Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

What has happened on the Home Secretary’s watch and on my watch is that crime in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is down by 20%, something that is forgotten every time Labour Members stand up in this House.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

15. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the number of police officers in Lancashire.

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

Crime has fallen by a fifth across the country and by 9% in my right hon. Friend’s constituency. That is because we have proved that more can be done with less. We should be very proud of police forces across the country, particularly in Lancashire.

[Mr Evans]

Unlike the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), I want to praise the work of the Lancashire constabulary in my county, where crime has gone down by 19% since 2011. Antisocial behaviour is down by 35.8% and robbery in the past 12 months is down by 47%, which is a remarkable figure. Will the Minister assure the House that the Lancashire constabulary will, under a Conservative Government, have sufficient resources to carry on doing its great work in the next five years?

[Mike Penning]

Not only will we guarantee that, we will continue to roll out the specialist equipment that is helping the police day in, day out, especially body-worn cameras. They are ensuring that more people in the community are protected, the officers are protected and we get more convictions, something I expect to see in Lancashire, as well as in the rest of the country.

Child Abuse Inquiry

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

From the timeline that the hon. Lady set out, the information that she refers to would initially have been with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre before the National Crime Agency was established. The National Crime Agency has been clear about the number of people it has identified who have been looking at child abuse images. Under the National Crime Agency more people who are looking at child abuse images are having action taken against them. In the past year more than 1,000 people have had action taken against them, and Operation Notarise has led to the investigation of over 700 individuals. So the National Crime Agency is working. It is ensuring that every case that comes to it is looked at and considered, and that appropriate action is taken. It prioritises those that are of the greatest potential harm to children.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for the compassion and understanding she has displayed today towards the survivors, and for her drive in setting up the inquiry. The scope and nature of the inquiry are unprecedented and she has talked about a reasonable time scale, but it might take some time and, as she has recognised, child sex abuse is taking place today. Should not the panel therefore come forward with some recommendations early on to help stamp out this horrific child sex abuse? Will she give the panel an opportunity, perhaps via an interim report, to bring forward recommendations for her consideration?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I indicated in my statement in July that I expected the panel to publish an interim report before the general election, but obviously the time scales have since shortened. One of the things that I think the inquiry panel will want to look at, and that I believe it should look at, is the question of how it can report throughout the process on the work it is doing. I think that would reinforce the confidence that survivors and others can have in the process and allow the panel, if it comes across issues on which it feels action should be taken sooner rather than later, to report on them so that action can follow.

Child Abuse

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

It is not my intention that political parties be outside the scope of the inquiry. It has to be wide-ranging and it has to look at every area where it is possible that people have been guilty of abuse. We need to learn lessons to ensure that the systems we have in place are able to identify that and deal with it appropriately.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the reviews announced by the Home Secretary today. We want those reviews to be thorough, but we do not want another Chilcot—we do not want them to drag on interminably. May we be assured that there will be some form of time scale by which they will be expected to report? As far as the 114 missing files are concerned, they are either destroyed, missing or not found. It seems to me that somebody believes they may still be there. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that somebody is still looking for the files and that no stone will be left unturned until we know exactly where they are?

[Mrs May]

On the timetable, as I indicated, I would expect the inquiry panel work to go beyond the general election. It is necessary that it has sufficient time to do its job properly and comprehensively, but I undertake to have a progress update report presented to Parliament before May 2015. The deadline or final timetable is something that needs to be discussed with the chairman of the panel, because it will be partly determined by the way they intend to operate the work of the panel. It will also be determined by the progress of the criminal investigations, because we do not want to jeopardise them.

The investigator certainly did not find any evidence that the files were, in any shape or form, in existence, but I think what I am saying is that there is no categorical evidence that they had been destroyed, because that had not been recorded—hence the issues that have been raised about the recording of matters relating to records.

Migration Statistics

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, the survey relies on full and frank answers from those being interviewed even to include them. If people say that they are just visiting a relative for a week, they are not counted as migrants. To that extent, the 70,000 range for potential error within the 95% confidence interval is of significant size for the estimate.

If annual immigration is 120,000 or 150,000, there is only a 5% or one in 20 chance that the official figures are on target. The figures could say that the Government are missing their net immigration target by tens of thousands when in fact they are meeting it, or they could show that the UK is meeting its target when in fact it is missing it by tens of thousands. We do not have enough confidence to know. It is clearly a completely inadequate measure of net migration, but we must be careful before dismissing it, because it is all we have.

That degree of confidence applies only to the headline numbers. The ONS estimate simply does not provide sufficient detail to judge properly the social and economic consequences of different types and origins of migration, and the effects of immigration policy on, for example, students or people from particular countries. Nor does it provide any useful idea about international migration in and out of local areas. Efforts to achieve a blunt net migration target are therefore bound to have unintended consequences, such as skills shortages and effects on universities.

The shortcomings of relying on the IPS were highlighted when the 2011 census showed that the population of England and Wales was 465,000 higher than expected, given the recorded number of births and deaths and the estimated level of net migration during the decade since the previous census. The ONS identified several possible causes for the difference but considered that the

“largest single cause is most likely to be underestimation of long-term immigration from central and eastern Europe in the middle part of the decade”,

which of course was not picked up by the international passenger survey. The ONS concluded that the underestimation came partly from taking samples of people from the wrong airports. That is, the IPS sample under-represented airports such as Cardiff and ports such as Newcastle, where more immigrants are coming in than was previously understood.

As a result, this April, the ONS published a revised set of net migration estimates for the United Kingdom for the period 2001 to 2011. Total net migration during that period is now estimated to have been 346,000 higher than previously thought; the original estimate of 2.18 million has been revised to 2.53 million, plus or minus 35,000.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

With current technology, there is no reason not to have accurate figures, never mind estimates. Clearly, the most appropriate way to get them is at ports of entry and departure, but I have gone through Heathrow and Gatwick airports and seen enormous queues of people coming in who are non-EU citizens; it is actually quite bad for EU citizens. My only caution is that if we are to get adequate figures, we must ensure that sufficient personnel are made available, so we do not have 24-hour backlogs of people coming through our airports at entry.

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend highlights the complexity of moving purely to a counting in and counting out system. Only two countries in the world base their immigration and emigration estimates entirely on counting. One is Australia, which is a good example. A less encouraging example is North Korea. However, every other country in the world bases its migration flow estimates on samples, measuring and estimating or a population register. Germany, for example, keeps an up-to-date population register—the equivalent of a census kept constantly up to date—to monitor its migration flows.

We are in a no man’s land at the moment. We neither count effectively nor sample effectively, and even though we have the decennial census, which has provided the correction of 346,000, that does not resolve the problem between censuses. The underestimation of net migration was identified only by the census on a 10-yearly basis, so the ONS is unable to revise its annual estimates of immigration and emigration as components of migration during the same period, even though it knows that they must be wrong. As a result, for the years from 2001 to 2011, our best estimate of net migration each year is not equal to our best estimate of immigration minus our best estimate of emigration. We are into an Alice in Wonderland world of numbers in which we know that our official figures for each year are wrong, but they cannot be changed, as we have no other sources to use.

In all probability, the actual population of the country will be even larger than that recorded in the census. Many people in the country do not consider themselves to be “residents” and thus decide not to complete the census form. Many others, who have overstayed or are in the country illegally for other reasons, are most unlikely to complete the form. Immigration will thus have been even higher in the last decade than was estimated by the census.

The PASC concluded that the UK’s immigration statistics are not fit for purpose. There was some pushback from the Home Office in reaction to our report last summer, but I think we have to regard that as a natural reaction of denial about the failure of the system of immigration statistics that has been building up for decades. The UK Statistics Authority agrees with us in that respect, saying in its response to our report:

“The limitations of the International Passenger Survey (IPS) in particular and UK international migration statistics in general, especially for local areas, have long been known and debated. The Statistics Authority believes that action must now be taken to address this.”

As I mentioned, when we look at smaller groupings within the 3,000 immigrants identified, such as immigrants from the EU or from specific countries, the system becomes even less reliable, as the 95% confidence interval becomes larger relative to the size of the sample, eventually becoming larger than the sample itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Turner]

That is absolutely right, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing it out.

I also welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Public Administration Committee’s recommendation to use data held by other countries. The Government are hamstrung by EU free movement legislation, which prevents their gathering information on why people from EU countries are coming to the UK and how long they intend to stay.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the normal price for a visa is £83, but for people staying a year or more the price is £300? That is a substantial sum. Surely some of that visa money should be allocated to ensuring that we have proper software and data collection systems in place. I do not apologise for going back to make certain that people are welcomed when they come into the United Kingdom via our airports. We want to ensure that people, particularly tourists, are not kept unduly in long queues while we collect the data that are necessary for us to have accurate information.

[Mr Turner]

We should be able to collect the data rapidly, as we all recognise. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering what can be done. In the meantime, I urge the Minister to make all possible information available to the ONS to help it improve its statistical analysis of migration figures. I ask him to keep in mind possible sources of information that might help the ONS and make those sources of information available, and to do so even when he is not being held directly to account by the Public Administration Committee, the Home Affairs Committee, the whole House or even those who sit in another place. I hope he is able to assure me that he will do so.

People across the UK, whatever their political persuasion, welcome the Government’s aim to cut immigration. In 2003, I made it clear that growing immigration levels would have an effect on the already overstretched jobs market, as well as on the public services to which immigrants would become entitled. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) echoed my statement. There is huge demand for housing in our cities and larger towns, with consequent movement into more rural towns, which was called “white flight.” My statement followed the admission of the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), that he “hadn’t a clue” about the number of illegal immigrants in the UK.

Even some of those on the Opposition Benches now decry Labour’s disastrous policy of opening this country’s doors to all comers—a policy with no mandate, implemented in secret. Andrew Neather, a former Government adviser, suggested that Labour’s policy was

“to rub the Right’s nose in diversity.”

Labour conducted its affairs privately so that, by encouraging mass migration, it would not alienate its core working-class vote. Such actions are neither acceptable nor beneficial to the country in any way.

The Labour Government brought two and a half cities the size of Birmingham—a total of almost 3 million people—to this country without breathing a word. There is little doubt that we have made significant progress in putting better controls in place and repairing some of the damage, but we need accurate statistics that demonstrate that our policies are working. So as well as knowing who is coming in, we need to know who is leaving. I hope the Home Secretary’s expectation that full exit checks will be in place by next year is met.

I will draw my remarks to a close by saying that I understand how difficult a job my hon. Friend the Minister and his Conservative predecessors have had. They inherited a right old muddle, and sorting it out was never going to be easy or quick, but if people are to have confidence in migration statistics, those statistics need to chime with the reality of people’s day-to-day experiences. At present, the statistics simply do not do that, so I particularly welcome the Government’s sensible and positive response to the Committee’s recommendations on communicating the statistics to the public better. These are complex issues, but improvements in communicating the data will help the public to understand them better and lead to more informed debate, which is something we will all welcome.

Home Affairs

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), as we are both alumni of the London Nautical school, albeit a few years apart. I leave it to Members to judge what has happened to the educational standards there since I left, but it is a pleasure to follow him. This is the first time that I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), have spoken in the Chamber in the past couple of years in a debate without a time limit on Back-Bench speeches. Nevertheless, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware of your exhortation and I shall attempt to be as brief as I can.

I am not sure whether this Queen’s Speech is the final act of this Government or the epilogue. It is patently clear that it is not designed for a full Session of Parliament; it is not a full programme at all. Given the provisions for five-year Parliaments, this Parliament will be dissolved at the end of March, so this is a programme for little more than nine months, including the times when the House is in recess.

The Queen’s Speech contains some welcome measures—I cannot think of any Queen’s Speech introduced by any Government that did not contain some welcome measures—although the devil will be in the detail, and more information needs to be obtained. The Modern Slavery Bill, which the Home Secretary and others have mentioned, commands universal support across the House, and we can only hope that it will have the desired effect.

The measures relating to child care costs will also be welcome, provided they do not merely translate into increased prices from the providers of child care, as has been the case in the past. I also welcome the further reforms to pensions, although we should tread warily, given the history of mis-selling of pension products once that market had been liberalised. I also note that the Government intend to introduce a more collective approach to pensions, along the lines of the system currently operating in the Netherlands. My understanding, however, is that the Netherlands Government are considering changing their scheme. We must also bear in mind the fact that the contributors to that scheme pay substantially more than people in this country are used to contributing to their pensions. None the less, I am sure that we can make progress in that regard.

Other measures are more contentious, even though this Queen’s Speech is very thin. The infrastructure Bill will contain measures on fracking, and the Government are engaged in a three-month consultation period on that at the moment. There are those who are opposed to fossil fuels, full stop, and who would never accept the case for fracking, even if it were totally safe for the environment and for residents. However, there is always a conflict in which the broader national interest is set against legitimate local concerns. Everyone will be keen to see the results of the Government’s consultation.

Further controversy might arise over the proposed levy on plastic carrier bags, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. I would have thought that such a proposal would have registered as one of Lynton Crosby’s barnacles, yet it still seems to be in the Queen’s Speech. We must assess the environmental impact of 7 billion bags being used each year. If the Bill’s objective is achieved, I am not sure who will get the income from the levy. I suspect that it will simply save the supermarkets an awful lot of money and increase their sales of bin-liners, because that is what most people use their plastic carrier bags for, but we shall have to wait and see how events unfold.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

It was a delight to hear Her Majesty say the words “plastic carrier bags”, but I am sure that that is not the reason why they were put into the Queen’s Speech. Money will be raised from the levy initially, although I believe that it will deter people from using such bags in the longer term. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this will provide the supermarkets with an opportunity to direct that money towards some kind of social networking or community action groups within their areas, in order to support local communities?

[Jim Dowd]

The charitable and philanthropic activities of the supermarkets are of course to be welcomed wherever they occur; most supermarkets have community schemes of some kind. There is a paradox involved, however. If the aim of this tax, levy or cost—whatever we care to call it—is to reduce demand, very little income will be generated by it. I was as amazed as everyone else to hear Her Majesty utter the words “plastic carrier bags”, as I am not sure how often she comes across such things, but it was not clear whether the objective of the measure is to depress demand or to raise revenue. We will discover from the details whether it will be beneficial. I openly confess that the first job I ever had was in my local supermarket. In those days, we had nothing so glamorous as plastic carrier bags. We had brown paper bags with handles that almost invariably came off when anyone put more than a couple of tins of beans in them.

The hon. Member for Peterborough mentioned the proposed recall provisions—the so-called recall provisions. I think they are inadequate; they do not command a wide degree of public trust. I have also seen early-day motion 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), and that does not make much sense either, even though he is a stern critic of the Government’s proposals. Far more consideration needs to be given to this matter. We need to reach a conclusion that will be workable and viable, and that will command public support.

I am deeply disappointed by the absence of one measure from the Queen’s Speech, despite a previous indication from the Prime Minister that it would be included. The absence of a commitment to ban the use of wild animals in circuses is extremely disappointing, especially as the Prime Minister pledged that action would be taken when he met a delegation from various animal welfare charities in April this year. This measure might well be one of Lynton Crosby’s barnacles that the Government have rejected, but it is undeniably extremely popular with the public and I cannot understand why the Government do not just introduce this simple measure, given that it has such widespread public support.

In the light of that, I have today tabled the following early-day motion:

“That this House is deeply disappointed that the Gracious Speech did not contain measures to ban the use of wild animals in circuses, despite repeated pledges from Ministers that action would be taken; notes that since the House of Commons voted unanimously in favour of a ban in 2011 big cats have returned to Britain and is concerned that the continued delay may lead to other wild species being forced to perform in circuses; further notes that the draft Wild Animals in Circuses Bill has already been scrutinised by the Environment and Rural Affairs Committee; supports Animal Defenders International and other animal welfare organisations in their ongoing campaign to end this outdated practice and calls on the Government to introduce legislation to ensure a ban can be introduced during the current session.”

Extremism

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that the vast majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom despise hate crimes, extremism and terrorism, and that we in this House all have a duty to do what we can to promote inclusion within our own communities?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that everyone in the House has a duty to promote inclusion. He is also right that the majority of people in Muslim communities despise hate crimes. Sadly, too many people in Muslim communities are themselves the victims of hate crimes; we should not forget that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is being so negative. I have seen that report. More people, including women and people with disabilities, are participating in sport in this country than ever before, which should be celebrated. Of course there is more to do, and we will do it. We are focusing action on 14 to 25-year-olds, who have competing demands on their time. We expect the sports bodies to focus on this. If they do not, there will be consequences. They receive a large amount of public money, and if they cannot produce the goods, we will get other people involved.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)]

T3. If the Secretary of State came to Lancashire and had a selfie done with me and was enthusiastic to show it to the wider public, she would find that uploading it would be a bit hit and miss, because in Lancashire only 55% have access to superfast broadband, compared with 65% nationally. Will she ensure that, rather than being left in the digital dinosaur age, Lancashire will have superfast broadband rolled out as quickly as possible, and that 100% will get access to it?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right to say that every corner of the country needs to be in our targets when it comes to rolling out superfast broadband. I am delighted to tell him that that is exactly why the Government are investing more than £1 billion of public money in rolling out rural superfast broadband. We are making rapid progress in his area. As of the end of last month, more than 11,000 premises had been passed, and Ofcom data now show that Lancashire county council has more than 67% availability of superfast broadband. We are making progress, but we need to ensure that that continues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

VisitEngland and VisitBritain do very good work, and I am sure they both have comprehensive strategies, but the hon. Gentleman has made a good point. I shall be happy to meet him and hear about any ideas that he may have, and I shall certainly pass them on.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)]

One iconic institution that attracts a lot of tourism into the United Kingdom—and, indeed, within the United Kingdom—is the great British pub, where people can enjoy tremendous real ales, tremendous food and a wonderful welcome, but far too many pubs are still closing every week. Will my hon. Friend discuss with fellow Ministers what more can be done to retain the vitality of this amazing industry, particularly in the realms of rate relief for rural pubs?

[Mrs Grant]

I am very fond of my own local pub, the Unicorn in Marden, and I do step in there now and again. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are doing a great deal to assist the business sector, and that includes helping pubs by reducing fuel and beer duties. We are also trying to simplify planning, and are continuing to cut red tape, regulation and bureaucracy.

Immigration Rules: Sponsors

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Kerry McCarthy, I must explain that, at 5 o’clock, the hon. Lady will be interrupted so that the same question can be put by the Whip. It is a procedural thing that will no doubt be looked at by the Modernisation Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend cites a number of cases. I think this whole process is unfair because it is quite clear that families who can afford to maintain themselves without making any demands on public funds are being kept apart. My hon. Friend has cases of people returning to the UK, and just this week I have had two constituents contact me about similar issues. One case was a man returning here from India who has £82,000 in a UK bank. Clearly, he and his wife could properly maintain themselves. However, savings do not count. The man is self-employed, but will not have the long record of employment needed to meet the £26,000-plus requirement, so he is unable to have his wife here with him. The other person—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but this is supposed to be an intervention, not a speech.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Perhaps when I have spoken for a little longer, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) will be able to intervene again and make her second point. Indeed, if she intervenes several more times, she may eventually be able to tell the whole story.

I understand that those who earn less than £18,600 can top it up if they have savings, up to a maximum of £62,000. A constituent who was in that situation came to see me the other day. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify the position when he responds, but I think that people have to show that they have had the money in their accounts for six months and it has not just been lent to them.

The final case to which I want to refer is that of a constituent whose girlfriend is based in Hong Kong, but is of Philippine origin. He wants her to join him in the United Kingdom, but they cannot marry. She was married to an abusive husband in the Philippines—she fled to Hong Kong to get away from him—but divorce is illegal in the Philippines, which in itself raises interesting questions. What happens if someone from the Philippines comes to this country and wants to marry a British citizen? What will be the impact on that person’s immigration status if that is not allowed?

The couple cannot live in the Philippines together, which is an option that they explored. If my constituent were in a relationship with an undivorced woman in the Philippines, he could face seven years in jail and she could face three to four years.

It turned out, after we had looked into it, that my constituent’s income is just enough for him to qualify under the rules. He came to see me because he had heard about the £62,000 savings limit, and thought that he was expected to have that much money in the bank on top of his income. However, if he had earned just £100 a month less, he would not have been able to bring his partner to the United Kingdom either. They were exploring the possible options. His partner was considering going to Canada, and he thought that perhaps he would be able to join her there.

The situation is ridiculous. My constituent has family responsibilities, and is settled in employment in the UK. The fact that he would have been forced to go to the other side of the world to be with his partner when she could join him here seems nonsensical to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Division seems to be taking an excessively long time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am sorry, I did not hear the hon. Gentleman.

[Paul Flynn]

My point of order was about the length of time the Division is taking given the small number of Members present. Are people playing games?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Mr Flynn, I cannot believe that that could possibly happen. If somebody is playing games, I am not sure who it is. You made your point of order just as I was rising to ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in both Lobbies.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am on the verge of sending somebody to see where the Serjeant at Arms has gone. Has this got anything to do with Comic Relief by any chance? It is that time of year.

[Mr Harper]

Comic Relief is tomorrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We may still be sitting tomorrow!

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is some confusion over whether it is technically possible under “Erskine May” to call for a Division on the Adjournment. Of course, you are the gatekeeper and the guardian of good order, but my understanding is that there have been occasions on which the House has divided on the Adjournment. I believe that after an Adjournment debate on Norway in 1940, there was a Division on the Adjournment. Any guidance that you can give me would be gratefully received.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I know that the House is waiting with eager anticipation for the answer. The answer is that it is gone 5.30, so the Question would not be put in any event. Therefore, the Question cannot be put.

[Thomas Docherty]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am incredibly grateful for that clarification. I had a brief opportunity in the few moments that I spent in the Aye Lobby to look at “Erskine May”, but I could not find that reference. Is it possible for it to be circulated, for the benefit of Members such as me who are not as knowledgeable as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that we do not waste any more of the House’s time?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Some people may interpret what is going on now as being a waste of time, but certainly not the Chair. I am absolutely certain that clarifications on the rules of procedure will be made. The Question could have been put before the moment of interruption, for instance at 5.29, which, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, has happened in the past. I think that the last time it happened was in the 1970s. On this occasion, we have clearly gone past the moment of interruption and, therefore, the Question will not be posed.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Question that this House do now adjourn cannot be put, how can we decide whether the House is to adjourn or not? Surely if we have missed the opportunity for putting that Question, we need to carry on sitting.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you, Mr Rees-Mogg, for that point of order. We are past the moment of interruption. Had the Minister carried on speaking until half past 5, I would have just stood up and not put the Question.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

I beg to move amendment 22, page 17, line 21, at end insert—

‘Part 4A amends the selection procedure for certain senior judicial appointments until Part 4 of the Schedule is in force,’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 10 to 21.

Amendment 100, page 224, line 42, schedule 13, at end insert—

‘Each of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice must at all times engage in a programme of action which is designed—

(a) to secure, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, that appointments to listed judicial offices are such that those holding such offices are reflective of the community in England and Wales;

(b) to require the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, to secure that a range of persons reflective of the community in England and Wales is available for consideration by the Judicial Appointments Commission whenever it is required to select a person to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to a listed judicial office.’.

Government amendments 23 to 59.

New clause 7—Enforcement services

‘(1) The Legal Services Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 125 insert—

125A (1) For the purposes of this Part (and sections 1, 21 and 27 as they apply in relation to this Part)—

(a) the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council is to be treated as an approved regulator;

(b) enforcement services are to be treated as a reserved legal activity;

(c) a person authorised under sections 63 and 64 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act services is to be treated as an authorised person in relation to that activity;

(d) the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council is to be treated as a relevant authorising body in relation to such a person, and

(e) regulations under the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the National Standards for Enforcement Agents are to be treated as regulatory arrangements of the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council as an approved regulator.

(2) For the purposes of sections 112 and 145 (as extended by this section), a person authorised under sections 63 and 64 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act, is to be treated as a “relevant authorised person” in relation to the Regulator.”.’.

New clause 17—Protection of vulnerable debtors

‘(1) At any time after a notice required under paragraph 7, Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 is served on a debtor, the debtor may apply to the court to stay or suspend the notice on terms on either of the following grounds—

(a) the enforcement action being taken is disproportionate to the debt and circumstances involved; and

(b) the debtor’s goods may be insufficient in value to satisfy the debt involved.

(2) The court may, in its discretion and if satisfied with the above grounds, suspend or stay any judgment or order given or made in prior proceedings for such time and on such terms as the court thinks fit.

(3) Enforcement proceedings under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 are proceedings for the purposes of section 71(2) and section 88 of the County Court Act 1984.

(4) Subject to the regulations under section 64 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 complaints against holders of certificates shall be considered by a designated judge and may include both complaints regarding compliance with the terms of certification as well as the exercise of legal powers under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Further to which—

(a) the designated judge may, on consideration of a complaint, exercise powers under section 64 to suspend or cancel a holder’s certificate; and

(b) the designated judge shall publish an annual report.

(5) The Lord Chancellor shall periodically review data concerning complaints against holders of certificates, update guidance where evidence of bad practice arises and respond to any recommendations set out in a report under subsection 2 within six months.’.

Government new clause 5—Supreme Court chief executive, officers and staff.

Government new clause 6—Making and use of recordings of Supreme Court proceedings.

Government amendments 60, 77 to 80, 82 and 83.

[The Solicitor-General]

I shall start by speaking to the Government amendments, but I should also like to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), if he arrives. I shall start with amendments 22, 57 and 58.

As hon. Members will be aware, the Government are making a number of changes to the judicial appointments process, including to the selection process for the Lord Chief Justice and the heads of division. As part of the changes, the details of the selection process that are currently in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 will move into secondary legislation. There are many reasons for doing that, and many improvements are being made. There is an urgency to this, however, because the Lord Chief Justice is about to retire and we hope that it will be possible to deal with the new appointment and any consequential appointment of a head of division under the new system rather than the old. The amendments aim to achieve that by briefly inserting the new selection process into the 2005 Act, so that it applies to the appointment of Lord Judge’s successor. I must stress that it will be a transitory measure and will cease to have effect after the appointment of the next Lord Chief Justice and any consequent head of division. It is then intended that the secondary legislation will follow.

Amendments 25 to 55 deal with the technical aspects of the change to the Lord Chancellor’s role in the judicial appointments process, including the transfer to the Lord Chief Justice or the Senior President of Tribunals, as appropriate, of the power to decide upon selections made by the Judicial Appointments Commission for certain judicial offices below the High Court. The Government intend to retain the Lord Chancellor’s role in all other aspects of these appointments, particularly terms and conditions for fixed-term judicial appointments where a fee is paid. However, the Bill currently transfers the power to renew, or to refuse to renew, fixed-term judicial appointments to the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals. Amendments 25 to 55 therefore amend schedule 13 so that that power is retained with the Lord Chancellor. They ensure that, in exercising that role, the Lord Chancellor must, as now, if deciding not to renew a fixed-term appointment, comply with any requirement to secure the consent of the Lord Chief Justice or Senior President of Tribunals.

Amendments 23 and 24 also deal with the selection process for judicial appointments and the move from primary to secondary legislation. As part of these changes, the original idea was to move the requirement for there to be on the commission a commissioner with special knowledge of Wales into secondary legislation, but on further consideration, the Government decided that it was important to retain an appropriate level of input by a lay member of the commission with a special knowledge of Wales and that that requirement should remain in primary legislation. The amendments therefore reinstate the requirement in the 2005 Act that those selecting persons for appointment as commissioners should ensure, as far as practicable, that there is at least one lay commissioner with special knowledge of Wales.

Amendment 59 relates to the judicial deployment provisions in schedule 14. The objective is to give the Lord Chief Justice more flexibility in deploying judges to different courts and tribunals. That supports an important objective for the Government because it means that judges can be used efficiently. Individual judges will also benefit, if they have a wider breadth of experience and can develop their judicial careers as a result. The policy was brought forward in partnership with the judiciary and the aim has always been to move forward collectively in the delivery of our shared aims and objectives. After further consultation with the judiciary and further thought, it has been decided that the particular skills and experience needed in the Crown court mean that it should be removed from the flexible deployment provisions. Those matters should be dealt with by Crown court judges, as happens now.

Amendments 10 to 21 are technical and minor amendments dealing with the single family court provisions. I can be brief, because there is only one point of substance. At the moment, magistrates courts can vary maintenance orders registered with them, but because in future the family courts will be able to issue those orders, it is necessary to provide that magistrates will no longer have that variation power, which will lie with the family courts—a victory for the Committee, the other place and, of course, the Government.

New clause 5 relates to the appointment of the chief executive of the UK Supreme Court. I am confident it will be welcomed. A new clause along similar lines was tabled in the other place and again here in Committee. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said at the time that we were going to discuss the matter with the powers that be. The appointments process for the chief executive of the UK Supreme Court has been discussed with the president of the Court, and I am pleased to report that those discussions have been successfully concluded, and the Government have therefore tabled the new clause with the Court’s agreement. Thus the president of the UK Supreme Court, not the Lord Chancellor, is responsible for the appointment of the chief executive. It is no longer necessary for the chief executive to agree the staffing structure with the Lord Chancellor, and the provision also clarifies that the Court’s officers and staff will be civil servants—something that needed to be done.

New clause 6 deals with broadcasting in the Supreme Court. To clarify matters, clause 28 expressly disapplies section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which prohibits sound recordings in court, to facilitate court broadcasting below the UK Supreme Court. It looks odd not to confirm at the same time that the Supreme Court is able to be exempt, so new clause 6 achieves that. Let me be clear that this is about clarifying the matter; there is no question that this has caused any problem in the past.

Amendments 60, 77, 78 and 82 make consequential amendments. I now reach the point where I can say that I am looking forward to hearing the right hon. Member for Blackburn and other colleagues presenting their new clauses and amendments.