when she should have been free to solely focus on her pregnancy and new-born.”

That is illustrated by the case of Zoe Stacey, with which I know the Minister is familiar. Zoe was called for jury service in May, while she was breastfeeding her then two-month-old child. Her application for an excusal was rejected, so she had to appeal the decision. All the while, she was breastfeeding her newborn after weeks of painful medical problems, as well as having to look after her other son, who is in pre-school four mornings a week. Surely Ministers recognise that this is a hugely stressful time for anyone, and it was made all the more difficult by the fact that Zoe had little family support nearby. In the end, she did receive an excusal, but she should not have had to go through such a stressful bureaucratic nightmare to get it.

My hon. Friend knows of more cases, some of which she shared in her correspondence with the Minister. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), wrote to her earlier this week, informing her that the guidance has been reviewed and that some amendments have been made, including the addition of “new parent” as an explicit reason for possible deferrals or excusals and a change to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s internal guidance so that it states explicitly that excusal applications on the grounds of caring responsibilities are to be considered sympathetically.

While my hon. Friend and I both appreciate that the Government are making an effort to address the problem, they are not going quite far enough. Why do excusal applications on the grounds of caring responsibilities need to be considered sympathetically? Why cannot it simply be that an excusal is guaranteed to be always granted in the case of a new parent when they ask for it? That does not remove the option of attending or deferring jury service if that is what the pregnant mother or new parent chooses; it simply ensures that any new parent has the automatic right to exercise an exemption if they wish to. I understand that the Government would not want to remove the choice to serve or defer from pregnant women and new parents, but they do not have to do that in order to provide a guaranteed exemption for all who want one. I hope that the Minister can see where we are coming from, and accept the amendment today.

[Chris Philp]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for raising this issue. The Government do support the principle behind the amendment. New parents, including those breastfeeding or women who are pregnant, should be able to serve on a jury at a time that is suitable for them. As the shadow Minister has said, we are aware of some of these cases that we have corresponded about in recent months and, as a consequence, have already updated the guidance that Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service uses to ask that a more accommodating and sympathetic approach is taken to somebody who responds to a jury summons by saying that they are pregnant, breastfeeding, or have very significant caring responsibilities in the way that he has described. Where that happens, a deferral is always considered in the first instance.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the application process. Clearly, the summoning bureau will not necessarily know who is pregnant or who is looking after a child, so it is inevitable that there will always be some kind of application process; that cannot be avoided. The thing is that it is done in a way that is sympathetic. As I have said, that guidance has been changed already. We have also updated www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk  to make it clear that these are all legitimate reasons for requesting a deferral. I hope that a combination of that publicity on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk and the work on updating the internal guidance in response to some of the cases that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have raised addresses the underlying issue. We still think that a case-by-case consideration is appropriate rather than a blanket provision such as this, which perhaps does not capture all of the circumstances that may arise. Allowing discretion to continue is the best way of handling this, but the sentiment—the direction of travel—is exactly the same as that of the hon. Gentleman.

There are, in the way in which this new clause is drafted, some idiosyncrasies. For example, on a technical point, the hon. Gentleman refers to parental leave, but there are other forms of leave that do not count as parental leave. Maternity leave and adoption leave, for example, are considered as a different form of leave. I am sure that this was inadvertent, but, as drafted, some of those groups that one would wish to include have been unfortunately omitted. We are on the same page as the Opposition on this, but the change in the guidance and the publications on www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk'>www.gov.uk  address the issues that have been raised.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Minister had an over-complicated response to what I thought was a relatively simple and straightforward matter. He talked about supporting the principle and he talked about sentiment. Surely, we could save the time, expense and, of course, the anguish around this process. Of course, there will have to be some communication between the person called for jury service and the court, but that could be very simple: “Dear court usher, or whoever you are, I am currently pregnant, or currently breastfeeding, please may I have the exception that is granted under Labour’s excellent amendment to this particular Bill.” It is very straightforward, and I cannot understand for the life of me why the Government cannot just say that if somebody in such a situation does not want to do jury service, they should not have to do it. For that reason, I shall press the matter to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

It is customary at this stage to mark the end our deliberations in Committee by reflecting on the ups and downs, the agreements and disagreements and the range of subjects on which we have deliberated. Our debate on the police covenant at the beginning of the Committee’s deliberations feels like a long time ago. I am pleased that the Bill and no fewer than 84 new clauses have had the benefit of rigorous scrutiny by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee over the past few weeks.

I thank in particular you, Mr McCabe, for your stylish chairmanship of the Committee as well as your co-Chair, Sir Charles, who was equally stylish and equally good at keeping us all in good order. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, for sharing the privilege, the pleasure and the workload of our Committee with me. I thank the Opposition Front Benchers—the hon. Members for Croydon Central, for Stockton North and for Enfield, Southgate—for their constructive and at times lively approach to the matters that we have debated, but that is all absolutely in the role of this Committee and what this process is supposed to do in this place.

I would, of course, get into lots of trouble if I did not thank the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby. If Chairs keep us in order, Whips whip us in to make sure that we remain in good order. I give my sincere thanks to him because it is a very difficult job at times and one that does not get much praise.

I thank the Clerks for herding us in the right direction when we needed to be so herded, and the Hansard writers, whose ability to keep note of what we are saying never fails to amaze me. I thank the officials and the lawyers from the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Transport. A huge amount of work goes on behind the scenes to help Ministers to prepare for a Bill Committee, and it is very much thanks to them that we are able to do so.

That flows inevitably to my very sincere thanks to the Bill manager for the Home Office, Charles Goldie, and the Bill manager for the MOJ, Katie Dougal—I hope I pronounced that correctly. They help Ministers to swim serenely above the water while they are working terribly hard underneath, so I thank them very much for their hard work and effort.

Thanks also to our private offices, who help Ministers to turn up at Committee on time. Finally, of course, thanks to the members of the Committee. I know that, for some Members, this was their first Bill Committee—I hope that we have not put them off for life—but they have all contributed in their own way and have played a vital role in scrutinising this important piece of legislation so that it is ready for the House’s wider scrutiny on Report in a week and a half’s time. Thank you all.

[Alex Cunningham]

The very fact that we are within three minutes of the reporting time for this Bill justifies my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate fighting for all the time that the Committee has had to deliberate. I thank you, Mr McCabe, and Sir Charles for chairing our weeks of deliberations with skill and good humour.

I thank the Government Members who made a contribution and even those who were able just to crack on with their correspondence, and Ministers for listening and making us some promises that I am sure they will keep. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, recognised very early on that a 16-year-old is not an adult in any circumstances whatsoever, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Croydon South, very kindly said that he would act as an advocate for Opposition Members who might be having problems engaging with other Government Ministers.

My thanks also go to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central for sharing the Front-Bench role with me and for championing our position on shopworkers and protests. I thank all the other Opposition Members who did a grand job holding the Government to account on everything else—from violence against women and girls, to pet theft. I thank the many organisations, too numerous to mention, that championed their causes and helped us to champion ours, too. Without them the challenge to the Government would have been all the poorer. I thank the Committee Clerks for their professionalism and their patience and, of course, our friends in the Hansard service.

Finally, I thank our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, who will now hang up his whip and get into his new role on a full-time basis, as I understand it. I thank him especially because I really did need him daily to tell me, “It’s okay, Alex, we will get through the business. We will get to the end. We will get all the new clauses dealt with—rest assured.” So, thank you to him.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.