Chinese Police Stations in UK
Debate between Chris Philp and Catherine West(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
What specific measures will higher education institutions be encouraged to take, or if necessary what legislation will be put in place, to protect BNO passport holders particularly, but also young Iranian, Russian and Ukrainian students who feel under surveillance, and others within the student body who are there under a surveillance pact? We know this has been happening for quite some time, and the Government’s response has been tardy. Will the Minister undertake today to meet with the Higher Education Minister, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), and to share immediate advice following today’s news, so that we can have a reassurance that all international students are safe?
Chris Philp
I completely agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiment that international students—indeed, any students—at UK universities should be free from intimidation, a point I made in response to a previous question. Whether those are Chinese students, Iranian students, Jewish students or anyone else, they should not be getting intimidated. I will just repeat the point I made earlier: individual universities, first and foremost, should be ensuring the safety of students on their campuses in the first instance.
In relation to the hon. Lady’s question about action by the DFE, as Members will appreciate, I am already straying quite a long way beyond the limits of my ministerial responsibility by answering this question; going into DFE areas would take me even further beyond them. What I will say is that I will ask the Security Minister to come back to the hon. Lady specifically on that point and update her in writing on what work he is doing with the DFE to ensure the safety of students on campuses. It is a vital question, and it is appropriate that the Government get involved as well as leaving it to universities. I will ask the Security Minister to come back to her on that very important point, but I completely agree with the sentiment of her question.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Chris Philp and Catherine West(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)
The Online Safety Bill, which went into Committee on Tuesday, rightly has extremely strong protections for women and girls. The hon. Lady will have noticed that, in schedule 7, crimes such as harassment, stalking, revenge porn and extreme porn are designated as “priority offences” , and those measures protect women in particular. They are offences where social media firms have proactively to take steps to prevent that content appearing online. We have also added cyber-flashing as a new criminal offence to the Bill.
Catherine West
Will the Minister consider what penalties can be brought against social media companies that fail in their duty to protect young girls and women, given that the number of eating disorders have risen exponentially in the past few years and, sadly, young women and girls are having suicidal thoughts owing to the way these automatic artificial intelligence practices work? What action will the Minister take on that?
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady is raising an incredibly important issue. Both girls and boys are covered under the provisions that protect children from harms. When we designate the list of harms, I expect that it will include eating-related matters and suicide and self-harm content, mindful of the terrible case of Molly Russell, who committed suicide after being bombarded on Instagram. We will also be publishing, in due course, the list of harms applying to adults. The penalties that will be applied if companies breach these duties include fines of up to 10% of global revenue, which tends to be about 100% of UK revenue. In extreme cases, if they persistently fail to comply, there are denial of service provisions, where these platforms’ ability to—[Interruption.] This is an important question. Their ability to transmit into the UK can be completely disconnected.
Protecting the Public and Justice for Victims
Debate between Chris Philp and Catherine West(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
It is a great pleasure to be able to close this evening’s debate.
The covid pandemic is truly unprecedented. It has affected every corner of our lives; from hospital operations denied, to schools closed, to businesses struggling, and even how Parliament itself operates, we have seen covid’s effects. The court system is of course no different; bringing people safely into buildings for trials and hearings, especially jury trials, is a difficult thing to do. It has required a Herculean effort over the last year and more to keep our justice system operating, and I would like to start by paying tribute to the judiciary, the staff of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, barristers, solicitors, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police, the National Probation Service and so many others who have worked tirelessly in extraordinarily difficult circumstances to keep our justice system running.
In doing that we have, as I have said, had to confront a Herculean task, yet at the beginning of this afternoon’s debate the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) suggested from the Opposition Front Bench that there had been inaction by the Government during this time; extraordinarily, that was what the shadow Justice Secretary said. Nothing is further from the truth, however. Impressive action has been taken in the last year to combat the impact of coronavirus on our court system: a quarter of a billion pounds extra spent on making sure our justice system can still operate; 1,600 extra HMCTS staff hired; 402 Crown court jury courtrooms set up, more than the target of 390; and a rapid deployment of remote hearing technology that has enabled 20,000 remote hearings a week, a 4,000% increase on the number before the pandemic.
Catherine West
The title of this debate is “Justice for Victims”. What advice would the Minister give me as a constituency MP when a young victim says, “I’m not going to pursue that case because I cannot give the next four years of my life to that man”? What is his advice when she says, “I’m just going to go and get my cousins to beat him up”?
Chris Philp
I would advise any Member of Parliament to do everything they can to support victims in their constituency to pursue prosecution. I will talk in a few minutes about some of the measures we are taking to speed up the justice system further and help and support victims, particularly women victims and victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence, but we should all encourage and support our constituents. I know the hon. Lady would do that; I am sure she is doing it, as of course we all do, and I will discuss some of those measures in just a moment.
I was talking, however, about the action we are taking to ensure that justice is delivered and that victims like the hon. Lady’s constituent can have confidence. In addition to those 20,000 remote hearings a week, speeding up justice for people like the hon. Lady’s constituent, we now have covid-safe measures in 450 courtrooms. We have opened up 60 Nightingale courtrooms around the country. We have got super-courts coming to hear multi-hander trials. And to support victims such as the hon. Lady’s constituent we are spending this year across Government, not just in the MOJ, £300 million to give victims the support, encouragement and help they need, exactly as the hon. Lady was saying a moment ago.
These actions have delivered results. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) said in her excellent speech, despite these difficulties the England and Wales jurisdiction is leading the world in court recovery. Many jurisdictions have barely restarted jury trials. We restarted jury trials in May of last year, and we were the first jurisdiction of our kind to do so. Backlogs in other jurisdictions are far higher than ours when we adjust for size.
Talking about our jurisdictions, in the magistrates court—let us start there—the outstanding caseload is dropping now by about 2,000 cases a week. The outstanding caseload at one point, at the height of the pandemic back in the summer of last year, went up to 525,000. As the shadow Justice Secretary said in his remarks, it is now back down to 460,000. About half of the extra caseload caused by covid has now been removed, and every single week it is relentlessly going down further. That is thanks to the work of our magistrates, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), who sits on the bench in Merseyside. I pay tribute to him and his colleagues for the work they have done in reducing that outstanding caseload in magistrates courts week in and week out.
The Crown court is obviously more difficult because jury trials and pandemics do not very well mix, and the number of outstanding cases has gone up. However, I can report to the House that the level of disposals—[Interruption.] I am coming on to that. The level of disposals now in the Crown court is running above the pre-covid level. It is running about 5% above the pre-covid level, as of the week commencing 25 April, which was just a few weeks ago. The most recent management data we have—it is not yet published, and is subject, of course, to verification—from the last few weeks now shows the outstanding caseload beginning to turn the corner and decline as these measures take effect.
Catherine West
There is so much time; it is only 6.46 pm. Could the Minister explain to me why there is a three-month waiting list for an independent sexual violence adviser, and why those individuals are not allowed to go into the courtroom when the victim desperately needs them to go in with them on the day? At the moment, they are not allowed into the courtroom.
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Lady for her comment. For the very reasons she mentions, we are currently recruiting a large number of additional ISVAs—independent sexual violence advisers. A lot of extra money has gone into this in the last year, and the recruitment is well under way. Those ISVAs do provide vital support to victims to make sure they are able to give their evidence.
I have outlined the action we have taken—the substantial action we have taken—and the results that it is delivering. But we are not resting there; we are doing more. In this current financial year, the Lord Chancellor—my right hon. and learned Friend has just joined us—has made it clear, as has the Lord Chief Justice, that Crown court sitting day numbers will not be a limit to listing. We have given a clear signal to the judiciary to list as much as they possibly can without limitation, and I am sure that our country’s judges will be listening to our proceedings this afternoon and will list cases accordingly.
We are also going to continue opening more Nightingale courts, and we are going to have some super courts to hear multi-hander cases. Of course, I am delighted that, following the energetic and effective campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), Kent is one of the most recent places to have a Nightingale court opened.
We heard a little bit of commentary about the state of our justice system prior to the pandemic, and reference was made by several Opposition Members to the outstanding caseload of 39,000 cases prior to the start of a pandemic in the early part of 2020. It was suggested that that level of outstanding cases was shockingly high, but what none of the Opposition Members chose to mention or chose to remember was the fact that in 2010, when the last Labour Government left office, the outstanding caseload in the Crown court was not 39,000, but 47,000—a great deal higher. I am proud that it was a Conservative Government who got that outstanding caseload down by 12,000 compared with our Labour predecessor prior to the onset of the pandemic.
We also heard some commentary about convictions and about the state of the criminal justice system. The most reliable measure of crime is the crime survey; it is the only statistical measure recognised by the Office for National Statistics. The number of crimes recorded by the crime survey back in 2010 was 9.5 million. The most recent figures from a year or so ago show that that has declined by 40%, with the figure down to 5.6 million, so we do not need any lectures about the last 10 years from the Opposition, when crime under this Government has dropped by 40% according to the most reliable measure. Of course we want that to continue, and we are hiring 20,000 more police officers and 400 more prosecutors to make sure that that reduction in crime, as measured by the crime survey, continues.
We heard quite a few moving and important contributions during this afternoon’s debate on the critical issues of violence against women and girls and of rape, and I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), for her thoughtful speech on this, as well as the many other Members who contributed to this discussion. I would like to start by addressing the question of sentencing for rape, which was raised by the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), in his speech. The maximum sentence for rape is life, and judges are free to sentence up to that level. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the actual sentence lengths that are being handed down. The sentences that are being handed down for adult rape have increased in the past 10 years by two and a half years. They have increased from 79.2 months back in 2010 to 109.4 months more recently. The average sentence for men convicted of this appalling crime has gone up by two and a half years, and quite right too, because it is a despicable and appalling offence.
It is not just the sentence that is important; it is also important how much of that sentence is served in prison. We legislated by statutory instrument about a year ago, and we are legislating again now in the PCSC Bill to ensure that violent criminals, including rapists, get released automatically not after half their sentence, as was the case under the last Labour Government, but after two thirds of their sentence, to ensure not only that sentences are longer but that more of the sentences are spent in prison. That is the right thing to do, and I strongly support those measures.
Many Members have raised the issue of the inappropriately low rate of rape convictions. The Government fully acknowledge that the rape conviction rate is far too low and that action is needed. The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge asked some questions about the rape review. I do not want to pre-empt it too much, but my understanding is that it will be published in days rather than weeks. It will comprehensively seek to address the issue of rape convictions. They are too low—there is no two ways about that—and through the rape review, we will work with those on both sides of the House to get the rape conviction rate increased, because that undoubtedly needs to happen.
Many steps have been taken already, but more are needed. I particularly draw the House’s attention to the section 28 rules about evidence. As of last November, all vulnerable witnesses have been able to give pre-recorded evidence at a very early stage in the process, including the cross-examination, in order to deal with exactly the sort of trauma that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) referred to, and to get evidence recorded quickly so that the victim can move on. That has applied to all vulnerable victims as of November last year, and we are now piloting a further three areas where victims who could potentially be intimidated can record their evidence in the same way. That is an extremely important move.
More generally on violence against women and girls, a great deal has been done already, although of course there is more to do. Domestic violence protection orders were prioritised by the courts during the pandemic, and it was this Government that introduced new stalking offences and increased the sentences for them. This Government, with cross-party support, introduced the upskirting offence, did work on female genital mutilation, introduced and passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and introduced the measures on non-fatal strangulation and the rough sex defence—action after action designed to protect women and girls.
However, more is needed and in the coming months, we will publish a refreshed violence against women and girls strategy and a domestic abuse strategy. There will be a review of domestic homicide and, of course, the Law Commission is conducting a review of hate crime, which will include misogyny. There has been progress, but we need to make a great deal more.
Catherine West
The Minister is being generous in giving way. Will he acknowledge the important work done through private Members’ Bills on those subjects? The way that he expressed it suggests that they were all the ideas of the Tory Government. If I am correct, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) promoted a private Member’s Bill on upskirting and another Member had a measure on strangulation. Several of the Minister’s recommendations come not from the Government but from private Members’ Bills.
Chris Philp
I made it clear that the measures had cross-party support. It is true that some of the ideas originated in private Members’ Bills, and we welcome that. The Government listens across the House and takes action. Therefore, when private Members’ Bills that had merit were introduced, such as some of those we have heard about, for example, the upskirting measure, we embraced them and got them passed. We can all, on both sides of the House—the Members who promoted the private Members’ Bills and the Government for embracing and passing them—be proud of that. As I said, much has been done, but there is much more to do.
I want to deal with one or two specific points. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) made some important points about pet theft. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said, a taskforce is taking action on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) mentioned catalytic converter theft, which also plagues Croydon South, and I will take up his suggestion.
I want to pause on the moving and powerful contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan), who recounted the appalling constituency case of Georgia, who was so awfully murdered, and of my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), whose constituents, Lynda and Dawn, were murdered by that terrible man, Pitchfork. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford also raised that case. The Government have of course seen the independent Parole Board’s decision of Monday to release that man. Thanks to legislation passed a year or two ago, the Lord Chancellor has the power to review such decisions and to ask the Parole Board to think again. I can confirm that the review of that decision is ongoing and will be concluded before the expiration of the relevant time limit. The Lord Chancellor is acutely aware of the case and is looking at it as we speak. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Telford and for South Leicestershire for raising the case. I assure them that it is under active consideration.
It is clear that the pandemic has placed unprecedented pressure on our justice system as it has on so many parts of our lives, but we cannot allow the virus to stand in the way of justice. That is why we have taken action: Nightingale courts; £250 million; no limitation on sitting days; 1,600 extra staff; the roll-out of technology, and so many other measures. We will leave no stone unturned in ensuring that our justice system recovers.
Our justice system is the cornerstone of a civilised society. It is fundamental to keeping us and our constituents safe. The Government will do everything necessary to sustain, support and protect our justice system and victims. We have led the world in court recovery. That work will continue.
Question put.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Chris Philp and Catherine West(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
I have been making an assessment of this matter in recent weeks, and following publication of the most recent Office for National Statistics data, I can announce to the House today that, with effect from 15 June, the asylum support rate will be increased by 5%, from £37.75 a week up to £39.60 a week. That is about five times higher than the prevailing rate of inflation, which is currently 0.8%.
Catherine West
That is rather an ungenerous increase, I have to say, given that the rate can be as low as £37 a day for certain people seeking asylum. However, any increase is something I welcome. Could the Minister tell me whether he could live on under £40 a day?
Chris Philp
Well, it is per week: the rate is £39.60 per week. It is calculated by a methodology that is approved by the courts, and it is done with reference to ONS data, based on the incomes of people in the bottom 10% of the population. It is done with reference to figures, by a court-approved method, and that is the right way to fix this thing. I say again that a 5% increase is very substantially higher than inflation.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Chris Philp and Catherine West(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the enthusiasm with which he called for your attention, Mr Speaker. I should of course be delighted to meet him to discuss any concerns that he may have about access to justice in his constituency.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Given the tragic case of the baby who died in prison and the mother who laboured on her own in a prison cell, will the Minister please, in her review, look at two issues? First, were enough prison officers on duty that night, and secondly, will every single pregnant prisoner be given a healthcare plan suitable to her needs for every day of her pregnancy on which she is in prison?
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Chris Philp and Catherine West
Catherine West
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake).
I shall be brief, because I know that the hour of the vote is upon us, but I could not resist speaking. Since I was elected a year ago, 1,300 people have come to my advice surgery or have contacted me, and 60% of complaints have been about housing. People have wanted to get on to the housing ladder, have been party to unsatisfactory private rental agreements, or have desperately needed a social home.
It is great that so many London Members have spoken today. Many of us look forward to a wonderful result on Thursday and a more positive approach to housing in London. I am sorry to say that, when it comes to housing for people on ordinary incomes, the record of the current Mayor of London has been pathetic. As a council leader—I must declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association—I was involved in a number of rows with him. When the council said, “This must be 50% genuinely affordable,” he changed the definition of affordable homes to 80% of the market rate which, in inner London, is utterly unaffordable for the average worker. He also called in applications proactively. When we had agreed with developers about 50% affordability, he turned the application on its head and gave in to the developers. We need a Mayor who will stand up for Londoners and hold developers’ feet to the fire. We need a Mayor who will do the opposite of what was done then and call in developments when councils are not providing enough affordable property.
Let me say a little about the private rented sector. This is not just a London issue, because 4 million families in the country are now renting private property. This is not just a minority interest for London Members; the problem exists across the board. The insecurity that families in the private rented sector feel must be taken much more seriously. It is a crying shame that, notwithstanding all the parliamentary time that we have had in which to debate this matter, and despite all the thinking that has been done in the House of Lords and here in the House of Commons, we have come up with no more than paltry recommendations for an unfair housing sector in which rents go up at the drop of a hat, agents can charge ridiculous fees just to photocopy a rental agreement, and people regularly have to change schools and GPs, which involves a massive cost. In the previous Parliament, housing benefit cost us £60 billion, which could have been spent on building more affordable homes. Why do we think that housing is such a wonderful investment for the private sector? Because of the returns. An investment of £100,000 returns that money after 10 years. It is an excellent investment, which is why housing is so expensive.
I see that you are restless for the vote, Madam Deputy Speaker, so let me end by saying that we must have some leadership from the Government on social housing. There are virtually no proposals, apart from that on starter homes, for the active promotion of high-quality communities with a mix of social homes, private homes, starter homes and key worker homes. We need to be able to take an active interest in how we shape our communities and neighbourhoods so that they are genuinely mixed, rather than being the ghettoes that proposals of this kind could potentially create.
Chris Philp
I draw colleagues’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Let me start by responding to a point made by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods). She referred to the Government’s house building record; let me tell the House that it is a fine one. In the last year of the previous Labour Government, only 125,000 units were started. Last year, that figure had increased to 165,000 units, so this Government have a record they can be proud of when it comes to building new homes.
The hon. Lady and the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), also talked about the need to increase supply more generally, and we on this side of the House wholeheartedly agree with that. There is much in the Bill with which their lordships have thankfully chosen not to disagree that will increase supply, including local development orders, the requirement to have local plans in place by 2017 and the work of the London Land Commission. There is a huge amount in the Bill that will increase supply, which Opposition Members have asked for.
I want to say a word in support of starter homes. We know that 86% of the citizens of this country aspire to own their own home, and starter homes will help them to do that. By owning their own home, they will benefit economically as house values go up and they pay down their mortgages, and social benefits will accrue as well. We have heard a lot from Opposition Members about the importance of settled and rooted communities. What better way is there of having a settled and well-established community than by ensuring that it is a community of people who own their own homes?
Opposition Members also talked about affordability, speaking about the ceiling of £450,000 in London and £250,000 outside the capital. That is a ceiling; it is a maximum. My borough, the London Borough of Croydon, is the largest borough by population. The average starter home there will cost £190,000. That means that, with Help to Buy, a deposit of £10,000 will secure a home, and a couple earning £22,500 each will be able to afford to service the mortgage on it. In the London Borough of Croydon, starter homes will work.
On the point about increasing the supply of council houses, I must respectfully point out that in the past five years of a Conservative Government, we have built more than were built in 13 years under Labour. I would further point out that under the rules governing the disposal of high-value council houses, one such house will replace every one that is sold outside London, and it will be two for one in London. These measures will actually increase the supply of council housing across London as a whole, so they should be welcomed.
The problem with the amendment relating to the 20 years’ discount is that if someone wants to move from their starter home, they will need to realise its full market value in order to move up the property ladder to their second and then their third home. I believe that we might see regulations that would allow for a sliding scale, perhaps between five and 10 years. Given that the average length of time spent in a property is about seven years, that would make sense.
On the amendment about local authorities being able to circumvent starter home provisions, I must point out that our proposals were part of a national manifesto commitment that was approved by the electorate at the general election, so it is quite right that they should now be implemented nationally. Local issues will be fully accounted for via the 20% discount on the open market value, which will reflect local housing need.
There is more that I could say, but I am sure that we all want to hear from the Minister. I support the Government’s position on the amendments and look forward to supporting them in the Lobby.
Housing and Planning Bill
Debate between Chris Philp and Catherine West
Chris Philp
Thank you for calling me at this late hour, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I support the Bill’s emphasis on starter homes, and the corollary of that is that I oppose some of the amendments that dilute that emphasis, particularly amendments 40, 110 and 33. I believe that owner-occupiers on low incomes need all the help that they can get to get on to the housing ladder, and the starter home provisions will provide exactly that.
I was alarmed to note that between 2007 and 2013, the most recent period for which figures are available, the number of owner-occupiers in the country fell by half a million, and the proportion fell from 68% to 63%. The provisions in this Bill are designed to arrest that decline, and it is right that they do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) referred in his closing remarks to the merits of a property-owning democracy, and we know that 86% of the public aspire to own their own home. There is no greater service we in this House can do tonight than help those 86% of our constituents realise their dream of owning their own home, and this Bill does that.
On the questions raised by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) about affordability, I would make the following observations. First, starter homes by definition are 20% more affordable than current homes for sale, and that is a welcome step in the right direction; it is clearly an improvement on where we are today. She referred to deposits, too. The Government’s Help to Buy scheme allows people to borrow up to 95% of a property’s value. Even in London, even if the price is the maximum the deposit is only £22,500, and outside London it is only a £12,500 deposit. These are maximum figures; I expect many starter homes will be below these maximum figures and will be extremely affordable.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in certain constituencies, including mine, Help to Buy has helped as few as one household? When I last looked, one household in Hornsey and Wood Green had been assisted in May this year.
Chris Philp
Most first-time buyer households have two people’s incomes contributing, which improves the affordability.
On the specific question raised by the hon. Member for City of Durham on amendment 34 about preventing buy-to-let investors, clause 2(1)(b) says starter homes will apply only to “qualifying first-time buyers”, which is very clear.
In summary, I strongly support the starter homes concept and the concept of a property-owning democracy, and I support the 86% of our constituents who want to buy their own home.
Trade Union Bill
Debate between Chris Philp and Catherine West(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow that thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), particularly as he quoted Margaret Thatcher with approval.
The history of trade unions is an honourable one, arising in the late 19th century, when workers were suffering from widespread oppression. Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, trade unions performed vital functions. It is worth remembering, of course, that many of those functions are now fulfilled by Parliament; it has legislated for a national minimum wage, provision for sickness and holiday payments, protection against unfair dismissal and so on. Therefore, many of the injustices that trade unions quite rightly fought against at the outset have now been dealt with by Parliament. I want to emphasise that the right to strike and the right for trade unions to operate are in no way threatened by the Bill. The right to strike will still exist, as it absolutely should.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) both asked the question, “What is the purpose of this legislation?” Its principal purpose is to protect people who suffer when strikes take place. Let me quote a lady from Stoke-on-Trent who runs a hairdressing salon and has a child:
“It isn’t fair on parents, who could be missing out on a day’s pay by not working when teachers strike.”
Strikes have a profound effect on other members of society, which is why it is appropriate to put in place a reasonable threshold before strike action can be taken. For example, exactly a year ago Unison’s NHS staff voted for strike action on a turnout of 16% and with 11% of the membership voting in favour. I do not think that mandate is strong enough to merit inconveniencing tens of thousands of patients and potentially having operations postponed.
Furthermore, since 2008 there have been 26 strikes on the London underground—I am a London MP, and I have lived in this city all my life. Anyone who claims that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers does not strike lightly has not tried to travel in this city during one of those 26 strikes. I point out that 19 of those strikes would not have happened under this legislation.
Catherine West
But does the hon. Gentleman accept that those strikes have tripled since the Tories took over in London in 2008? It is an absolute disgrace that the Mayor of London has never sat down and met the trade unions and treated them as though they were equal partners or human beings in the same race.
Chris Philp
I think that it is very unfortunate that the RMT has chosen to be so confrontational. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) pointed out earlier, even his predecessor, Ken Livingstone, met RMT officials only once, and he insulted them in the meeting.
Questions were asked earlier about the mandate for this legislation. I remind those Members who oppose the Bill that a YouGov poll conducted only four weeks ago found that 53% of Londoners are in favour of these measures and only 26% are opposed. Moreover, I challenge the assertion made by some Opposition Members that union activity does not stoke excessive strike action. It is instructive to compare days lost due to strike action in the private sector, where union membership is relatively low, with days lost in the public sector, where union membership is more widespread. We find that last year the number was 40 times higher in the public sector than it was in the private sector, despite the fact that terms and conditions—pay, holidays and so on—are, if anything, slightly better in the public sector.
I would like briefly to address the issue of facility time. The TaxPayers Alliance—[Interruption]—which clearly commands widespread support on the Opposition Benches, has calculated that the effective subsidy to unions from the public purse as a result of facility time is £108 million every year. The unions do not necessarily need that money—they have plenty of money to make political donations with—and it is not reasonable for the public purse to fund what is often party political activity.
In conclusion, I think that the Bill is a reasonable, moderate measure that will protect people from the often very disruptive effects of strike action.