UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Alex Cunningham

  • Alex Cunningham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Alex Cunningham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what support his Department is giving to the UN Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict for the campaign to eradicate the recruitment of children by government armed forces by 2016.

    Anna Soubry

    The Ministry of Defence provides no formal support to the UN Special Representative, but is taking steps to ensure that our recruitment activities are in accordance with Article 38 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as stated in the answer given on 13 May 2013, (Official Report, column 98W) to the hon Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson).

  • Alex Cunningham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Alex Cunningham – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alex Cunningham on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what progress he has made in preparing a cost-benefit analysis of the recruitment and training of minors; and when he expects to publish a report on that issue.

    Anna Soubry

    The report has been submitted by the Army to Ministry of Defence (MOD) HQ, for consideration. It is not possible to provide a publication date for the report until the report’s findings have been considered.

    The terms of reference of the report are as follows:
    Question – “What is the cost overhead to MOD of Phase 1 training for Junior Entry (JE) soldiers versus Standard Entry (SE) soldiers joining the Army?”

  • Alex Cunningham – 2022 Speech in the No Confidence in the Government Motion

    Alex Cunningham – 2022 Speech in the No Confidence in the Government Motion

    The speech made by Alex Cunningham, the Labour MP for Stockton North, in the House of Commons on 18 July 2022.

    What a rant, Mr Deputy Speaker. We all know that the Prime Minister is unfit for office, but rather than remove him, Tory MPs will tonight be whipped to keep an incompetent, lawbreaker in power, a person who has a problem with the truth.

    I do not have confidence in this Government for many reasons, but top of the list is the fact that the percentage of people living in poverty in the Tees Valley, and the percentage of children living in poverty there, has soared to more than 40% in the past 12 years. That is the highest level in the country. The Prime Minister, his former Chancellor and his rotten Government should be thoroughly ashamed. Too many children in the Tees Valley, and many more across the north-east, go to school hungry, and many do not know whether there will be much to eat when they get home at night. Who knows what many of them will do during the extended school holiday period?

    Earlier this year, while being grilled by the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister accepted that it is not possible to level up the country without reducing the number of children in poverty. When challenged on why there was not a single mention of child poverty in more than 300 pages of the levelling-up White Paper, he suggested that that was the result of a “purely formal accident”. What the devil does that mean? Whether accidental or deliberate, this was a staggering and unforgiveable oversight on the Government’s part. Last week, I raised the issue of absolute poverty levels with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, but she said that she did not recognise the figures I had quoted. They were her own Department’s statistics. Not only do they not care, but they do not even know their own facts.

    Poverty is widely acknowledged to be the leading driver of health, educational and economic inequalities between children growing up in areas such as the north-east and their counterparts in the rest of the country. Research published by End Child Poverty alongside the North East Child Poverty Commission has found that two in five babies, children and young people across our region are growing up poor and having their life chances and opportunities limited as a result. That is as a result of a Conservative Government. This abject failure of children and young people in Tees Valley and the wider north-east will be one of the defining legacies of this Prime Minister, and of anyone who has supported this Government.

    Why should any child or young person in the Tees Valley have confidence in the Government when the intolerably high rates of child poverty in our area have somehow been forgotten in the Prime Minister’s flagship policy? Why should anyone have confidence in any of the candidates vying to be the next Prime Minister when not one of them has even acknowledged this fundamental issue, never mind set out any plan to try to tackle it? When one of them, the former Chancellor, showed up in Redcar on Friday in his designer shoes, which cost several times more than most families have to spend on food and other essentials in a month, he had nothing to say about child poverty—nothing.

    We have so much talent and potential across the Tees Valley, yet so much of it is wasted as poverty and ill health hold our young people and our population back. Those children and their families need decisive action and a comprehensive joined-up plan to tackle child poverty now, not vague promises of being levelled up in eight years’ time. They need a Government who are willing to put tackling child poverty at the front and centre of their agenda, who are committed to supporting them to thrive and fulfil their potential, not a Government who forget that they even exist.

  • Alex Cunningham – 2022 Speech on the Public Order Bill

    Alex Cunningham – 2022 Speech on the Public Order Bill

    The speech made by Alex Cunningham, the Labour MP for Stockton North, in the House of Commons on 23 May 2022.

    This is the first Bill of the Queen’s Speech and it is stark proof that the Government are out of steam and out of ideas. It is a sad day for democracy, as was best illustrated by some of the contributions that we heard from the Government Benches. Instead of the ambitious reforms that our country needs and deserves at a time when the cost of living is spiralling out of control for many of our constituents, the Government have served up these reheated proposals that contribute little, if anything, to the law. We on Teesside do not have a problem with protests, but we do have a huge problem with the massive increase in violent crime and antisocial behaviour. We also have a big problem with health inequalities and the fact that unemployment in our area remains over 30% higher than the national average. Dissatisfied by her attacks on our historical right to peacefully protest in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which has yet to come into force, the Home Secretary is trying to have a second bite of the cherry. However, if she thinks it is so important to restrict protests, why has she not introduced any of the statutory instruments to implement the measures in the Act before bringing forward yet another Bill this year? The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) also questioned that. It is just more evidence that she is more interested in headlines than real practical policies.

    We on these Benches believe that the vital infrastructure and services on which we all rely must be protected from serious disruption and that protests must not put others at risk, but the police and courts already have powers to deal with such dangerous and disruptive protests, including the use of injunctions and existing criminal offences such as the obstruction of a highway and criminal damage, among others. It is worth noting that these existing powers have already been used to arrest people and to prosecute cases of obstructing infrastructure and locking on during the Insulate Britain blockade of the M25 and the Just Stop Oil blockade of Kingsbury refinery.

    This Bill’s assortment of new offences will do nothing to actually safeguard vital national infrastructure and ensure that it is protected from serious disruption, and we know that the most effective measures for preventing such disruption already exist, and that is with injunctions. We do, however, recognise that there can be a real problem with delays in seeking injunctions, and a lack of preparation, planning and co-ordination between different private and public authorities. So why is the Home Secretary not focusing on this issue, and including provisions for co-operation between the police and public and private authorities to improve resilience and prevent serious disruption? That is what we would do.

    We have already heard the Home Secretary blow and bluster at the Dispatch Box after the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act was passed, deploying all manner of dodgy statements about the Opposition’s approach to law and order. She could have had our full co-operation with that Bill—there were some very good proposals in it—but she chose to play silly political games by introducing other measures that served to shackle our people and diminish their rights. She knew all too well the game she was playing, but so did the public, who recognise that the Tory Government, rather than getting on with fixing crime, prefer to muck about with the rights to protest.

    This new Bill introduces powers that are far too widely drawn and that could criminalise protesters and even passers-by. All of us who work here will have seen many enthusiastic protests outside in Parliament Square. It is what we expect while working in this the seat of democracy. Many of us, more likely those on this side, have enjoyed many a protest. My favourite goes back 50 years to when students were demanding a better deal from Ted Heath’s Government. It was very noisy, but very successful. The morning chant was simple: “Heath out, Heath out!” No one was more surprised than me when the chant changed later to “Heath’s out, Heath’s out!” because that was the day he called the general election.

    If Parliament Square were designated as an area for suspicionless stop and search, which the Bill introduces, could Members of Parliament and our staff coming to work on the estate be stopped and searched by police? It seems far-fetched, but that may be a logical conclusion of the measures in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister shared his thoughts on his staff potentially being caught by these measures as they head into the office. As Justice has said, this Bill will

    “criminalise a breathtakingly wide range of peaceful behaviour”.

    As well as rapid injunctions to protect infrastructure against serious disruption, we would create a fast-track buffer zone outside schools and vaccine clinics to protect children and those accessing medical care from dangerous anti-vaxxers. What we have opposed and will continue to oppose is the criminalisation of peaceful protesters and passers-by. The Home Secretary has said this Bill is necessary to prevent “mob rule”, but would she call those protesting against the Russian invasion of Ukraine a mob? Is that the term she would use to describe the thousands of women who have gathered together for vigils to demand action on violence against women and girls? It is gatherings such as those on which her Bill will impact, not just potentially dangerous and disruptive ones. Why introduce a new offence of locking on when it is effectively covered by existing offences such as criminal damage, public nuisance and obstructing a road? Why introduce SDPOs when the Home Office’s own response was initially to reject them on the grounds that they would stop individuals exercising their right to protest?

    It is time for the Home Secretary to stop playing petty political games, and time for the Government to stop wasting legislative time on the Home Secretary’s hunt for headlines and to bring forward legislation that will actually address the many issues facing our constituents.

  • Alex Cunningham – 2021 Speech on the Towns Fund

    Alex Cunningham – 2021 Speech on the Towns Fund

    The speech made by Alex Cunningham, the Labour MP for Stockton North, in the House of Commons on 4 February 2021.

    The towns fund might be a good idea, but the lack of transparency in decision making has led to understandable concerns about the impartiality of the process, and from what I have seen of it in the Tees valley, those concerns are well founded.

    In December, I wrote to the Secretary of State about Billingham, soon to be the home of Novavax vaccine manufacture. The town is home to 35,000 proud Teessiders as well as the Billingham Forum, which is a huge sports and theatre venue including pools, gyms and an ice rink. The town is a cultural hub, but it desperately needs help to further develop. As the singer of Maxïmo Park, Billingham-born Paul Smith, sings, it is

    “where industrial tunnels were our fairytale castles”.

    In short, it is a town bursting with potential.

    Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council approached the Government to request that Billingham be included in the cohort of towns eligible to bid for funds, but it was refused. Back in October, Billingham councillors wrote to the Secretary of State asking why other Tees towns such as Thornaby in Stockton South, with a Tory MP, were fortunate enough to have been included in the selection of the first 100 towns for the fund when Billingham was not, even though it clearly fits the criteria every bit as well, if not more so, than Thornaby—although rest assured that we celebrate with the people of Thornaby that they do have the investment that they need. The decision led to confusion and concern locally that could have easily been put to bed if Ministers had responded to the request from the Billingham councillors to explain why their town had been passed over. Instead, the Minister fobbed off the councillors’ request for information and did not even engage with their concerns.

    I followed up with my own letter, which was responded to, but with only slightly more information. It said that Billingham will get the chance to apply to the £300 million levelling-up fund, which has been designated for a towns fund competition. I personally find this quite astonishing. If the Government had sufficient information to select the first 100 towns that were eligible for a deal, why do we have to have more wasteful bidding processes that pit deprived communities against each other for scraps from the Government’s table? Why can the Government not use existing data and provide investment now—and cut out the middleman, saving our councils time and money in doing so?

    It does not matter what money is being dished out these days by the Government: whether it is to the NHS, to councils or for town centres—Ministers are quite happy, and not even embarrassed, to pass over some areas and favour their own. It is time for fairness in the system; time for real, true levelling up and proper resources; and time for towns like Billingham to get the support that they need.

  • Alex Cunningham – 2020 Speech on Covid-19

    Alex Cunningham – 2020 Speech on Covid-19

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alex Cunningham, the Labour MP for Stockton North, in the House of Commons on 11 May 2020.

    I could have addressed many issues in this speech, among them the grief in my own community, the plight of child nurseries that face bankruptcy, small businesses that do not qualify for any support, individuals who have been caught between jobs and are not being furloughed, the hunger of children across the country because the Government refuse to issue school meal vouchers during the Whitsun holidays, or the fear of families with relatives in care homes. But I have opted to talk specifically about health, because of the disproportionate effect the coronavirus has on communities like mine. I pay tribute to all the key workers who look after us every day.

    As we know, covid-19 is a respiratory virus that affects the lungs and airways. That is why lung health is an integral part of how we tackle this virus now and respond to the ongoing effects it can have on a person’s lung health. The majority of deaths from covid-19 in the UK have occurred among people with pre-existing conditions. Data from the UK covid symptom tracker app shows that smokers are more likely to report common covid symptoms, and smokers who contract coronavirus are more likely to experience severe symptoms.

    Prior to this crisis, I regularly called on the Government to do more when it came to lung health—to reverse the cuts and fund public health properly, to have better tobacco control and to tackle health inequalities. As colleagues may know, there is a 20-year average life expectancy gap within my Stockton North constituency. Men living in the town centre ward can expect to live 20 years fewer than a man living in Wynyard. While there are other health challenges, much of that health inequality is down to lung health and the Government’s failure to tackle it head on. Investing properly in tobacco control and smoking cessation services would achieve the Government’s ambition of a smoke-free England by 2030 and reduce health inequalities, but more importantly, it could lift over 1 million people out of poverty, including 250,000 children.

    There has been much talk about how long the coronavirus could be around and whether it could mutate and reinfect. I am not a scientist, so I, like the vast majority of people, cannot answer those questions. But we cannot take a gamble with people’s health and their lives. If someone is more likely to die from covid-19 with a pre-existing condition, we need to tackle the root causes of pre-existing conditions. That means tackling health issues in areas like mine—the areas with the poorest communities. Smoking cessation is an excellent place to start. I hope that the Government will see it as not just appropriate but necessary to restore all funding for services that help people to stop smoking. When households stop spending money on tobacco, it can lift them out of poverty and increase the disposable income available to spend on local communities rather than lining the pockets of transnational tobacco firms, but the services need to ​be there to support people to quit smoking. A polluter charge on tobacco companies would go a long way to funding those services, so will the Minister commit to introducing this charge to provide a sustainable source of funding for tobacco control?

    We need to give lung health the attention that it desperately needs, not just during the coronavirus crisis but afterwards, because we do not know whether this will happen again and we need to be ready. Improving the health of those with the shortest life expectancy is part of the answer. We need to be working on prevention so that if this happens again, we are ready and we will know that we will have saved lives simply by looking after their lung health now.

  • Alex Cunningham – 2020 Speech in Response to the Budget

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alex Cunningham, the Labour MP for Stockton North, in the House of Commons on 16 March 2020.

    This Budget is slightly different from others we have seen over the years. Suddenly, spending billions on industrial investment is not being mocked by the Conservatives, as it was when Labour pledged to do it just four months ago. So let me start with what is good about this Budget: hundreds of millions for carbon capture and storage and an indication that Teesside may well be one of the centres for a project. It would, however, be good for the Government to come forward with a statement confirming that Teesside will get a project. After all, it is better placed and more ready than anywhere else to help the Government to deliver the kind of project that can be world leading.

    Members may know that I set up, and have been the chair of, the all-party group on carbon capture and storage for the past six years. I have met with Ministers. I think they were all convinced of the case, but nobody could get through to the Treasury. I have tabled questions, written letters, organised events, made interventions, given speeches and secured debates urging successive Governments to invest in carbon capture technology and sites. I have campaigned vigorously for carbon capture to be taken seriously by politicians. Like those in the industry, I was devastated when, in 2015, the then Chancellor, George Osborne—without warning—pulled more than £900 million of funding, halting at a stroke two major projects instantaneously. It was a bad day for the industry and there is some way to go to make up that lost time. I only hope the funding this time will see the cash actually spent before the Chancellor thinks it would be easy pickings for a future cut.

    I am really grateful that we are now seeing progress and it appears that we may even be seeing some infrastructure benefits for the Tees valley too, but some of the announcements by the Tees Mayor seem a little wide of the mark. After the Budget, he claimed to have delivered a free port for the Tees, yet there is no mention of it in the Red Book and, as I understand it, there has been no announcement from the Government. Perhaps the Minister can confirm the Mayor’s claim. The same Mayor has also claimed that he secured £80 million for Darlington station. Perhaps the Minister can tell me where I can find that cash in the Red Book or even in the rail network enhancement programme. It is simply not there, so will the Government confirm that the £80 million is actually ready to spend in Darlington?

    After 10 years of austerity and a severe lack of ambition, the Budget comes nowhere near to making up for past cuts. The Chancellor was throwing money around like confetti, but, with no real tax increases and a downturn in the economy, it begs the question: where is the cash coming from? Perhaps he has not had time to cost it yet; we always cost our Budgets.

    The Budget has done nothing for the chemical industries on Teesside, where companies are still nervous, as there is no provision for the increased costs these firms will face due to the uncertainty over the REACH regulations. I appreciate Ministers taking the time to meet me and organisations concerned about future regulations, but it ​is now time for them to step up and take the action the chemical industries are asking them to take to secure the future of their businesses.

    It is not just industry that is worried and under pressure; our public services are, too. I hope that this country pulls through this crisis and that the Government start to truly recognise the impact that health cuts can have because, by the time the crisis comes around, it is too late to restore what has been cut overnight. Perhaps the shortage of ventilators is one of the best examples of the resources in the NHS falling short, and it is in the lives of people that we will pay the price. It is in areas such as mine, where some wards are among those with the lowest life expectancy in the country, that people will be most vulnerable to the coronavirus. As I said in my intervention, I was grateful to the Minister for Health for listening to the case for a new hospital in Stockton—a 21st-century hospital—to address the huge health issues in my community. Since the new hospital was cancelled by the then Tory-Lib Dem coalition in 2010, I have spoken about the need for it in every single Budget debate since. I am pleased that at last we have taken even a tiny step forward, so I thank the Minister.

    However, it is not just about hospitals; as others have said, this Budget has also failed to deliver on social care. In the context of our current situation, in which covid-19 is more dangerous for older people, this seems to be an even more severe mistake. What is happening when careworkers come down ill, are self-isolating, at best, and older people in need of those carers are left alone? How are the Government prepared for this particular part of the crisis? Simply put, what the Budget has done is to highlight the inadequacy of our welfare state. It has proven that our safety net is not fit for purpose. We should not simply do and be better now that we are facing a crisis. If we can make procedures and processes more quickly and streamline now, there is no reason why that could not have happened before.

    I continue to be concerned about the lack of action this Government have taken for those on lower incomes. I agree with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers when it says that the Budget does not address working family poverty. This was the year by which child poverty was due to have been eradicated, and the lack of mention of that in the Budget speech just proves that it is not on the Chancellor’s radar. According to the North East Child Poverty Commission, almost 210,000 children in the north-east are growing up poor. The Budget did nothing for them. I also back the call from USDAW—I am not a member of the trade union—for the two-child limit to be scrapped and the five-week wait period for universal credit to be shortened. That has been echoed by Macmillan Cancer Support. Many people with cancer have to give up work directly because of their illness and it is unacceptable that they have to wait five weeks for their initial payment. It is inhumane and it should never have been part of Government policy.

    Inequality in our country continues to grow, yet we see no real intent from the Government to close the gap and it is the people in areas such as mine that will lose out once again. That is why our new hospital is so important. I do not feel that the Budget is fit to address the problems we face as a society, and certainly not on Teesside.