Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend seems to be agreeing with amendment 9 and that he thinks that the sentence in the Bill should be more than 12 months, perhaps 24 months. I will take that as support, but I am unsure whether I have accurately deciphered what he was trying to say. However, he is right that the CPS should charge people for the appropriate offence, but the point is that it does not, and I can assure the House that things will be the same after this Bill comes into effect. The CPS will still prosecute people for offences that it knows will get a conviction. When someone goes before the courts for a particular offence, we must ensure that the judge or magistrate has the appropriate sentencing powers to make sure that justice is done properly and is seen to be done properly. At the moment, however, that is not the case.

I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) was right. I wish that the utopia he describes, in which the CPS accurately prosecutes people for the serious offences that they have committed every single time, was the reality. If that were the case, there would probably be no need for this Bill, but the fact is that the CPS does not do that. We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be. My hon. Friend has much more expertise in the criminal justice system than me—[Interruption.] On the right side of it, obviously. I respect my hon. Friend’s opinion, but debates in this House on justice issues can often resemble a lawyer’s dinner party. Things can be very interesting, but most people in the real world do not really give a stuff about that. They want to know about what is happening on the ground, rather than what the legal profession would like us to think is happening, which are two very different things.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says about the reality of the prosecution system and how it operates on the ground, but this Bill is about a little more than just the legal mechanisms we want the Crown Prosecution Service to follow. It is about the signal we send out. It is about trying to change the culture. Right now, we have a situation in this country in which many people think it is okay to engage in this behaviour. Yes, we need to change the technicalities of the law, but we must send out a stronger signal on what is acceptable in society. There must be a change in culture, as well as in practice.

[Philip Davies]

I am not sure I agree. To be perfectly frank, I get rather tired of people passing legislation on Fridays just to send a signal. We could send a signal just by saying something, but we are in the business here of passing law. It would be a rather wasted opportunity if all we achieve today is sending a signal from this House that assaulting police officers and other emergency workers is a terrible thing. I do not want us just to send a signal; I want to see people who are guilty of these offences spend longer in prison. That is what I want to see: not a signal but a real, tangible difference. I am not sure that sending a signal will do the job. We will have achieved something when some of these terrible people end up with longer prison sentences, and that is what my amendments are designed to do.

In the case of the woman who caused a police officer to lose her finger, the maximum sentence on a guilty plea, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham intimated, is actually four months, even given the number of offences of assaulting other police officers. Of course, a maximum of only half the sentence would be served. So, actually, two months in prison is the maximum that person could face for assaulting numerous police officers, leading one of them to lose their finger. In this country we should be ashamed that that is the maximum sentence a court can impose on that person. In my opinion, and for many people in this country, that is a sick joke.

Again, as my hon. Friend said, two years is probably too little, but two years is certainly better than six months. Should the Crown Prosecution Service do what it does day in, day out and undercharge people, surely we must all agree that giving the courts the opportunity to sentence a person to two years in prison is better than the current situation. The purpose of my new clauses is to make sure we can guarantee that, by whichever route a person ends up in court for this offence, a more appropriate sentence can be handed out.

Another more recent example of why the amendments could be helpful is the case of Leroy Parry, who was convicted this week of biting a police officer. He was sentenced to 22 weeks in prison, despite having six previous convictions for assaulting police officers among his 42 previous offences. The police officer, who apparently needed blood tests and antibiotics after being bitten, said that the level of violence exhibited by Parry was the worst he had seen in more than 14 years in the police force.

Increasing the sentencing options for this offence would ensure that magistrates and judges can take the offence more seriously, and much bigger sentences could then quite rightly be handed down by the courts. We would no longer be tying the hands of magistrates and judges, who I am sure also feel frustrated when they cannot pass the sentence they would want to pass. It would mean the seriousness of Parliament to ensure higher sentences for those who assault the police would be recognised, and hopefully sentences, overall, would be higher as a consequence.

This is necessary because the figures are incredible. I asked several years ago how many previous convictions for assaulting a police officer someone had managed to rack up without being sent to prison for doing it again, and the answer showed that, in one year, a person with 36 previous convictions for assaulting a police officer had assaulted at least one more officer and still avoided being sent to prison altogether. By anyone’s standards, surely that is completely unbelievable and completely unacceptable. That is what we should aim to tackle with this Bill.

Such sentences do nothing to help the police, do nothing to deter criminals and do nothing to make our streets safer. If one of my amendments were to be accepted, it would at least assist in increasing the likely consequences of assaulting a police officer, which would hopefully deter some people or, at the very least, keep the culprits off our streets for longer.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Sometimes a campaign captures the mood of this nation, and the WASPI campaigners have done just that. Like so much of this Government’s agenda, the speed of the transition arrangements for women’s state pensions betrays a rush to pinch pennies at too great a human expense, but the WASPI women have stung back—even more so than other groups that have been hit hard by austerity—and the wave of public support for their cause speaks volumes.

We have a strong tradition of equality campaigning in this country. I think of the Suffragettes and their determination to given women a voice whatever the cost; the Chartists and their drive for universal suffrage and a fairer deal for working people; and the Ford Dagenham workers and their demand for equal pay for equal work. I think, too, of Stonewall and its tireless challenging of homophobia in law, schools and the workplace; and the Fawcett Society and its provocative challenge that, “This is what a feminist looks like.” Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me say, “This is what a feminist looks like.” Each of those campaigns was driven by anger at injustice; anger at unfairness; and anger at the unreasonableness of those in positions of power to listen to a reasonable case.

As we have heard, moving the goalposts on state pension age equalisation so rapidly is the latest affront to a generation of women whose working lives have already been too challenging. This is a generation of women who had patchy access to maternity leave and fair pay; who had no access to shared parental leave; who often experienced harassment, bullying and discrimination in the workplace; and who regularly settled for low-paid, low-skilled jobs beneath their potential, because quality flexible working was not then an option for them. They are the generation of women who account for too few seats in the boardroom and for too few positions in industries such as engineering and construction; who finished their working lives earning significantly less than their male counterparts; and who have paid their dues and deserve a decent retirement. They deserve, at a minimum, to be able to plan their retirement with the certainty and the expectation that others have.

It is right that the retirement age for the state pension should be the same for men and women. The WASPI campaign does not dispute that, but the pace of this change has robbed people of the time to prepare; the time to make informed decisions; and the time to honour other commitments without placing themselves in financial jeopardy. All those things have been robbed from the WASPI campaigners. Reasonable decisions about their family futures have been lost to a forced hand. More than 3,800 of my constituents are believed to be affected by this legislation—more than 5% of my electorate. Of those, a considerable 2,000 will experience a year’s increase to state pension age, and as many as 450 will experience the full 18-month delay. Several of them have contacted me to express their concerns. They include Gail Jones of Hyde and Barbara Evans of Mossley. They are women who have contributed to both the Exchequer and their communities throughout their lives, and they are now being short-changed.

This Government have at times proven that they can acknowledge when they have misjudged a policy by retreating from their attempts to cut tax credits and to make further cuts to police numbers. The cynics among us would say that that tends to happen when the Chancellor feels it will affect his career prospects, but it is still the case that the Government have on occasions performed a U-turn. I trust that on this occasion the Minister will finally listen to the strength of feeling of Labour Members and indeed of those on both sides of the House, but especially to the passionate appeals by the WASPI campaigners, and agree to revisit the arrangements. Let us respect those women who have contributed so much to both the national purse and the national fabric.

I hope that when the Minister comes to sum up, he will show from the Dispatch Box today that he is what a feminist looks like and will pledge to think again.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Miller]

The hon. Gentleman makes his own point in his own way, but we are trying to take some of the emotion out of this debate to get to some of the facts, and we owe it to those people who are really heavily engaged in this debate to do that.

We need a fairer pension system and one in which everybody knows what they are going to get out of it at the end, not only from the state pension system but from private pensions as well. It would be very fair of us all here today to be highly critical of the pensions industry for the opaque way in which it operates, which makes it is very difficult for us to know exactly what we will get and when.

I shall refocus on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) made, namely that the petition being debated today creates some of the fog because it appears to call for change that puts all women in their fifties who were born on or after 5 April 1951 and who are affected by the changes to the state pension age to be in exactly the same financial position that they would have been in if they had been born or before 5 April 1950. That appears to be a call for a significant change, which I am not sure has been advocated in the contributions made by hon. Members thus far.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of fact and reasonableness, none of the constituents directly affected by this issue whom I have spoken to have asked for any woman born in the 1950s to be able to retire at 60, but they have come to me with specific injustices, such as the women born in 1953 or 1954 who had 18 months added to their retirement age as a result of the 2011 change. That simply cannot be right and it does not really help the debate to try to claim that all these women are calling for something, which does not appear to be true.

[Mrs Miller]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point but we are today debating a petition and I am just trying to focus on that. There is so much debate in the Chamber about exactly what we are talking about, and it is important that we consider the petition as it is written rather than as we might like it to be written, which is what he is talking about. Considering the petition is important, because so many people have supported it, but we also need to consider how any changes that would be made, in the way that is being suggested, would be financed. To ignore that and to simply try to pretend that that is not the case would not be fair on those who have created the petition and those who have signed it, because they are pretty clear what they want.

I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who will respond to this debate, will be clear about what the exact elements of the petition would mean. Equally, however, I hope that he will be clear about some of the other issues that hon. Members have raised, particularly the notification of those who have been affected by this change, which I will focus on in the remaining few minutes that I have.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) is absolutely right when she says that there appears to have been a great deal of communication —no doubt, extremely expensive communication—over a great many years but very little understanding of what has actually come out and been given to people. It is regrettable that the Pensions Act 1995 did not contain a requirement to communicate effectively with those who were affected by it. Although a leaflet was published at the time, I have no doubt that it was entirely ineffective.

Lord Willetts, who was a Member of this House at the time, pressed the issue back in 2002 in parliamentary questions. The hon. Member for Warrington North is absolutely right to say that at that point there was potentially a gross dereliction of duty at the DWP in not ensuring that there was more effective communication, but I guess that we could also look at the fact that the Department undertook research that clearly showed that three quarters of the women affected were aware of the increase in the state pension age. Perhaps that is why the then Labour Government did not do more at that point.

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I cannot support the Bill and I intend to vote against it. In doing so, let me first recognise the good intent and the compassion of those who support the Bill and who have brought it here today. Their motivations are honourable and I appreciate that considerable numbers of people in this country want these issues to be discussed. Many constituents on both sides of the argument, as I am sure is the case for all Members of the House, have shared incredibly personal stories with me—stories of great courage and of great pain—and I am extremely grateful for that, but I do not believe that the change in the law that is proposed in the Bill is either desirable or necessary.

There is a right to die under UK law. Any of us has the right to refuse further medical treatment in such a way as to bring our lives to a natural end. Furthermore, a person making that decision can usually obtain pain relief to ease their suffering. However, the Bill proposes a fundamental change, for the first time allowing medical practitioners to prescribe drugs that would enable the person actively to end their life. I believe that once we crossed that Rubicon, we would have radically changed our conception of life and of the rights and responsibilities of individuals and of society at large. We would have fundamentally changed the role of the medical profession and we could never truly ensure that there were sufficient safeguards to prevent abuse.

I am sure the House will appreciate that the prospect of doctors legally prescribing fatal doses of drugs causes considerable distress in my constituency, where the majority of the families of the victims of Harold Shipman reside. This proposal would for ever change the nature of the medical profession in the UK, and I note that the British Medical Association is fundamentally opposed to it.

Many people who are in favour of the Bill have made the case to me that in situations where the Bill would apply, the quality of life of the people affected by it is so poor that it justifies such a change. I understand that point. The levels of funding for social care in this country are a disgrace. The wages, conditions and zero-hours contracts of some of the people who are asked to care for our loved ones near the end are a disgrace, but to move towards a system of assisted suicide justified on the basis of that poor care and provision would also be a disgrace. We can offer people dignity and comfort at the end if we are willing to devote sufficient political and financial capital to that end.

Any legislation of this kind changes the way we as a society see the elderly and makes the limitations that come with age and illness something avoidable. It will become selfish to be old or ill, to be asking things of people or to be in need, whereas this time should be a time of great importance, of healing relationships and of saying thank you for everything that has been given to us in the lives we have led.

Another argument cited in favour of the Bill is that it merely codifies the existing guidelines of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but there is no way in which we can ever sufficiently codify the circumstances that these guidelines cover. There are situations where there is no public interest in prosecuting a person for breaking the law, but that does not mean that we as parliamentarians should change the law to legalise that behaviour in future. Hard cases make for bad law.

Finally, all the evidence I have seen from Holland and elsewhere suggests that this is one of those occasions where the slippery slope argument holds true. Just as in the UK, in Holland everyone was promised that there would be a specific and narrow application of the law, but now that is not the case and it is often used for very narrow reasons. None of the safeguards promised in the Bill could ever be sufficient. We will keep on revisiting them and weakening them, and practice will constantly push at them too. So let us oppose the Bill today. Let us reaffirm our determination to find better solutions to the problems that we have discussed today, but let us keep the fundamental respect for and sanctity of human life and the protection of the vulnerable that are rightly at the heart of the current legal position.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)]

It is an honour and a privilege to be standing at the Dispatch Box today as we show the rest of the country and the world what a Parliament should be doing. We have debated this important subject with passion but shown that we all have respect for each other. It is a shame that it has been 18 years since this matter was last debated, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) on bringing it here today. We have heard some unbelievably passionate speeches.

The House has also shown that it is not just full of lawyers and professional politicians. There are people here who bring experience of their previous professions. Some of them went off to university, some of us went off into the fire service—including me and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—and some went into the Army. This debate has shown what we in the Chamber can do when the electorate elect people who are representative of their communities.

It is rare for a Minister to be able to stand at the Dispatch Box and get rid of their ministerial folder, but the Government do not hold a position on this Bill. They will respect the view of the House. That is exactly what happened in the other place last year, when Lord Falconer made the position quite clear, and the position is quite clear here today. I will therefore speak from the Dispatch Box in a personal capacity, which is also unusual.

When I was 17, I was a young soldier and I had just passed out of training. I got a message from the adjutant that my grandmother had collapsed and that I had been granted compassionate leave because she was terminally ill. People do not get compassionate leave from the armed forces unless the situation is really serious. I went home and Nan was in hospital. She had had a massive stroke and was paralysed from the neck down. I am a man of faith, and that night I prayed that Nan would not make it through the night. She was in great discomfort and she was conscious most of the time. The doctors said they did not think she would make it. She saw me and she cried, as I did.

Nan lived for another 20 years. She was a feisty girl. She smoked 60 a day, which is why she had the stroke, and she had a huge mass on her lungs. She used to cough in a way that I never thought anybody could cough, and she could swear at me when she saw me smoking, even though she smoked 60 a day. The point I am trying to make is that those in the medical profession are simply fantastic people and they do fantastic things for us, day in, day out—we heard much about that from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who told us not only about her work, but about the work that has been done in other areas—but they get it wrong, and the will of the human being to decide when it is right for them to go, no matter what pain they are in, is something that we should not take lightly.

Nan was not in pain when she eventually got home. Strokes are horrible things; Nan was bed-bound and my grandfather nursed her for 20 years. Interestingly, I was best man for my grandfather when he remarried at the age of 71, which is also an experience. Sadly, I lost my step-grandmother only a couple of weeks ago, when she was 99. She was just as feisty as Nan, so in many ways he bought silly twice, because she very much ruled the roost.

When Nan was so ill, a group of nurses came in to help her. This was right at the start of the hospice movement, and ever since I have been involved in the hospice movement—I declare that interest. I am patron of the Hospice of St Francis and of Iain Rennie Hospice and Grove House, which are amalgamated under Rennie Grove Hospice Care. The Peace Hospice, just outside my constituency, does fantastic work, and Keech Hospice, a children’s hospice in Luton which looks after terminally ill children in my constituency, also does fantastic work.

My reasons for voting against this Bill this afternoon are twofold. First, I do not think it should be an excuse that we cannot control pain in the 21st century for people who are so ill. Secondly, I am, frankly, against suicide. I have been to too many suicides, as has the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, where we have seen the aftermath. People who wish to commit suicide need help—we should help them, not assist in killing them.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some Members will have sat throughout the debate today and will have decided that they will not register a vote as they cannot make up their minds. Will you confirm that outside of voting in both Lobbies, which is strongly discouraged, there is no way in which a Member of Parliament can register an abstention following a debate?

Undercover Policing

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I would like to pay tribute to the work of the Home Affairs Committee—I know the Chair of the Committee is not in his place—not only on Operation Tiberius but on other inquiries in this Parliament. I do not know why the file was not released, for instance when it was viewed, but I will find out and write to the hon. Gentleman.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I still find it astonishing that undercover police officers entered into long-term sexual relationships with environmental activists, as we have heard, which included the fathering and subsequent abandoning of children. There can surely be no justification for that, nor for the kind of revelations we are hearing about today. Covert policing clearly has an important role to play, particularly in tackling such things as gun crime in Greater Manchester, but does the Minister accept the growing unease in this House and among the public at the revelations we are hearing? Will he commit to taking the action we need to get to the bottom of this?

[Mike Penning]

I was just as shocked as everybody in this House to hear what some—not all, but a tiny minority—Met police officers were doing. That is why the Met police apologised and that is why I said we will ensure the Met police do more for the victims in particular. At the end of the day, that is why the inquiry has been set up. Lord Justice Pitchford will have full access to everybody he needs to see. He will decide the terms of reference, so that he will be confident that when he produces his report, we can have the confidence in the police that we should have.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

Yes, I am happy to give that commitment.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

14. What progress he is making on providing work for prisoners.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

Getting more prisoners working longer hours is a key priority for the Government. Enforced idleness does nothing to help prisoners lead law-abiding lives on release. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that we are making good progress. Last year, public sector prisons delivered more than 11.4 million hours of work in production and service areas—an increase of 800,000 hours on the previous year’s figures.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

PVC Recycling in my constituency runs a groundbreaking scheme in conjunction with the Prison Service and provides offenders with paid work for sorting through plastic composites. I am told that those skills are much in demand in the private sector when people finish their sentences. The work stops a huge amount of material going to landfill or being exported to the developing world. Will the Minister look at whether that scheme can be expanded, because I am told that there is considerable scope for expansion to prisons across the country?

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I will certainly look at that. We are keen to see the expansion of exactly that kind of work, for the reasons the hon. Gentleman gives. It is good for prisoners because they learn the hard skills of a trade and the softer skills of going to work in the morning and working a proper day, and we all benefit if offenders have the skills they need to ensure that they do not reoffend on release. I will look at what he has described. If we can find a way of expanding it, we will.

Leveson Inquiry

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow some of the speeches. I agree wholeheartedly that we have some of the best media in the world. They can be funny, incisive and often illuminating—that has never been in doubt. However, the circumstances that led to the Leveson inquiry being set up involved some absolutely appalling things happening to innocent people, including people who had never sought to be in the public eye—that, also, has never been in doubt.

What Lord Justice Leveson proposes is reasonable and proportionate. It is self-regulation that means self-regulation, rather than what we have now, which is self-regulation that effectively means no regulation. It builds on practice that exists elsewhere, such as the Irish system, and, with reference to the proposal to offer incentives to encourage papers to sign up by adjusting the damages awarded should a dispute end up in litigation, it uses the same formula found in this country’s civil procedure rules that govern all civil litigation in England and Wales.

Supporting Leveson is not about being anti-journalist or anti-media; I reject that assertion entirely. Some of my favourite media sources are those that feature very different politics from mine. I like reading The Spectator and Guido Fawkes’s blog. I find them entertaining because they are witty and well written, and they do not simply mirror my own politics back at me. We want a lively press. The idea that stories on MPs’ expenses or other official wrongdoing would not have been featured because of a Leveson-style system of regulation has to be utterly false. We want a press that investigates abuses of power, but does so without abusing their own power in the process.

The Leveson report is about acknowledging that we have a serious problem with media accountability in the UK; that we have known about these problems for decades and never dealt with them; and that now we have a chance to do the right thing for the benefit of everyone. Why does self-regulation need to be guaranteed by statute? Because for more than 70 years, as we have heard, despite seven different attempts, the old system has failed. Without the necessary robustness provided by statute to the new system, it will simply fall back under the control of vested interests and give us the miserable failure we have at the moment. As Michael Portillo said last week, the moment we take away the proposal to underpin self-regulation with statute, we make sure self-regulation will never properly happen. One of the clearest things we can deduce from the evidence given to Leveson is that this was never about one or two rogue reporters; the report talks about widespread abuse of power.

The report is not about everyone; there are some commendable journalists and newspapers—it is particularly gratifying that regional and local press have been mentioned in this debate. However, as the report says, this is about

“Too many stories in too many newspapers”

that

“were the subject of complaints from too many people, with too little in the way of titles taking responsibility, or considering the consequences for the individuals involved.”

Many objectors have made the point that it is for the criminal law to deal with such matters and that access to the legal system is what really matters, but aside from the fact that we have just cut back enormously on legal aid, Leveson makes it expressly clear that, first, it was only by a quirk of good fortune that the criminal law has been able to deal with the worst cases of phone hacking, because Glen Mulcaire kept such meticulous notes that could be used in evidence; and secondly, and most crucially, that the criminal law would not have helped with the harassment, intimidation and other nefarious treatment of the victims who gave evidence, not least the Dowler family. We would have to have hearts of stone not to acknowledge what that family had to put up with. It is not good enough to fail to address this problem.

One of the more reasonable objections is that, given social media and the internet, regulating newspapers when they are in historic decline might not be the best thing to do. I thought the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) dealt with those points rather well. Just because it might be harder to ask online media to self-regulate, that is not an excuse to give newspapers the green light to carry on as they are. We should not underestimate the power and influence of newspapers. What they write carries an authority far greater than even the most popular blog or Twitter account. In addition, although the debate about Leveson has rightly focused on whether to initiate proper self-regulation, there are a number of other relevant proposals in the report. I am pleased to see the issue of media ownership come up and the acknowledgement that inappropriate concentrations of ownership could occur without the competition laws being initiated. I am less keen on the idea of requiring disclosure every time contact is made between a politician and a journalist. That seems a little over the top. Similarly, the points dealing with data protection do not seem entirely right at the minute. However, all these things can be considered further before we implement the proposals.

We have before us a sensible and measured report in response to a serious problem. No one wants state control of the media, but for too long in this country we have been closer to a situation in which there is media control of the state. Concentrations of power, when people believe they are not accountable to anyone, always end badly, whether it is trade unions in the 1970s or the bankers in 2008. It is our job as politicians to navigate away from that without going too far in the other direction. We have before us a report that shows us the way to do that. Let us show some leadership. Let us not think short term. Let us for once do the right thing. I commend the Leveson report to the House.

Voting Eligibility (Prisoners)

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

As regards voting, I shall leave that question until we see what the Committee has brought forward. As for Parliament having the final say, I can tell my hon. Friend that it absolutely does so. That is clearly what the Law Lords ruled 13 years ago and it is clearly what the Attorney-General has advised. It is also absolutely right—our national Parliament should be sovereign.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let us suppose that this House were to accept the most modest of the Minister’s extensions of voting rights to prisoners—the option for sentences of less than six months. What assurances can he give us that at some point in future that, in itself, would not be found to be incompatible by the European Court?

[Chris Grayling]

It is unlikely; the indications from the Court are that a level of reform of that kind would be sufficient to satisfy it that we had conformed to the judgment. That is one reason we have put that option in the Bill for consideration. A number of people have suggested more minor changes, but we do not believe that those would be sufficient to satisfy the Court. One can never say never about anything, but our expectation and belief is that that option would end this matter for the foreseeable future.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to take part in this important debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I agree with many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant). The Government should listen to her experience and knowledge.

For 60 years, legal aid has provided secure and guaranteed access to justice for those who cannot otherwise afford legal representation, often protecting the most vulnerable in our society. With their reforms, the Government are undermining the principles of justice. The right to access it will become the privilege of the few who can afford it. The more I understand about the Government’s approach to justice policy, the more I realise that there is nothing just about it. Despite receiving thousands of representations from a wide range of organisations expert in delivering legal aid effectively and productively that say this is not the right approach, the Government are not willing to listen.

We know that seeking legal representation is an expensive undertaking. I understand that, but the Government are trying, inexcusably, to put a price on justice, which is embedded in the British democratic system. That undermines us as a free and fair society where all have an equal right to justice. Everyone has the right to be treated fairly under the British legal system. Who someone is, how much they earn and where they live should not be taken into account. The expense of access to our legal system makes legal aid so important. Justice is a right, not a privilege. Everyone deserves their day in court.

The Government have said that they want to ensure through the reforms that legal aid is targeted at those who most need it. They must have made a mistake. Surely that cannot be correct when they are cutting legal aid for the aspects of law that are often the last protection for the most vulnerable in our society: housing, debt, welfare and employment advice. Legal aid has stood up for people and given them the voice that they deserve. I am not sure where the Government expect an alternative to step in to deal with representation and advice in the aspects of law that will be removed from the scope of legal aid provision. Perhaps it is another job for the big society.

When people have to represent themselves in court because they cannot afford the legal fees, something is not right. As with so much of their legislation, the Government have left the most vulnerable wanting. It is a travesty that 500,000 people will be denied their right to legal representation and a chance for justice. The Secretary of State has said:

“It cannot be right that the taxpayer is footing the bill for unnecessary court cases that would never have even reached the courtroom door, were it not for the fact that somebody else was paying.”—[Official Report, 15 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 659.]

I seriously object to that trivialisation of our justice system. The right hon. and learned Gentleman’s reference to “unnecessary court cases” shows where the Government have gone wrong. Debt, social welfare, housing and education law are not unnecessary. They are serious and complex areas of law that deserve their chance in court.

Legal aid provision has improved and strengthened our laws on protections and compensation and given justice to victims of negligence. Legal aid has been critical in many precedent-setting cases, such as the Hillsborough disaster, the thalidomide cases and the Clapham rail crash. Advances in case law as a direct result of legal aid provision have improved protections for everyone. British law is in a better place because of the chance to access legal aid. Although I can sympathise to some extent with the Government’s desire to promote other forms of legal settlement outside a courtroom, such as through mediation, that should be an alternative, not the only option. In my experience, it does not always work.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government do not seem to have taken on board the fact that sometimes solving disputes out of court is possible only when the credible sanction of going to court at some stage is available? By taking that away, they undermine the system of mediation in which they put so much faith, and that will lead to miscarriages of justice.

[Julie Elliott]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The stick-and-carrot approach, whereby there is something to make people see sense, agree and discuss things sensibly, often makes the difference between mediation working and not working.

Despite the Government’s laissez-faire approach to access to our legal system and their willingness again to leave the most vulnerable members of our society out in the cold, one of my biggest problems with the reforms to legal aid provision is their economic short-sightedness. The cuts will ultimately lead to higher costs for society. The cost-benefit analysis of the reforms has shown that they are not cost-effective, but short-sighted and counter-productive. The costs to society will have to met elsewhere, by other Departments, including the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government. It is disappointing that, despite calls for it, no cross-Government departmental review is taking place to assess the inevitable extra costs.

Yesterday, I asked about the matter at Justice questions, and was told that other Departments’ impact analysis of the proposals was “ongoing”. Surely that should have been sorted out before Second Reading. Citizens Advice estimates that £24 million spent annually on debt advice saves the Government some £188 million elsewhere, and that for every £1 spent on legal aid, the state saves £2.34 on housing advice, £7.13 on employment advice and £8.80 on benefits advice.

Police Funding (Greater Manchester)

Jonathan Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Weir. I wish to pass on my thanks to Mr Speaker for ensuring that this debate can take place today. I would also like to put on the record my thanks and appreciation to all the police officers and staff at the Greater Manchester police, who do an absolutely fantastic job—a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances. I wish to put on the record my tribute to their work in making my constituency a safer place.

I would also, very briefly, like to congratulate the Minister on his appointment. Given everything that is facing the public services as we progress with the new coalition Government, I am sure that he will do his best, in very tight circumstances, for the police service in Great Britain.

It is, however, a concern that one of the first acts of the new Conservative-Liberal Government has been to introduce a cut of £125 million in police revenue, with a further £10 million from capital funding and £10 million from the counter-terrorism budget. For Greater Manchester police in my region, that announcement will mean a cut of just less than £7 million. That represents a reduction in grant of approximately 2% of total budget. Only Greater London, at £30.4 million, and the west midlands, at £7.5 million, will be harder hit.

Clearly, the Greater Manchester region will be hit harder than most. That has led to uncertainty, as the police had already set out their budgets for the coming financial year. That is why the reduction is so damaging to the efforts being made to tackle crime in my constituency and in other constituencies across Greater Manchester. Police authorities will now have to cut services that they have not planned to cut and there is the likely possibility that that will impact on front-line services.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that local councillors in Manchester, of whom I am still one, have worked very hard in recent years, on a cross-party basis, to deliver precept rises that allow Greater Manchester police to have the resources to do its job, and that the least we could expect from the Conservative-led Government is a similar level of commitment at a national level?

[Andrew Gwynne]

This is the first opportunity that I have had to welcome my hon. Friend to the House. He will be a stalwart campaigner for his constituents, who are on the other side of the River Tame from my constituency. He is absolutely right. Although the police authority has had to make some difficult decisions about the police precept, a lot of hard work went into ensuring that the funding package for this financial year was robust and matched the needs of policing in Greater Manchester.

Of course, the previous settlement was made by the Labour Government before the general election. As a result, police authorities set their local budgets on the basis of that settlement and will now have to make difficult choices to bring their budgets into line with the new Government’s amended settlement. Greater Manchester police authority has already admitted that tough decisions will have to be made. There is a concern in my constituency about how that will affect policing in Greater Manchester.

Throughout the years of the Labour Government, we saw a real fall in the number of crimes that were committed. Overall, crime fell by 36%. That was, in part, thanks to the record investment in levels of policing. In 1997, Greater Manchester police employed fewer than 7,000 police officers. According to the most recent figures, from September 2009, there are now 8,148 police officers.

According to the House of Commons Library, in my constituency we now have 917 full-time equivalent police officers, as well as—a great invention of the last Labour Government—police community support officers. Across the same area, the boroughs of Tameside and Stockport, we now have 99 PCSOs committed to being a uniformed presence on the streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

On the council tax freeze, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that that is something that local authorities, including police authorities, can choose to do if they want to participate in the scheme. That is the important thing to understand about it. We hope that council tax payers will be protected in that manner. If the authorities agree to participate, the funding will be available to them to freeze council tax. That is important for local taxpayers who have had to find a great deal more money for council tax over the past few years. As for the specific matters relating to the grant, the easiest thing would be for me to write to him about those.

I do not deny that tough choices have had to be made in trying to reduce the deficit, which is unprecedented in this country’s history. The Home Office is playing its part by putting together a total package of cuts that reflects a considered view of where efficiencies can be made. We have sought first to trim as much as possible from the costs of running the Department and its non-departmental public bodies. I walked to the House today to contribute, in a modest manner, towards the share of savings that we as a Department have to make. None the less, we are confident that forces can make this relatively modest level of saving without a reduction in the world-class service that they provide to the public.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Will the Minister tell us whether any of the efficiency savings he just mentioned will involve offering early redundancy to some of our most experienced policemen who perform a role on the beat?

[Nick Herbert]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election to the House. His contributions are already proving effective. As for the choice of how savings are made, I should say that that is very much a matter for the operational responsibility of chief constables. The Government will not seek to interfere in that. We will seek to support, where we can, the decisions that have to be made, but there will be a fundamental difference between this Government’s approach and that of the previous one, in that we will not seek to direct chief constables so extensively. Chiefs must find the savings. It is for them to decide how to manage their work force and to provide the high-quality service that we and the public expect from them. I am confident that we can maintain front-line policing services, visibility and availability to the public.