Judicial Review and Courts Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Paula Barker and Alex Cunningham

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend is correct and gives excellent examples. I had an example a few weeks ago of a constituent who found out that he was likely to be locked up because he had not paid his television licence. He had not received the letter because he was no longer at that address. I know that he had a responsibility to inform people that he had moved on, but the fact that nobody tried to find him before it got to the point of court bailiffs turning up at the previous property to take goods away to pay his fines and court costs is a nonsense. Clearly, that can happen.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s equality impact assessment does not recognise the issues that he has eloquently raised about the postal charge?

[Alex Cunningham]

Almost certainly. Our hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East talked about people with mental health problems or disabilities who are all disadvantaged by these proposals, because no adequate system seems to be in place to ensure that they properly understand what they are doing and what is happening to them. If they do not understand, they may choose to ignore it and end up with a conviction and a criminal record, which has terrible ramifications for employment and all manner of other things, including even entering another country. If they have a criminal charge against them, they may not be able to go on holiday to some countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker]

Does my hon. Friend agree that not having the appropriate checks and balances in place, as the amendment suggests, could lead to further litigation down the line from those who are charged?

[Alex Cunningham]

Indeed, that is very much the case. The Minister talked about how a conviction made by a magistrate in the absence of a defendant can always be challenged down the line. I do not see where that fits with respect to this, and I hope the Minister will explain it.

I stress that I do not think that this is the ideal safeguard for identifying individuals with vulnerabilities—legal professionals are trained primarily in the law, not to identify issues relating to vulnerabilities. I have already said that that is not their responsibility and I do not want the Government to think that the Opposition are advocating placing that safeguarding burden on the legal profession. We are certainly not doing that. We are, however, in favour of more safeguards being built into the system. This is an important safeguard for all defendants, not just those with vulnerabilities.

As I said earlier, I am aware of the Government’s intention for online pleas to be entered via the common platform, which I understand might seem to address the concerns we express here. As it is not in the primary legislation, however, we do not feel sufficiently reassured, which is to say nothing of the ongoing issues with the common platform—I understand the senior presiding judge has told Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to halt the roll-out until it has been stable for at least three weeks.

I appreciate that the Government have looked at the matter, but I want to ensure that this works in some way, even if we do not agree with the method. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s thoughts on strengthening the safeguards in the legislation.

Working People’s Finances: Government Policy

Debate between Paula Barker and Alex Cunningham

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

This debate has made me feel like I am living in a parallel universe. Listening to Conservative Members—if they were still here—we would think everything in the garden is rosy, but Opposition Members know only too well that the cost of living crisis serves as a stark reminder that this Government are not serious about supporting ordinary working people. It confirms to us that they lack ambition when it comes to affording our people a life of dignity in which they can support themselves and their family and comfortably grow old with the assurance that they can support their children and grandchildren.

The economic settlement of the past four decades has smashed the unwritten guarantee that each successive generation will have it better than their parents. If this pandemic has taught us anything, it is that life is precious and that it is for living. Yes, those who can should contribute to society but, crucially, people should get something back and be able to enjoy their time with family and friends, rather than having to receive state support while in work. They should not have to rely on food banks or have to work three jobs just to make ends meet.

The system is not on the side of our people. Indeed, most callous of all, retirement itself is fast becoming a distant dream for so many in areas like mine in the north-west who fear that they will not be able to afford it. If only I had £1 for every time I heard someone say, “I will have to work until I drop.”

As the Scottish trade unionist Jimmy Reid put it:

“A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings.”

In my constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree, I regularly come across people who do the right thing, work hard and pay their taxes. They are honest, decent, salt-of-the-earth people who operate in the real economy across all sectors—care workers, hospitality workers, call centre workers and those who run small and medium-sized businesses—and too many now tell me that they feel the system has failed them. After all, our people, working-class people, picked up the tab after the last economic crisis in the form of austerity, the biggest squeeze on wages and living standards since the Napoleonic wars and so much besides, and now they will do so again.

Conservative Members will no doubt trot out the same lines about their inadequate increases in the living wage and the personal tax allowance, which ironically they are now freezing—they even cite rising wages in certain sectors. Some might say that their intentions are good. Ultimately, success is measured by outcomes, and on every metric this Government are failing. If they were serious about supporting our people, their priorities would be wholly different.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend mentions the salt of the earth. For me, the real salt of the earth are kinship carers, the grandparents who take on their grandchildren because their parents can no longer look after them, yet they get a very raw deal. Does she agree it is time the Government recognised the value of kinship carers and the money that is saved because of the burden they take on? Does she also agree that kinship carers can do without this cut to universal credit?

[Paula Barker]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The points he raised are completely pertinent and I agree with all of them.

As I was saying, if the Government were serious about supporting our people, their priorities would be wholly different. We would not see a hike in national insurance. We would not see the scrapping of the £20 UC uplift. We would see a proper funding settlement for local government, rather than backing our cash-strapped local councils into a corner over regressive tax increases. We would see action to tackle rising energy costs—that infamous Marxist idea, according to David Cameron. It is an idea once proposed by my former leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband).

Finally, something often missed in debates such as this: we would see recognition of the role of the trade unions in reducing inequalities in the workplace and across society. In the coming weeks, Members from across this Chamber, including on the Government Benches, will have the opportunity to support the private Member’s Bill on fire and rehire introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). I can say with certainty than an effective system of collective bargaining across sectors of the economy will not cost the Chancellor a penny—he may even save a few pounds.

Research from the New Economics Foundation shows that modelling produced for one of its reports indicates that by the end of the year, without a change in Government policy, 32% of the UK population, or 21.4 million people, will be living below a socially acceptable living standard, as measured by the minimum income standard. That is a third of people in this country, and it is absolutely shameful. Numbers like that tell us that the time for tinkering around the edges is over. Inequality is not some vague concept; it has real consequences for communities such as mine. What is economics if not the allocation of wealth, power and resources? Opposition Members believe in a fairer, more equal and democratic distribution of all three.