Coronation: Policing of Protests

Debate between Chris Philp and Richard Burgon

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

Again, exactly what happened is an operational matter for the police. Clearly, last Saturday the police had a lot going on in central London, policing the largest public event we have ever had in our country’s history. I do not know—in fact, no Member of this House knows or can know—precisely what inquiries were being undertaken while the decision ultimately to release those individuals was taken. Complaint processes are available if any individual member of the public wants to follow them. They are available to anyone who is arrested or encounters the police. If someone feels that the police have behaved unreasonably in a particular situation, they are able to use those complaint procedures.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Is it not the case that the arrests of peaceful protestors at the weekend were not an aberration, but exactly what the Public Order Act is designed to do—to clamp down on legitimate peaceful protest, which should be a basic democratic right in this country?

[Chris Philp]

No, that is not the purpose of the Public Order Act, which is designed to prevent people from deliberately disrupting the daily lives of their fellow citizens, as we have seen with the locking-on on public highways, which causes enormous traffic jams that stop people getting to hospital, getting their children to school and getting to work—we have seen 10-mile tailbacks on the M25. We had specific intelligence that people planned to disrupt the coronation by creating a stampede of horses and by covering the ceremonial procession in paint. The Public Order Act is designed to stop such disruption while, of course, allowing peaceful protest. That is its purpose.

Economic Situation

Debate between Chris Philp and Richard Burgon

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. As Chairman of the Education Committee, he is a tireless campaigner for education and skills. I agree that the purpose of economic growth is to grow all parts of the economy, to help people across the entire income spectrum—rich and poor alike—and to ensure that the burden of taxation on those people is as light as it can be. That is why we have increased the minimum wage by such a large amount—from £5.93 an hour when Labour left office to £9.50 an hour today—and why we have lifted so many people on lower incomes completely out of taxation through increasing the income tax and national insurance thresholds to £12,570. All that disproportionately helps people on lower incomes.

We are seized of the importance of ensuring that education is properly funded. It is an investment in our country’s future and our children’s future, and I assure my right hon. Friend that that is very much at the front of our minds as we think about the fiscal plan.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Like many others, I have listened with disbelief to much of what the Chief Secretary has said. While we have been in the Chamber, the Bank of England has again linked the economic turmoil to the Government’s disastrous mini-Budget. Will he explain to us all and to the public why he is right and the Bank of England is wrong?

[Chris Philp]

As I have explained before, we are in a global cycle of interest rate increases and there has been global dollar strength. We have taken action in the energy intervention and in the growth plan to protect our constituents, get our economy growing and build on our record as the fastest growing G7 economy last year, this year and over the three-year period as a whole.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between Chris Philp and Richard Burgon

2nd reading
Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)]

The piece of legislation before the House this evening is truly groundbreaking, because no other jurisdiction anywhere in the world has attempted to legislate as comprehensively as we are beginning to legislate here. For too long, big tech companies have exposed children to risk and harm, as evidenced by the tragic suicide of Molly Russell, who was exposed to appalling content on Instagram, which encouraged her, tragically, to take her own life. For too long, large social media firms have allowed illegal content to go unchecked online.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I have spoken before about dangerous suicide-related content online. The Minister mentions larger platforms. Will the Government go away and bring back two amendments based on points made by the Samaritans? One would bring smaller platforms within the scope of sanctions, and the second would make the protective aspects of the Bill cover people who are over 18, not just those who are under 18. If the Government do that, I am sure that it will be cause for celebration and that Members on both sides of the House will give their support.

[Chris Philp]

It is very important to emphasise that, regardless of size, all platforms in the scope of the Bill are covered if there are risks to children.

A number of Members, including the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), have raised the issue of small platforms that are potentially harmful. I will give some thought to how the question of small but high-risk platforms can be covered. However, all platforms, regardless of size, are in scope with regard to content that is illegal and to content that is harmful to children.

For too long, social media firms have also arbitrarily censored content just because they do not like it. With the passage of this Bill, all those things will be no more, because it creates parliamentary sovereignty over how the internet operates, and I am glad that the principles in the Bill command widespread cross-party support.

The pre-legislative scrutiny that we have gone through has been incredibly intensive. I thank and pay tribute to the DCMS Committee and the Joint Committee for their work. We have adopted 66 of the Joint Committee’s recommendations. The Bill has been a long time in preparation. We have been thoughtful, and the Government have listened and responded. That is why the Bill is in good condition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Philp and Richard Burgon

Monday 28th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

As the hon. and learned Lady says, formal investigations are going on, and of course the Home Office will support them in any way that we are asked. In relation to the internal review that is taking place, I have not received that report yet, but when I do, I will look at it carefully and consider how best to proceed thereafter. On the question of hotel use, I think we all agree that it is not ideal. We are working as rapidly as we can to reduce and eventually end the use of hotels, not just in the city of Glasgow but across the whole United Kingdom.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Debate between Chris Philp and Richard Burgon

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. USDAW and other organisations are right to say that hundreds of thousands of people could be negatively impacted.

Through statutory instrument, the Government seek to increase the small claims limit from £1,000 to £2,000 in all cases and from £1,000 to £5,000 in road traffic accident cases. We are very concerned about what that means in practice. A significant number of claims henceforth will be dealt with through the small claims track procedure, where even in a successful claim, no legal costs are usually awarded.

Without legal fees being covered, tens of thousands of working people will simply be priced out of obtaining legal assistance. Many will drop their cases altogether. Others will fight on but do so representing themselves, not only making their pursuit of justice more difficult, but placing serious pressures on the courts. Others will pay their own legal fees out of their compensation, which in effect means a cut in their compensation levels. Of course, other workers will conclude that when their route to justice through a court or tribunal is removed, they have no alternative but to resort to industrial action to achieve redress.

[Chris Philp]

Is it not a well-established principle both in this country and overseas, in jurisdictions such as France, that for very straightforward, simple matters—these very minor injuries are generally straightforward and simple—having a fast-track process without the involvement of expensive lawyers is a reasonable and legitimate approach?

[Richard Burgon]

We need to ask ourselves what “minor injuries” and “small amounts of money” mean. What is being referred to as a “minor injury” may last up to two years. I do not think that that is a minor injury. What is being referred to as “small amounts of money” is actually, in practice, a lot of money for working people who are struggling to make ends meet.

There was a 90% drop-off in employment tribunal claims when employment tribunal fees were introduced. We fear something similar in personal injury cases, with genuine victims priced out of justice and deterred from pursuing a claim for an injury that was not their fault.