Parliamentary Building (Palace of Westminster)

On Wednesday (19 June 2019), the House of Commons considered the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill. The Bill introduces measures to enable building works for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.

The Palace of Westminster is an iconic grade one listed building. It forms part of the UNESCO Westminster World Heritage site. However, it requires significant work to protect and preserve it to ensure it can continue to serve as home to the UK Parliament. Work is also vital to ensure the safety of the thousands of people who work in Parliament and the more than one million who visit every year. I am therefore pleased to support the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill.

I am particularly pleased that the House of Commons approved several amendments to improve the Bill.

Blacklisting is a pernicious practice, which destroys lives and unfortunately still goes on today. Too often, those who raise concerns about safety in the construction industry are marked down as troublemakers. I therefore supported an amendment to the Bill requiring consideration of companies’ policies relating to blacklisting when allocating contracts for this project. I welcome that this amendment passed by 211 votes to 132.

I was also pleased that an amendment was passed to ensure the economic benefits of this project are delivered across the nations and regions of the UK. To work on a building of such historic significance as the Palace of Westminster is a fantastic opportunity for any company. It is only right that this opportunity should be available to companies throughout the whole of the country.

Finally, an education centre is important in helping people understand what democracy is about and the reality of what happens in Parliament. I am therefore delighted that the Bill was amended to ensure that the need for educational and other facilities to be provided for people visiting the Palace of Westminster is considered in the delivery of this project.

Climate Change

On Monday (24 June 2019), the House of Commons approved the draft Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019. This order amends the 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target in the Climate Change Act from at least 80% to at least 100%. This new target, “net zero”, is a legally binding commitment to end the UK’s contribution to climate change.

Last year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international body for assessing the science on climate change, published a report on the impact of global warming at 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The report showed that the world needs to limit global warming to this level to give us a chance of mitigating some of the effects of climate change on health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security and economic growth.

Following the IPCC report, the UK’s own climate adviser, the Committee on Climate Change, told us last month that ending our contribution to global warming is now within reach. It reported that achieving net zero by 2050 was necessary, feasible and affordable.

I have long called for a target of net zero emissions by 2050 and therefore strongly support this piece of legislation. However, setting this target in law must be just the start of ending our contribution to climate change. It is therefore worrying that we are currently off course to meet our existing climate targets. I am also concerned that the Government could use surpluses from meeting previous carbon budgets or international emissions allowances to offset future carbon emissions.

Now is the time for the Government to take urgent action to get us back on track to meeting our climate change commitments. By doing this, we will be able to look forward to green jobs, immense improvements in the quality of our environment and the assurance that we will leave a world fit for future generations to live in.

Court Closures – Access to Justice

On Thursday (20 June 2019), the House of Commons debated court closures and access to justice.

There has been an unprecedented shift in how justice is delivered in this country, with hundreds of courts closed and thousands of staff lost. The Government is intending to implement a £1 billion-plus court reform programme and plans for annual savings of £200 million.

Half of all magistrates’ courts have been closed, alongside a third of county courts. Selling off local courts means more pressure on those which remain and risks hearings being further delayed and rescheduled. That can create a justice system that is less accessible for local people, by forcing them to travel vast distances.

I do not understand why court buildings have been sold before the changes that are part of the overall reform programme have been put in place, tested and shown to work. For example, sufficient research and scrutiny has not taken place into the impacts of digital courts.

I am not against technology and I appreciate that it can, with genuine investment and backed by rigorous evidence, aid access to justice. There is no doubt that our courts need modernisation, but I am concerned that court closures are a smokescreen and will cause long-term damage to access to justice. I am calling for a moratorium on further cuts and closures until proposed reforms can be subjected to full parliamentary and public scrutiny.

While the Government is selling off our courts, it is also hollowing out the service with staff cuts. There have been deep cuts to staff since 2013, with thousands more set to be cut from the Courts and Tribunals Service by 2023. The number of magistrates has fallen by a third since 2012, and the number of judges by almost a fifth. Meanwhile the overall caseload of the Courts and Tribunals Service is up.

My fear is that these reforms are being rushed through regardless of the consequences. It is not a concern about technology, but about technology being used as an attempt to disguise austerity.

Refugee Family Reunion

On Thursday (20 June 2019), the House of Commons debated refugee family reunion. This debate took place on World Refugee Day. Unfortunately there has been a lack of progress from the Government on refugee family reunion since World Refugee Day last year.

The key to a successful story for a refugee is integration. People who flee violence come to the UK to rebuild their lives and we must appreciate that for anybody to recover from the trauma of conflict, the support of their family is vital.

Children who had to flee their homes are currently barred from bringing close family members to join them in the UK. While the Government speaks of avoiding “pull factors”, I do not believe the evidence supports that position. I would argue that, in fact, providing safe and legal routes to family reunion prevents dangerous journeys. It is only when people feel they are out of options that they take the enormous risk of making their own way to the UK.

While there are “push factors”, such as war, conflict and violence, children will be forced to leave their homes and be separated from family members. It is our humanitarian duty to make sure that any child who makes it to our shores has the best shot at making a better life for themselves, including being surrounded by their family.

I support the right to a family life and I believe that currently the definition of “family” under our refugee reunion rules is too narrow – only including a pre-flight spouse or partner and dependent children under 18 years-old.

I am calling for a system where, for children who are granted the right to be here, their parents or carers will also be granted this right. In addition, I would like to see that children of a parent or carer with a right to be here will retain this right even after turning 18.

The Government does not need to pass legislation to change eligibility for family reunion, it is within the Home Secretary’s powers already. Therefore, I hope to see the Government commit to making concrete progress as soon as possible.

Breathing Space for Debt

On Wednesday (19 June 2019), the Economic Secretary to the Treasury announced that the Government would introduce a “breathing space” scheme for people in problem debt.

Under the breathing space scheme, debtors will have 60 days in which interest and charges on their debts are frozen and enforcement action from creditors is paused. During this time, debtors will have to seek professional debt advice to find a sustainable solution to their debt problems. Alongside this, the Minister said the Government would introduce a statutory debt repayment plan. This would extend the breathing space protections to debtors who commit to fully repaying their debts in a manageable timeline.

The Minister set out that the Government intends to implement the breathing space scheme in early 2021 and the statutory debt repayment plan over the longer-term. He further highlighted that the breathing space scheme would cover not just financial services debts, but also arrears owed to utility companies and central and local government, as well as benefit overpayments. He also announced that people receiving treatment for mental health crisis would be able to enter breathing space without seeking help from a debt adviser. For these individuals, breathing space would last the duration of their treatment plus a further 30 days.

Household debt in the UK is large and a growing problem. People are having to use credit not just to buy a car, new sofa or washing machine, but to pay their living costs at the end of the month. I therefore broadly welcome the breathing space scheme, which should let people get back on their feet after a difficult period.

However, the scheme will only work if there is enough advice and support available to people during the breathing space period. Unfortunately, the services that provide this have been put under massive strain in recent years. In addition, I also believe we need to act to stop people falling into debt in the first place.

This announcement is a step in the right direction, but there is still a lot of work to do.

Violent Crime

On Monday (17 June 2019), the Government was asked to make a statement on what it is doing to protect people from violent crime.

Responding for the Government, the Home Office Minister stated that, in response to the rise in serious violent crime, the Government had made it easier for police to use stop-and-search powers. She also highlighted the £100 million serious violence fund, £65 million of which has already been allocated to the police in those areas most affected.

The Minister acknowledged the importance of prevention and early intervention in reducing violent crime. She outlined a £220 million investment into early intervention programmes and highlighted the recent public consultation on a new legal duty to underpin the multi-agency approach to tackling serious crime.

The Minister further set out that the Government continues to support the work of Operation Sceptre, and praised the latest phase, which saw almost 11,000 knives taken off the streets. With the Offensive Weapons Act now in force, the Minister also outlined plans to the pilot the use of knife crime prevention orders.

The indiscriminate use of stop-and-search in the past has damaged communities’ confidence in the police and undermined the fight against violent crime. I am therefore pleased to see a drop in the level of complaints about the use of this tactic.

I also believe the Minister is correct to state that there is no single answer to the problem of violent crime. However, she made no reference to the need to hire more police officers. If any strategy to tackle rising crime is to be effective, we must have more police officers on our streets. More widely, the Government needs to stop simply talking about a public health approach to tackling violent crime and actually implement one.