Oral Answers to Questions

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

My hon. Friend will no doubt have seen the Government’s response to the review on extremism. I assure him that we will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that extremist ideologies are not spread by any means, including mobile phones.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

There have been reports from Swansea prison of people throwing mobile phones over the wall, which provides anonymity that allows prisoners to indulge in all sorts of criminal activity. What is the Minister doing about that sort of thing?

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Every governor I have spoken to in the last six weeks has mentioned the growing problem of illegal mobile phones in prison. I believe that technology is vital to detecting and blocking such phones. That is why, in addition to the range of technologies that have already been deployed across the prison estate, we have held a high-level meeting with mobile network operators and asked them to use their expertise to develop new technological solutions to deny mobile phone signals in prisons. As responsible businesses, I expect those operators to co-operate fully.

State Pension Age (Women)

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black]

I want to make some progress.

Some people say, “You should not have to be written to. It’s your pension, you should be keeping an eye on it. You should be looking out for reports and things, and take responsibility.” But when giving evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, financial journalist Paul Lewis told us that after researching this himself he could barely find any reporting of the issue at all in 1995. There were a few small press cuttings from the business pages at the back of some newspapers. A freedom of information request revealed that the Government did fund “broader” awareness campaigns, which ran in waves between 2001 and 2004, but that these campaigns

“did not focus on equalisation in particular”.

In fact, only one of the press adverts in those campaigns was focused on this issue—one press cutting roughly seven years after this had already been passed into law. It is quite evident that this whole thing became a total mess. I do not know whether it was not reported deliberately, for political reasons or fear of ramifications, or whether it was a genuine accident, but what I do know is that women were not notified. It was not reported and they were not given enough time to be able to make appropriate arrangements.

This brings us on to the Pensions Act 2007, which increased the equalised state pension age from 65 to 66 between 2024 and 2026. It gave all affected people 17 years’ notice. That is fair enough, but then we come on to what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned, the Pensions Act 2011. That came along and said, “Forget the 17 years’ notice, we’re going to rush this through. We need to do this right now.” The 2011 Act accelerated pension age equalisation for women and the subsequent increase to 66, effective from October 2016 onwards, meaning that affected women had only five years’ notice to try to remedy life plans that had been in place for years.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and I welcome the debate she has brought to the House. Does she agree that many of these women have had a lifetime of low and unequal pay in low-paid jobs? They have had broken careers, because they have brought up children. Some may have got divorced or separated. Their whole life plan has been disrupted, destroyed and impoverished by this awful change.

[Mhairi Black]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman and I will touch on that point later.

The 2011 Act made women wait an extra year to a year and a half to claim their state pension. However, we have to remember and take into account the context which is women did not know about the initial 1995 Act. We have a situation where there is a whole host of women who read about the 2011 Act and went, “Oh, God. Okay, I am going to have to be working an extra two years. I’d better start making plans. Oh no, wait a minute, I’m working till I’m 66. Where did that come from?” There is a whole host of women who have been given a double whammy. The Government have not and are not giving women enough time to prepare alternative plans. There have to be better transitional arrangements.

The Conservative ethos is to encourage independence and responsible choice, but how can that happen if we do not give people the time to make the responsible choices? By continuing this policy at such a high speed, the Government are knowingly and deliberately placing another burden on women who are already trying to deal with consequences of an Act passed 21 years ago that they have only now found out about. To put that into context, I am 21—that’s how old this is.

One of my constituents told me that she began working at 17 and chose to pay the full rate of national insurance on the basis that she would retire at 60. Other options were available to her, but she said, “I want to retire at 60 so I’ll pay the price, through national insurance, my whole working life.” She put it in a way that I think is a very good and accurate description of what is happening. She has now found out that she is not retiring until she is 66. She says:

“The coalition and this present Government have stripped us of our pensions with no prior warning and with no regard to the contract we all entered when we were 17.”

She uses the term “contract”. That is an important point, because pensions are not benefits; they are a contract. People enter into them on the basis that if they pay X amount of national insurance they will receive Y at a certain age.

State Pension Age Equalisation

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Barbara Keeley]

That is absolutely true. The two years’ notice is clearly an issue when someone is deciding to retire to care for two people with dementia, particularly when looking after two people with dementia saves the state a great deal of money.

There are many such stories and examples. By not providing adequate notice of the change and by speeding up the process without putting in place any suitable transitional protection, the Government are failing to support the women born in the 1950s who are affected by their policies. Having promised much during debates, the only concession the Government made was to ensure that the additional increase in the state pension age could not be more than 18 months, but that small concession is of little comfort to those women who were not even informed of the change until very close to the age at which they expected to retire. They have worked hard and contributed to the system.

Throughout their lives, this generation of women has been disadvantaged in the workplace in terms of pay because of their gender. Even now, women in their 60s earn 14% less than men. Many of the women do not have private pensions. Until 1995, women who worked part-time were not allowed to join company pension schemes, and others did not qualify because they took time away from work owing to ill health or a caring role. Very many have no other sources of income, and they now find that once again they are being treated unfairly because of the way changes to the state pension have been enacted and because they are women.

I urge the Minister to look again at the issue and to look at ways of providing adequate transitional protection —the transitional protection that his ministerial colleagues repeatedly mentioned in the debates on the Pensions Act 2011.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

There are six speakers, and I will be calling the first of the Front Benchers at half-past 10. Each speaker has around five minutes if everyone is to get in. I call Richard Graham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Graham, could you bring your comments to a conclusion quite quickly? I have seven other people wanting to speak.

[Richard Graham]

I will, Mr Davies. I was just taking as many interventions as possible.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) is absolutely right. The deferral scheme depends on the individual’s circumstances. None the less, the actuaries would tell us that, on balance, most women will live longer than us men and that the four-year deferral may therefore be extremely advantageous for some people. It is just one example of the technicalities that are worth thinking about.

In conclusion, today’s debate is really important. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South was absolutely right to have secured it. Women in their late 50s and early 60s are affected. There is a serious issue of communication. A lot of this will be hard to untangle, but if the Minister can shed more light on what did or did not happen between 1995 and 2009, that would help. There is a generic issue about what happens when Government communicate, but that communication is not read or is recycled. How can Government respond to that position of professed ignorance? Clearly, it would be fantastic if transitional arrangements could be delivered, but the financial cost may be considerable.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I am afraid that I am imposing a time limit of four minutes because of the number of people who have indicated they wish to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing this debate and on her excellent speech. There is not a great deal more that I can say, but I will try to add something. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who has campaigned assiduously on this issue and would have added greatly to the debate if he were here today.

There is no doubt in my mind that great hardship is being caused here. The unfairness and inequality stand out a mile. People have been hit twice—in 1995 and by the changes in 2011. One of the things that strikes me most clearly is that just because a person is born a few months either side of a particular date, they can lose out considerably. That patent unfairness is one of the key issues that my constituents have raised.

I have had numerous letters over the past few years about this issue. In October, a group of my constituents who support the WASPI campaign came to my advice surgery and set out starkly how the issue has affected their lives. That struck home to me how difficult and how much of a burden it is for women—particularly those in the 53 to 55 age group. They stressed that the main issue—some did not oppose the rise—is the way in which the change was implemented and the lack of personal notification in 1995 and 2011. Those aged 53 to 55 have been hit hardest.

My constituents also spoke about the financial hardship—we have heard examples of that today. Women in that period who became pregnant left work and, in many cases, never went back. That generation’s circumstances were different, in terms of the help and support they got and their ability to work. One of the key points that my constituents made to me is that they had no time to re-plan their lives; they reiterated that time and again.

The only available information was in the media, and that is not good enough. That seems to be part of the defence: the issue was discussed in the media and a few papers ran with it, so that is okay, but that is not good enough. The key issue for my constituents is not just that they are not able to plan, but that they have not been given enough time to add to their pension pots.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) talked about the £27 billion leeway that the Chancellor found. This is a great example of how some of that money can be used, and if the money were used in that way, it would be reinvested back into the economy. The Government should look at that option and consider how they can recompense those women and make the change in a better way to ensure that they do not undergo financial hardship. I hope the Minister will revisit this issue.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Thank you for your brevity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing the debate. The degree of interest in it and the number of contributions are testament to its importance.

My hon. Friend spoke well both about the transitional arrangements and the importance of notice, highlighting the fact that some people had to wait 14 years for notice under the Pensions Act 1995. The human stories that she put forward are extremely important. She also pointed out one of the supreme ironies that we face in this debate: the Pensions Minister in the other place, Baroness Altmann, campaigned on this issue in 2011 and showed some ability to bring about concessions. Now she is actually in a position of power, however, she claims that she does not have the power to do anything about it. I will return to her in due course.

There were a number of other contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke about the issue of communication, and I hope that the Department and the Minister will be able to answer in detail about what steps have been taken in that regard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) spoke passionately about her constituent and highlighted what I am afraid is the growing problem of the gap in life expectancy between the wealthiest areas of our country and the less wealthy areas. She pointed, too, to the issue of those born in the 1950s, the very generation that should have been able to benefit from the cradle-to-grave welfare state introduced by Clement Attlee’s Labour Government of 1945 to 1951.

The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) set out precisely the categories of people who are affected by the changes. He spoke well about the unfair manner of the notice that was given and about the issue of transitional provisions. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) also spoke well about notification and fairness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) highlighted well the issue of the generation born in the 1950s and the importance—which I will come back to—of people being given the time to plan their lives when changes in provision are made.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) brought out the point about emotional distress extremely well. I echo his compliments to WASPI and other campaign groups that are trying to do so much for women born in the 1950s and about the unfairnesses that they face.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) highlighted well the hardship for certain groups. She also made an important point about levels of awareness, which vary up and down the income scale.

We need look at the central issues of this debate: first, transitional provisions, and secondly, notice. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) made the point about transitional provisions, but let us be absolutely precise about what the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said on Second Reading of the Pensions Bill on 20 June 2011:

“Let me simply repeat what I said earlier—it is a bit like a recording, but I shall do it none the less: we have no plans to change equalisation in 2018, or the age of 66 for both men and women in 2020, but we will consider transitional arrangements.”—[Official Report, 20 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 52.]

I repeated that direct quotation to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in a debate here in Westminster Hall on 17 November 2015. She promised that the noble Lady Baroness Altmann would write to me about it. The next day I tabled a written parliamentary question, and I received an answer from an Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). He said:

“Ministers discussed and considered transitional arrangements during the passage of the Pensions Bill 2011.”

Sadly, at the end of his reply he added:

“The Government will not be revisiting the State Pension age arrangements for women affected by the 2011 Act.”

I had that answer on 23 November.

In a letter dated 25 November, I received my answer from the Pensions Minister:

“To clarify, the Secretary of State made this comment when Parliament was considering the Pensions Act 2011. You will wish to note that, later on in that process, the Government made a concession to reduce the delay that anyone would experience in claiming their State Pension as a result of state pension age changes to 18 months.”

Sadly, she also added:

“The policy was debated and passed into law, and there are no new arguments to consider.”

Can the Minister understand the intense disappointment that there will be about that response? The concession mentioned will come as little comfort to those affected by the changes. I urge the Minister not to give up, but to look at what can be done on transitional provisions. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made the point well in his intervention—do not slam the door shut on the women affected, who were born in the 1950s, as the Pensions Minister appears to have been doing in her letter.

Deeper matters are at stake in this debate. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said that there is an issue about the ability of the affected generation of women to contribute to pension pots throughout their lives. Women born between 6 April 1951 and 5 April 1953 are not eligible for a single-tier state pension; a man born on exactly the same day will be. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South brought out the dual impact of the increase introduced in the 1995 Act and the subsequent ineligibility for a single-tier pension—women have been affected not once but twice.

I put it to the Government that the issue of notice is fundamentally important. We talk about notice periods of 10 or 15 years because once people retire, their ability to top up their income is extraordinarily limited. Therefore, when we make changes to the pension age, it is vital that people are told about such changes in good time, so that they may change their lives to adjust to the new reality. That is the fundamental issue at stake. There is incredibly deep anger about the fact that appropriate notice was not given. I urge the Government not to turn their back on transitional provisions.

We have talked about the availability of money. I am one of the first people to say that there has to be an appropriate publicity campaign on auto-enrolment, but I raised my eyebrows slightly when I learned that in recent months the Department for Work and Pensions has spent £8.45 million on a multi-coloured teddy bear called Workie, which will apparently deal with the auto-enrolment awareness problem. It must be one of the most expensive teddy bears in British history.

The spending on the teddy bear is an indication of something deeper—the choices that the Government face. They can still make a choice to consider transitional provisions for those affected by the changes. I urge the Government to look again at transitional provisions, and not to slam the door on the 1950s women.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

If you wish, Minister, you may allow Barbara Keeley a minute at the end to respond, as a courtesy. It is your choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

I will also say that while this is an important subject, it is not something—[Interruption.]

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. Carry on, Minister.

[Mr Vara]

This was not mentioned in terms of redress in the Labour manifesto, either.

Prison Overcrowding

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I completely agree. To be frank, I would like to have the capacity to unravel some of the residual schemes that I inherited, such as the home detention curfew scheme, which in my view should not have been introduced in the first place and which people struggle to understand. I will not be able to do that until resources are available, but it is certainly my ambition.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the light of what he has said, perhaps the Justice Secretary would like to spend the night at Swansea prison. It is the most overcrowded prison in Britain—I guess he would say it is the most popular—with two prisoners for every place. They are crammed in cells, with shared toilets, in sweltering heat, staying there day and night. Will he at last accept responsibility for the closure of 18 jails, the loss of 3,500 prison officers and the ever-escalating increase in the prison population that has led to an increase in assaults on prison officers and the deaths, suicides and self-harming of prisoners? Will he stand aside for someone who will not put at risk the public, prisoners and prison officers, and resign for his heartless, mindless incompetence?

[Chris Grayling]

Mr Speaker, sometimes you hear contributions in this House that are beyond parody. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he was not in the House during the last Parliament because he lost in 2005, but I do not recall that he called for the resignation of previous Labour Ministers when levels of overcrowding were higher.

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what I have done in Wales. I have recognised the fact that that the prison system in Wales has a problem because north Wales does not have a prison, which means that prisoners from north Wales cannot be housed close to home. What have I done? I have won from the Chancellor £250 million-plus to build a new prison in north Wales. That is doing the right thing for the people of Wales.

Criminal Procedural Rights (Opt-in Decision)

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend highlights an area about which I am concerned, and on which there are perhaps disagreements within the coalition. Although there are democratic checks on the court system in this country—if Parliament does not agree with a Supreme Court ruling, it has the option of changing the law accordingly—the same is not true of international courts.

We have a lively discussion in the coalition about our future relationship with the ECHR, but if we start to hand over key elements of the working of our justice system to the ECJ, there is a real danger that in an attempt to harmonise, we will lose some of the things that make our system strong. There is no doubt in my mind that English, Scottish and Northern Irish law are highly regarded around the world, and I would not want to see them internationalised. If that happened, the distinctive features that make London, Edinburgh and Belfast attractive legal centres might be less pronounced than they are today.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a case for minimum standards for the treatment of child defendants, and for people to have the right to appear in court and to be considered innocent until proven guilty? What is wrong with that? Why should other people not share those values?

[Chris Grayling]

In some respects, the hon. Gentleman is right, and that is what we do in this country. The question is whether he believes we should hand over future decision making about our judicial process and court process to an international court over which we have no control. He and his party clearly think that we should. I do not, and that is one of the things that divide us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

That is the point. We have 800 years of legal tradition in this country. It has evolved in a number of different ways and is subject to change and review in both the courts and our Parliament. I do not really feel that we need to bring a third body into that relationship. To my mind keeping the European Court of Justice at arm’s length over these matters is absolutely where we need to be.

[Geraint Davies]

On that point and the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—with which I do not agree, incidentally—the age of criminal responsibility in Britain for children is 10, which is far younger than elsewhere in Europe. Children are required to go to a full criminal court. Surely there is something to be learned from others, or are we too arrogant to listen?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman and I are on different sides of the House. When we disagree on different issues we can debate them in this House. If it is his view that the age of criminal responsibility in this country is too low, it is perfectly reasonable to articulate that in this House, to bring forward measures that could change that, and for us to debate it. My issue is that that is a decision for this Parliament and not for elsewhere, which is why I am taking the view I am this afternoon.

It is also worth saying that the proposal seeks to establish that any deprivation of a child’s liberty must be as a matter of “last resort”. The notion that children should not be detained unless necessary causes little difficulty in the UK, but it is obvious that it introduces a different test from that which currently applies in England and Wales in which children are deprived of their liberty if it is considered necessary—during a police investigation or on remand awaiting trial. That would also have to be subject to reconsideration if we were to opt into this measure and could lead to significant changes, which should be a matter for this Parliament and not for anyone else.

Given that the UK has one of the most comprehensive and generous legal aid regimes in the world, it will perhaps not surprise this House that our analysis suggests that our current practice—in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—means that we are already compliant with the majority of the provisions of the proposed directive. We might, therefore, argue that as it does not ask much change of us, it would be fine to opt into it. However, it does require some change. It requires changes to procedures around the entitlement of somebody who is subject to a European arrest warrant to receive legal advice both in the country of arrest and the country that is seeking arrest. That would have small financial cost for us, but it is, none the less, a financial change that would be imposed on us. It would not be a priority area for us to increase legal aid spending at a time when the legal aid budget is, for necessary reasons, under enormous pressure.

It is not necessary or appropriate for our legal aid system to come under international rules. The level and nature of spend should be subject to a decision in this House. It should be a matter for Parliament. I do not think that we should pass over ultimate jurisdiction over our legal aid rules to the European Court of Justice, which is why I have said clearly that I cannot conceive of a situation in which we would wish to opt into this. I am therefore not prepared at this stage to leave that door open. It is not what this Parliament or this country want. I will not try to pretend otherwise. Let us be clear and up front and say that this is not something of which we wish to be a part.

[Geraint Davies]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can confirm the estimated costs of that measure in terms of added legal aid costs. My understanding is that it is just £200,000, compared with his budget of £7.5 billion. It is not significant, so he is talking about the principle rather than the money.

[Chris Grayling]

I just said that it was not a large amount. It is a question of principle. Do we want decisions about legal aid entitlement to be taken in this Parliament by Government, scrutinised by the Select Committees of the House and by Parliament itself, or do we want to subject ourselves to an uncertain international jurisdiction that may, at a later date, decide that we have to do things in a wholly different way from the customs and practices in this country, often with a cost that is simply not budgeted for? My view is that we do not want that, and I propose that we do not accept that.

I have set out here in both general and specific terms why the proposals present difficulties in the UK, why, in their current shape, we could not support them and why we conclude that we should not opt into any of them. There is, of course, a question about negotiability, and these texts are not final. They may be open to changes in discussions in Brussels, which may improve them, but our assessment at this stage must be taken on the basis of the presented text; we have no other basis. It is of course possible that the proposed directive will change for the better in negotiation, but it is also possible that it could change in a way that make things even more problematical. We do not know for sure. We face a new Commission and a new Parliament in the summer. The Lisbon treaty provides co-decision making to the European Parliament. Matters relating to these directives can be amended in that Parliament and could theoretically impose costs on us that are absolutely not budgeted for.

It seems to me that the scale of our difficulties with the current proposals on the presumption of innocence and legal aid are such that it is difficult to foresee any realistic prospect of negotiating them to a conclusion that the UK could now accept. They are simply too far away from acceptability. Although we will continue to monitor the forthcoming negotiations, we will be clear about our position at the outset. I hope that that clarity will be useful to the House and that the House will support it this afternoon.

The proposals on child defendants also present significant difficulties and I do not underestimate them. I think it is pretty unlikely that we would be able to secure changes that would make them acceptable or better. That is why we are recommending this afternoon that we should also indicate that we will not opt in. I have instructed officials that they should participate in the negotiation to see whether changes made at a later date would be advantageous to this country. I am not convinced that that will happen, but I have left it open as a possibility. That was what was agreed across the Government.

I will ask my officials to work closely with interested Departments, including the Home Office and the Foreign Office, to ensure that the message is communicated effectively to our EU partners and is factored into wider engagements on matters such as the 2014 decision. My view is that the proposal I am laying before the House this afternoon is in the national interest. I have considered carefully the different measures and I am very clear that it is not right for the UK to opt into them, but it is important that this House has its say. I hope that the House will endorse that approach and that everyone in the Chamber will feel that it is right to accept our proposals and support the motion.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I can be fairly brief in addressing these three draft directives. That is not to say that they are unimportant both in themselves and in the context of European legislation, but the Government’s approach to them has been so casual and tardy that the ground has not been laid for sensible debate. I pray in aid the article in tonight’s Evening Standard entitled “EU law change ‘could help drivers escape speed fines’, says Chris Grayling”. That is how the Lord Chancellor sums up these three important draft directives for the public at large. If one were cynical, it would be tempting to assume that when the Secretary of State hears that European legislation is to be debated he first ignores it and then decides to oppose it not because of its merits but because it is European.

It is good to see the Secretary of State proposing the motion. The previous Lord Chancellor used to leave it to his junior Ministers; I wonder why? The current Lord Chancellor’s appearances in the House are rare compared with those in the Evening Standard, but I think that he has come for the approbation of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others rather than to give a reasoned opinion on the matter in hand. His opening speech has sadly confirmed that. The Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee is too wise a man to play the Secretary of State’s game, as the Committee’s reports in the bundle make clear.

Let me first set out the Opposition’s position on the draft directives and then have a little moan about how they have come before us. The presumption of innocence is speedily dealt with. We debated it in the Chamber a month ago and my opinion has not changed since then. I gave two reasons why we would agree with the Government and not support the opt-in. They were:

“First, it is not the difference in standards or the falling short per se that provokes the draft directive, but the alleged effect that has on confidence in the judicial systems in states that are failing. There is anecdotal evidence to support that; indeed, much of the debate about the European arrest warrant focused on worries about the criminal justice system in the extraditing state. However, as the Commission itself concedes, there is ‘limited statistical quantifiable evidence’, and that is not a good basis for such a radical restructuring of European criminal law”—

and—

“Radical though the draft directive may be—this is the second problem—it goes beyond what the ECHR demands.”

That is the point made by the Committee Chairman. I went on:

“For example, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and subsequent legislation, it is permitted in English criminal courts to draw inferences from the silence of the accused. The burden of proof does not always lie on the prosecution, and the right to representation, interpretation and translation varies at different stages of the criminal process. I do not seek to defend the law in its current form by saying that, but I do say that the directive is not the means by which to open a wholesale review of those and other provisions of the criminal law.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 671.]

Interestingly, in Committee on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, we are about to debate further provisions that would allow for more speedy and, the Government would say, effective trial of cases in absence on minor offences. That partly organic and partly operational process of the courts is a good example of why it is wrong that we adopt that particular draft directive.

The two other draft directives are more compelling. They go to the practice and procedure in the law, rather than its fundamentals. They sit more comfortably with the three measures previously debated and decided on by the Government.

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend will be aware that we already practise the assumption of innocence unless proven guilty and people’s right to be present in court. Is it not part of this partnership to promote best practice to others, rather than to abstain completely in the way the Government have, in particular by not providing the data to the EU Commission on the effectiveness of the justice system? We are the only country not to do that. It is ridiculous.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Where that is possible we should do it, and I will refer to a draft directive where we took exactly that line. I simply say in relation to the draft directive on the presumption of innocence that it was proving too difficult to accommodate the principally Roman law system of the other EU countries with our developed system of common law. It was just impossible. However, it does not stop us advocating within the EU on those matters, which we do very well; I just do not think that they are entirely compatible.

The Government opted in to the directives on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and on the right to information in criminal proceedings. I do not know whether that was because they were prior to regime change at the MOJ—a regime change so dramatic it makes the regime change in Crimea look positively evolutionary by comparison. We disagreed with the Government on the directive on the right to access a lawyer in criminal and European arrest warrant proceedings and voted against them because their arguments were poorly structured and articulated.

I have re-read the debate from 7 September 2011 and I am more than persuaded by the arguments that I put forward on that occasion, even though it did put me at odds with the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, something that I am loth to do, given his reservoir of knowledge on these matters. The Law Society Gazette, an esteemed publication, reported me as saying that

“the government’s reasons for opting out of that directive were ‘at best unconvincing and at worst spurious’.”

It went on:

“He said the directive’s requirements are ‘broadly in line’ with current UK legislation and by not opting into it the government would ‘appear to be throwing away an advantage to British citizens’. Opting out at this stage, he said would ‘fatally’ undermine the UK’s authority and leverage during the negotiations. He added”–

presciently—

“‘it looks as though the government are looking for reasons to opt out at this stage’”—

something that has now become commonplace.

I mention that first, because I think that that directive had more in common with the other two draft directives that we have before us today, and secondly, because we do not resile from voting against the Government when we think that it is appropriate. Interestingly, one of the reasons for not opting in to the draft directive on safeguarding children’s rights is because part of that refers back to the directive on access to a lawyer. We clearly do not adopt that point. There are good reasons for supporting the draft directive on children’s rights, even on the Government’s case, as there are for favouring the right to an appropriate level of legal aid across the EU. The difficulty with supporting those draft directives is that the position is still far from clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I do not accept the argument that everything that comes out of Brussels is necessarily evil or inimical to the interests of this country, which appears to be the bizarre position that the Lord Chancellor has painted himself into. Uncharacteristically, we will sit on our hands tonight in relation to two of the draft directives. To answer his question directly, I do not rule out any future opt-in, as of course the Government do not in relation to the directive on access to a lawyer, because I understand that their position is that they still might opt in. Even with the spin that he has put on it, I understand that for at least one of the draft directives there is a possibility that negotiations will lead to an opt-in. I welcome that pragmatic approach. It is a conservative approach, but it keeps the door open, rather than taking the radical approach that the Lord Chancellor would like to be seen to be taking.

[Geraint Davies]

Surely the point on legal aid is that this is to protect British citizens who might be wrongly accused and languishing in an unfit foreign prison, and to provide them with some legal support, at a total estimated cost of £200,000—a fraction of the value of the Home Secretary’s house.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend makes a good point which is exactly the one I made in relation to access to a lawyer: it is primarily British citizens abroad who would benefit. Yes, there is a moral purpose in our trying to get other EU countries to adopt the high standards that we have in this country, but there is also a practical purpose in trying to ensure that when British citizens get into trouble abroad they get the best assistance that they can in those countries. That is why it is sensible, where possible—as in two but perhaps not in the third of these draft directives—at least to keep the door open.

I wish that the Government would address these proposals seriously and not in a rhetorical and political way, and that they would respond to the Committee’s requests more timeously. The pertinent quote from the Committee is this:

“We repeat again our disappointment at the poor quality of the Government’s”—

explanatory memorandums—

“on the three proposals forming the Commission’s procedural rights package, particularly in the light of the time taken to draft and deposit them.”

I am afraid that this is becoming typical of the way in which the Ministry of Justice operates. It is to a low standard and it shows a certain degree of, if not contempt, then at least disregard for this House and its Committees. If the hon. Member for Stone cannot elicit discipline and compliance from the Secretary of State, then it is beyond me, but I feel that the debate is poorer for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sympathetic to the directives. The case for minimum standards across Europe has partially been made already. We live in a new Europe where people are mobile and in which people expect minimum standards. I understand that people are attached to their different judicial systems. There is a move in Wales to have a new, devolved judicial system. We could have lots of different and confusing judicial systems everywhere. There is a case for having our rights in Britain, but there is also a case for having minimum standards.

We should take a sensible approach to this matter, rather than our instinct being that everything is wrong and that we should have a block opt-out. There is a cost to British citizens in that. In this case, it is that dangerous criminals will be roaming around Europe and evading detection through confusion and a lack of co-operation.

The presumption of innocence and the right to be present are established in our law. I think that we should trumpet our best practice and encourage the adoption of minimum standards in countries that are entering the European Union. When British people go abroad, they expect those standards to prevail. Instead, we are saying, “We’re doing what we like and we don’t care what you’re doing. If you like it, you can take it, but it’s nothing to do with us.” We should be taking leadership, not being isolationist. It is the mentality of the UK Independence party and the Scottish National party to say, “We know best where we live.” That is certainly not the case.

The children’s rights directive says that there is a right to information, a right to a lawyer and a right to medical examination. I mentioned in an intervention that the age of criminal responsibility in Britain is very low at the age of 10. That is one reason why we need to afford our children the maximum possible protection. They are much more vulnerable than their European counterparts because they can be criminally responsible at a much younger age. In my view, there should be video recording of interviews with children. There is a strong case for medical examination. We are virtually alone in preserving the defence of reasonable chastisement. The British continue the ritual of hitting their children—smacking and all the rest of it. Having medical examinations in such cases is important to protect our children. It is also right that children should have a right to maintain contact with parents and guardians. The lot of children in Britain is not a happy one in comparison with the rest of Europe. We have something to learn. It is wrong to take the arrogant approach that we do everything right and they have all got it wrong.

When people are mobile within one community, they should be afforded the same rights—hence my support for the legal aid proposal. We have talked about costs, and we know that legal aid carries massive costs, but the costs of protecting UK citizens abroad who may have been wrongly accused and left in jail are estimated at £200,000 a year. That is very little to afford people that right. However, in the name of anti-Europeanism we are saying, “Oh, we don’t want them interfering with what we’ve got.” We live in a common judicial market in some senses, and we can have minimum standards while retaining our own laws.

The case is always made that if we agree to one step, the journey will continue endlessly and it will be the thin end of the wedge. I do not accept that. I believe that we should have a more mature and joined-up approach to debates such as this and take a selective view of the directives before us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I entirely accept that. We will try to ensure that we do what we can to supply the right information to Committees in the future.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in the Chamber, made the valuable point that we should be cautious about the issue of jurisdictions. That is what lies behind my concern about measures such as these. It is important to understand that an opt-in is not—as was implied by the hon. Member for Swansea West—a simple process. It is not just about setting an example to the rest of Europe. It is about accepting the jurisdiction of an international court in regard to important areas of law. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), there is no right of appeal following a ruling from the European Court of Justice. My hon. Friend also rightly observed that our judiciary are increasingly concerned about the role of international courts. On a number of occasions recently, they themselves have suggested that decisions that should be made in our courts and our Parliament are now being dealt with on the international stage. It is clear that that is causing some discomfort to at least some of them.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Justice Secretary confirm that the Government are still negotiating on the issues of children’s rights in courts and legal aid, and that those negotiations have not been stonewalled?

[Chris Grayling]

We have told our European partners—and will do so again if the House approves the motion tonight—that we will not take part in negotiations on the first and third directives, on the presumption of innocence and on legal aid. We will say up front that we do not intend to opt in, either now or in the future. That is a decision that has been agreed across Government, and one that we do not intend to reverse. We will provide observers for the negotiations, but they will not participate in detailed negotiations. As I said, on the second directive involving children we do not intend to opt in; we will indicate that up front. We will participate in the negotiations in case, although it is unlikely, something emerges that this House may want to consider again, but it remains the Government’s position that we do not expect, nor want, to have to opt into the directive, but we will sit around the table while it is negotiated.

There is clearly a broader issue here about minimum standards measures. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) pointed out very articulately, what we must understand is that we have a different legal system from the rest of the European Union. The hon. Member for Hammersmith made the same point. If we accept minimum standards measures, step by step they take away the ability of this Parliament and of our courts to shape our justice system. If we decide on any occasion to opt into such a measure, it is of paramount importance that we understand the implications of doing so.

Protecting Children Online

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

No, I do not accept that. I shall go on to explain why that is a misconception on the part of the hon. Gentleman.

The approach that we are suggesting would cut demand for sites as well as reducing the supply of them. It would tackle child abuse online and the other major issue addressed by the Bailey review and the independent parliamentary inquiry—children accessing unsuitable material online. In recent days I have had the benefit of energetic lobbying from Google in particular, pressing its view that except for child abuse images, which are illegal, all other images should be available unfiltered on the internet. I have heard its views and come to my own conclusion.

I hope the Government’s vacillation on this point is not because they cannot put children before powerful vested interests. I say safe search filters are not a free speech issue. This is not censorship. This is about child protection and reproducing online the conditions established over a long period in the real world.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the Council of Europe One in Five campaign, which is built on the fact that one in five children across Europe is likely to be a victim of sexual violence? Does she agree that the magnitude of sexual violence is enormously inflamed by the open gateway of internet child abuse?

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Once again, he emphasises the importance of the international dimension.

What we are proposing is aimed at reproducing the conditions that we have already established in the real world. The distinction between legal and illegal content is far too simplistic. For cinemas we have the highly respected independent British Board of Film Classification. It produces age ratings—12, 15 or 18. Any cinema found to be regularly flouting the age restrictions would lose its local authority licence. Furthermore, material classified as R18 can be seen only in certain cinemas, and some material deemed obscene is cut entirely. Yet on the internet it is all freely accessible to every 12-year-old. Indeed—this relates to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said a moment ago—the NSPCC believes that one quarter of nine to 16-year olds have seen sexual images online. We are not talking about young women baring their breasts—that is like something from Enid Blyton compared with the Frankenstein images now available.

The dangers are clear. On average, 29% of nine to 16-year-olds have contact online with someone they have never met face to face. Of course there is a real difference between child abuse online and extreme pornography, but unfortunately in the real world people who become addicted to pornography look for more and more extreme images, and that sometimes tips into child abuse images. Addiction is the issue. Users are found to have literally millions of images on their computer, and child abuse sites are signposted on pornography sites. Both are shared peer to peer.

Therefore, an effective age verification system would mean that paedophiles would lose the anonymity behind which they currently hide, and the denial of what they are really doing would be addressed by the third proposal in the motion, which is to have splash warnings before entering filtered sites. Work by Professor Richard Wortley at University College London suggests that that might halve the numbers viewing child abuse online.

Of course, those measures would have a cost to industry. TalkTalk, which has led the way in offering filters, has spent over £20 million. Some in the industry tell us that they do not want to lose their competitive edge, and some say that they do not want to act as censors. That is why the Government should act by putting a clear timetable for those reforms into law in order to speed up change, level the playing field and support parents. We know that most parents want to do what is right by their children, because 66% of people, and 78% of women, want an automatic block, according to a YouGov poll conducted last year, but the industry is not helping them enough. At the moment, some still require people to download their own filters—a near-impossible task for many of us—some see it as a marketing device, and others want to give the option of filters only to new customers. At the current rate of turnover, it would be 2019 before that approach had any hope of reaching total coverage. It simply is not good enough. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) wish to intervene?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution and pay tribute to her for the work that she does on these issues in this House and throughout the country. She is absolutely right. There is more we can do, and we need to look at a number of issues that will be raised at the summit next week.

First, we need to discuss the funding of the IWF. I note the £1 million contribution that Google has made this afternoon. We will discuss with the IWF what kind of funding it needs and what funding needs to come from the industry to help it to do the work that it needs to do. Secondly, we need to discuss the IWF’s role in peer-to-peer file-sharing. It is all very well, and absolutely right, to clamp down on and block the sites that host these vile and disgusting images, but we need to do more work on the activities of peer-to-peer networks where people are sharing them.

This involves the complex issue of how the IWF works with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. We have to clear the lines on that. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred to international work. We, as a Government, support the Global Alliance against Child Sexual Abuse Online, which covers more than 40 countries. Both CEOP and the IWF work internationally, and it is extremely important to focus on that work. We can be proud of our success in this regard, but, as she rightly points out, the problem remains one of images posted abroad.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the Minister agree that images of women being raped in pornography should also be illegal and banned from the internet?

[Mr Vaizey]

The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are looking very closely at that issue, which has been debated recently. It is right that my colleagues in the relevant Departments look to see what action it is appropriate to take.

CEOP works with UK police forces, which carry out excellent work in tracking down and arresting the owners of sites within the UK and rescuing and safeguarding the children who are subject to abuse. We will continue to support and promote the work of CEOP. It is important to note that the number of people working there has increased from 85 in 2010 to 130 now. CEOP is now a command within the National Crime Agency, and this will build on its success and allow it to work closely with other commands to ensure that children continue to be safeguarded. CEOP receives important support, in the form of a skills resource, from the business sector, including Microsoft, BAE Systems Detica and Visa, as well as children’s charities such as the NSPCC. At next week’s summit we will discuss what further resources we can bring to bear for CEOP, especially in terms of support from businesses that can bring particular skill sets to help it to carry out its work. As I said, we will also discuss with CEOP its close co-operation and work with the IWF.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend is an authority on this issue and she has shown, throughout her engagement with it, her willingness to work across party lines and to look for practical solutions that will help keep our children safe. I hope that Opposition Members will listen to what she has just said and take it on board.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the Minister agree—I know that the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) supports me in this—that credit card companies should be made accountable and perhaps face penalties if they are complicit in the downloading of child abuse images through online transactions, particularly those under £50 that can be facilitated by anonymous credit cards that can be accessed by children as well? Does he agree that the Government need to bring credit card companies to account and stop this abuse?

[Mr Vaizey]

That is very important. As I have mentioned, Visa plays a role with CEOP. No credit card company would say that it was actively encouraging or supporting people to download images of child abuse. If the hon. Gentleman has specific examples, he should bring them to my attention. The credit card companies have an important and helpful role to play on this issue and many others, including piracy, and we must continue to work with them.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Mann]

Publicity on how to do so and technical ease of use in doing so, so that the democratic internet world can hit back effectively and the industry can be monitored, are key. The key members of the working group who really know what they are talking about would be more than happy to meet the Minister, if he would find that useful. We could bring them over from the US.

To get access to the right people, I went to meet industry leaders in their headquarters in California, and I made the point that their brands were in danger. If the users and third parties, albeit national Governments, can show successes in prosecutions, the industry will throw far more resources at the issue. The industry does throw at lot of resources at it. A third of all Facebook employees are dealing with it, because the dangers to its brand are so fundamental, but at the moment it is less of an issue for other companies. They do see the dangers to their brand, however, which is why senior people from PayPal now turn up to meetings.

I intervened on the Minister—it was not a hostile intervention—on agreements in other countries. One danger is that different countries will do different things. Of course, that is not an excuse for any Government to hold back, but the French Government are taking various legal actions against some of the key internet giants, as are the Italians, and there is a danger that the approach will become too bitty. May I suggest to the Minister that he try to up the stakes and achieve European Union consensus from Britain’s lead? If Britain is ahead of the rest of the European Union, that is a good opportunity to set the standards that others can push up to and take forward. That would be pragmatic and significant. We attack the industry—I am happy to attack the industry in various ways—but it does not want terrorists using its platforms to kill people and it does not want paedophiles using their products to abuse children. That is obvious to me and it is also obvious to the industry.

[Geraint Davies]

Some years ago when I first came across Twitter, I tracked a few people who were following various trends and discovered an image of a man who had been beheaded. I wondered then about the extent to which Twitter could be used as a route into child abuse and what should be done about it.

[John Mann]

I am pleased to say that Twitter participates in the working group that I have managed to initiate. The issues are complex, but all these issues are complex. Last night, I went on to the internet using a mobile device to seek the speech made by the Rev. Leslie Hardman when he went into Belsen concentration camp in 1945. I was immediately content blocked. These issues are not all straightforward, but some outcomes are exceedingly obvious and straightforward. I put it to the Minister that the industry and politicians have a mutual interest. That is the industry’s vulnerability. Finding the tools to expose those who refuse to participate properly and effectively is the key to real progress. If the Minister united the industry around that in Europe, he would make a phenomenal mark. My working group would be delighted to provide any help that it can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Google, Facebook and Twitter are the new gateways for abuse and pornography—Google historically so. Google has donated £1 million, but it is important that such enormous companies pay their tax and take their responsibilities. I was interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) about the appalling death of one of her constituents and agree with her call to track sex offenders online.

I am glad to see the former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), in his place—I hope he knows something about this—because we need to confiscate the passports of known sex offenders involved in sex tourism, which I have discussed in the Council of Europe. There needs to be more international collaboration, including DNA sharing.

I mentioned earlier the responsibility of credit card companies such as Visa. If they are found to be complicit in the downloading of child abuse imagery they should be fined. It is a startling fact that across Europe about one in five children are likely to be subjected to sexual violence. This is the appalling world we now live in, hence the Lanzarote convention, which is an international agreement to protect children’s rights, stop exploitation and increase co-operation. I hope that, despite the inward-looking tendency of the current Administration vis-à-vis Europe and the world, they will reach out in the interests of children.

I intend to table an early-day motion on the issue of rape imagery on the internet. I mentioned it on Twitter and received a barrage of responses from, of course, men—some of whom were lawyers—saying that the Ministry of Justice says that there is no evidence of a causal relationship between the portrayal of women being raped and encouraging rape and rapists. That is an extraordinary thing to say, but even if it was true it is wrong to think that it is all right for men to get off on online images of women being raped.

The reality is that children take their mobile phones to schools and freely download images of—how can I put it?—“normal” pornography and more abusive pornography, which is leading to a new idea of what is culturally acceptable in human relationships. That, in turn, puts pressure on women to go through a process of various pornographic acts that are regarded as the norm in a relationship. There is a danger that boys are being encouraged to be more forceful in their pursuit of girlfriends and what they expect them to do in emulating what is regarded as normal adult behaviour.

The motion’s call for an opt-out, therefore, is completely right. The facile comments made by various Members about filters not being perfect so we should not have any are ridiculous. It is like saying that a safety belt or another form of protection cannot protect us completely. Obviously they cannot, but when children are given phones by their parents they should be locked out of accessing imagery that they can share with others—this is true of the male community in particular—while endless pressure is put on the female community. We want schools to be a protected environment for our children. That must be part of the answer.

I am drawing a wider picture of the appalling situation with regard to child sex abuse imagery. As the normality of viewing this sort of stuff penetrates our school environment, affecting younger and younger children, the whole thing becomes an endemic problem. We need to act now. It is true that we need cross-party consensus, but we cannot simply rest on our laurels, hope for the best and get grudging, belated co-operation from the industry, which is making so much money out of internet pornography.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Would the new clause, in essence, abolish marriage and civil partnerships and replace it with civil union? If so, what would be the status of someone who is currently married? Would they become unmarried and move into a civil union?

[Greg Mulholland]

Technically, in terms of the law, absolutely. As I said yesterday, the new clause cannot be seen in isolation; it has to be seen with amendment 10, which sought the repeal of the Marriage Act 1949. It must also be linked with the amendment that I tabled to remove clauses in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and to repeal the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The point is that there would be one single definition of a legal recognition for relationships.

I am not necessarily dictating whether this should be called a union, a marriage, or, as Peter Tatchell suggests, a civil commitment pact. I am not particularly interested in the language. Some people feel very strongly that we should call it marriage; others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), do not like the word “marriage”. That is a debate to be had. The point is that what we need to do, and what the Bill should have sought to do, is give all citizens of this country the right to one single recognition by the state of their union. Of course, that would apply to everyone in an existing marriage or an existing civil partnership. Everyone would have the one single recognition through the state, and the legislation would have been drafted to achieve that. That answers the hon. Gentleman’s question very simply, but we are now moving into technical legal questions. In reality, this change would require a separate Bill, but it is currently proposed as a new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland]

My hon. Friend is touching on the elephant in the room, which is the establishment of the Church of England. That is another matter that is worthy of debate. There will be different views, and I hope that he is prepared to take part in that debate. I am trying to show that it is possible to separate civil marriage and religious and belief-based ceremonies without necessarily having the effect that he suggests. This involves the constitution as well as the Church of England. I suggest to him—I do not know if he would agree—that the Church of England is now in a most odd and uncomfortable position as a result of the way in which the Bill has been drafted. Similarly, it is not a particularly happy situation for other Churches. That would not necessarily be the case if we had the separation that I propose.

I will continue to pursue this matter beyond the passage of the Bill, which will of course receive its Third Reading tonight. I share my hon. Friend’s view that had we had a proper and fuller consultation—this is not so much about the time period as about the intent and scope of the Bill—we could perhaps have looked seriously at sweeping away the current framework and coming up with one that is properly radical and fit for purpose, and gives all our citizens the same rights whether they are religious, humanist, or of no belief.

If we want true and exact legal recognition of all adult couples and to convey the same rights to them all, we will not achieve that as things stand this evening. If we want to have clear and proper respect for freedom of conscience, we will not achieve that this evening. Those things are still possible if amendments are made. I ask hon. Members to consider the amendments. I do not intend to press new clause 14 to a vote, but I hope that the views that I have expressed have been heard and that the Secretary of State and her colleagues will note the support that they receive from all parts of the spectrum on this issue.

[Geraint Davies]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and his interesting comments.

I rise primarily to support new clause 15, which would allow people to have humanist marriages if they so choose. Members will know that that is an established option in Scotland, chosen by about 2,500 couples a year. About 600 couples in Wales and England choose to have a humanist wedding without it becoming a legal marriage.

Religions do not have a moral monopoly on marriage. Different religions have different moral views linked to their faith, and the humanist tradition has its own secular but moral conception of what is right. The members of the humanist community want to be able to join in moral partnerships in which they may express and celebrate their personal ethics, and for those bonds to be recognised in law. There is nothing wrong with that. Like many Members, I have been lobbied by people in my constituency on this matter. Brian Cainen, who conducts various humanist ceremonies, including funerals, is very concerned and passionate about this, as are many people who approach him to ask about the options that are available.

I was drawn into this debate by my interest in the issue, but I was disappointed by the level of emotion expressed by the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who seemed to suggest that humanist ceremonies were some sort of pagan ritual, whereas we are talking about moral, ethical people who want to pursue their own ethics.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I did not say that. Those of us who oppose the Bill have tried hard, so far as is possible, to make it work within the context of the protections that we have sought. When the Bill was introduced, faith groups were promised protections. It seems to me that we should finish the passage of the Bill where we started and ensure that those protections are still in place. That is all that I am asking for, no more and no less.

[Geraint Davies]

I accept that the assurances that have been offered to faith groups should be delivered and guaranteed, but what we are talking about is widening the franchise of equality so that people can be married whether they are of different sexes or the same sex and whether they are humanists or people of faith. As I said, faith groups do not have a moral monopoly. A quarter of people say that they have no religion—obviously, the situation is changing over time—and there is no reason why such people should not be embraced within the fraternity of marriage.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am much taken with the idea of having some form of humanist marriage, but I am worried that by agreeing to such marriages, we would cause problems for religious marriage. That makes me think that perhaps we are rushing the proposals through too quickly and that we should perhaps slow down or stop and think again.

[Geraint Davies]

Clearly, we are here to debate the Bill. The people who push for delays and referendums tend to be those who oppose the Bill in any case. The debate on same-sex marriage has been going on for a long period, and not just in this House at this time. In the run-up to the Bill, there has been an enormous amount of discussion in faith communities, among people of no faith and in political communities. Internationally, we have seen equal marriage proposals move forward in a number of developed countries. I think that we have a role to play in providing leadership.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although the concerns that are being raised about process may be quite legitimate, many of us are concerned that it might be many years before we have another opportunity to debate and vote on this issue?

[Geraint Davies]

I very much agree with that important point. We are all aware of the political difficulties in the Conservative party and the differences within the coalition and across the House. Same-sex marriage is an important measure and it is imperative that we deal with it now. If it does not happen now, political complexions may change as we approach the 2015 election and we might miss the opportunity. People may make the calculated gamble that if the issue is pushed into the long grass, it will stay there. Thousands of people want us to move forward on same-sex marriage, a large and growing community of people want us to move forward on humanist marriage and, as we have heard Government Members say, there are people who want us to move forward on civil partnerships. I hope that the review on that matter makes rapid progress and that the options are provided in a fully informed way.

I was very surprised by the Attorney-General’s intervention in which he seemed to say that new clause 15 would be in breach of article 14 of the European convention on human rights and would open the door for people who wanted to marry in the name of tiddlywinks. That was very peculiar. I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, to which the European Court of Human Rights has regard. I have not heard it suggested in any serious chamber that there ought to be parity between the rights of those who want humanist weddings, which are already an option in Scotland, and those who demand tiddlywinks marriages.

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geraint Davies]

I did not know that the hon. Gentleman was a tiddlywinks fanatic.

[Dr Huppert]

I am not a tiddlywinks expert, but I am a humanist. I am a member of the British Humanist Association and the all-party humanist group. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that there has been a judgment on the what test should be for serious beliefs in such cases. The judgment in Grainger plc v. Nicholson states:

“The belief must be genuinely held, must be a belief and not an opinion based on present available information and a weighty or substantial aspect of human life and behaviour”.

None of that could really apply to tiddlywinks.

[Geraint Davies]

I am grateful for that intervention. It elaborates the point that we should not spend too much time talking about tiddlywinks. However, it was brought up by the Attorney-General and I thought that I had better deal with the matter because he said that his best criticism of new clause 15 was that it would be in breach of article 14 of the European convention on human rights. That seems very unlikely, to put it mildly. It is scraping the barrel and was a bizarre thing for the Attorney-General to say.

I realise that the intention behind new clause 14 was to start a discussion, but it would abolish marriage and civil partnership and replace them with civil union. People who had been married in good faith would wake up one day and find that they were no longer married. That is not something that we should seriously consider. In the cut and thrust of political dialogue, it was famously said that people who went to bed with Nick Clegg might wake up with David Cameron. This proposal is akin to that idea. One day people would be married and suddenly, after a change in the legislation, they would no longer be married.

[Greg Mulholland]

After a reasonably intelligent start, it is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman is making silly, petty party political comments. I say again that there should be and would be one way of recognising all adult couples, including those who are already married or civil partnered. He is being slightly mischievous in another way, because those who believe themselves to be married in the eyes of one religion, Church or belief system would continue to do so, as happens now, regardless of whether the state regards them as married or not.

[Geraint Davies]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is slightly lacking in a sense of humour. My point about waking up with David Cameron was not meant as a sharp political point. I am sure a lot of his colleagues would be very happy to wake up with David Cameron.

On the serious point—there is a serious point—I realise that the hon. Gentleman is making a genuine point about the need for absolute equality in marriage and civil partnership and asking why, if that is not happening, we do not have civil union. I see the logic of that, but I was simply making the case that in practice, if that came in now and we essentially abolished marriage, people would wake up in a slightly different relationship from the one they anticipated when they made their vows. In parallel, I was making a perhaps not very funny joke about people voting Liberal and ending up with a coalition Government.

This Friday is the 25th anniversary of section 28, which gives us a stark reminder that time has moved forward but we still have not made all that much progress. Gay people are still abused at school, for instance—where my children go to school, the word “gay” is used in an abusive way. We need to move forward and provide equality before the law. I appreciate that we are going to end up with equality for same-sex marriage and that there will still be work to do on civil partnerships, but in the meantime we need to move forward on the humanist agenda, whose delivery is already established in Scotland.

[Jane Ellison]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment that we need to make progress, but speaking as a supporter of the Bill, I am concerned about the advice that we have received that it may not be the right vehicle to meet humanists’ desires on marriage, even though many Members on both sides of the House wish to do so. The problem is not opposition to that aim, but the risk that the Bill is not the right vehicle and that by including such a provision, we would unpick the locks carefully assembled to protect religious minorities.

[Geraint Davies]

It is important that we have this debate. My view comes from looking at the detail of the Bill and from the fact that humanist marriage is already established in Scotland and seems to be working well. It seems to me that the Bill provides an obvious opportunity to introduce equality between humanists in Wales, England and Scotland sooner rather than later. I do not see that as a problem.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. He made fun of the advice given to us by the House’s most senior Law Officer. I obviously do not sit on the Government Benches, but I have the highest regard for the Attorney-General’s advice, and he told us clearly that supporting an extension only to humanists would be discriminatory. We have the European convention on human rights, and I say hooray for that—I am in favour of it—but how does the hon. Gentleman excuse the fact that the new clause applies only to humanists rather than having broader coverage? It is discriminatory.

[Geraint Davies]

The status quo is discriminatory in any case, which is why we are asking for equality for same-sex couples. Humanist marriages occur in Scotland without being challenged in the European Court, so there have been test cases. Like others, I am free to make jokes about the Attorney-General; he has no planet-sized brain that should intimidate us, and his reference to tiddlywinks invited scorn and ridicule, which I thought it was reasonable to supply. On that hilarious note, I will bring my comments to a close.

[Mr Blunt]

I rise to reassure the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) that there is support for him on the Government Benches and to encourage the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) to press the new clause to a vote and not be put off by the blandishments that she may hear from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I say that because I am suspicious when I cannot hear a single argument against the principle of a proposal—there is agreement that it is absolutely reasonable and a proper extension of rights to humanists—but we get a barrow load of technical or legal difficulties and risks, and the idea that there has not been time for consultation. The idea that we do not have the opportunity during the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament to sit down and address the technical objections to this suggestion and others, and to get the Bill right before it finally hits the statute book, does not reflect terribly well on us as legislators or on the advice that we can command.

My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) said that the Bill was not the right vehicle for addressing the matter, but I do not think that we will see another marriage Bill coming down the track any time soon. Ministers’ enthusiasm for re-engaging with the issue, after going through the joy of the past 18 months of consultation and processes, will be a little limited. That was why, yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested a five-year time bar before the issue would be reconsidered. That was overturned at the insistence of the Opposition, whose amendment she accepted. I rather suspect that that time-limitation arrangement was suggested because Ministers have been somewhat scarred by the process of the Bill.

That makes it more important for us to take advantage of this opportunity to deal with some fundamental points that seem glaringly obvious to me. It seems glaringly obvious that humanists ought to be allowed to conduct marriage ceremonies and that the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) has put forward yesterday and today ought to be addressed. We should take this opportunity to have a fundamental look at how marriage is delivered and to divide civil and religious marriage properly, so that we have dealt with all the problems that we are now wrestling with.

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) prayed in aid the advice that we heard from the Attorney-General, but I have to say that although I am a very great friend of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and have huge admiration for his work and his intellect, I have never heard such nonsense on stilts put forward under the guise of independent and wise advice. It was certainly not the product of careful consideration, because it has come to the House at rather short notice. On reflection, his rather strange division between secular people and religious people, with the former not deserving the same consideration for the protection of their rights, would itself fall foul of any convention on human rights worth its name.

My right hon. and learned Friend ought to have the opportunity to give rather more considered advice as the Bill proceeds through Parliament. I am sure that when it is considered in another place and then comes back to this House, if there is satisfaction that his arguments hold water, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston and her colleagues who tabled the new clause will be happy to consider them again. We need to address the technical and legal objections that are being made to a measure to which I have heard no Member put forward principled opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

The principle of some of a sentence being served in the community is, as we have discussed before, in my view a good one, because it enables us to have a hold over the individual when they come back out into the community. However, my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that I am looking at ways in which early release in certain circumstances can be earned rather than automatically granted.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What his policy is on sentencing guidelines for the most serious and violent offenders.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

18. What his policy is on sentencing guidelines for the most serious and violent offenders.

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

Severe maximum penalties are available for the most serious and violent offenders. Sentencing guidelines are a matter for the independent Sentencing Council. Guidelines provide non-exhaustive lists of common aggravating and mitigating factors, and courts retain discretion to treat the particular circumstances of individual cases.

[Geraint Davies]

There is significant concern in Swansea about violent offenders being let off lightly, because the prisons are over-full with people who do not pose a significant risk to the community and because magistrates and judges are being pressurised to reduce costs. Will the Minister ensure that enough investment and priority is given to keeping violent offenders in jail for long enough that they are rehabilitated and do not go out and reoffend?

[Jeremy Wright]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very keen to see that violent offenders serve appropriate sentences. The length of sentences is going up and not down. He is not right to suggest that prisons are over-full. There is still capacity within the prison system to take those who ought to be there. I remind him that the only Government in recent history who had to let offenders out of prison because they ran out of space were the previous Labour Government whom he supported.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

In many cases, a high priority is given to trying to house prisoners in places where they are reasonably in contact with their family and home. Of course, the more pressure the service comes under, the more difficult it is to maintain that, but I am sure it remains an objective of those who allocate prisoners to the correct prison once they receive their sentence.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

16. What assessment his Department has made of the effect on women of his proposed changes to legal aid.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

The Government published an equality impact assessment alongside their response to the consultation, which set out the best assessment of the effects on women of the proposed changes to legal aid. This recognised the potential for the reforms to have an impact on women alongside those with other protected characteristics. We have taken the view that any such impacts would be justified in the light of the policy objectives, especially in the context of reducing the deficit.

[Geraint Davies]

The Minister knows that the courts are already in crisis due to a shortage of court and judge time. Will he accept that the removal of legal aid will encourage more and more women to provide their own defence, which will add to the crisis of delays and will mean further delay for children, bringing hardship to families and children?

[Mr Djanogly]

There is no shortage of court time or judge time. I simply do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I ask why the Minister is discussing amendments that have not been selected by the Speaker? He seems to be referring to amendments 98 and 97.

[Mr Djanogly]

Amendments 94 to 102 have been selected.

Under amendment 98, a section 37 direction, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, would trigger funding for all parties in any private law family proceedings in which the child was involved. A section 37 order in itself does not mean that the child is at risk of abuse. The local authority staff could conclude, once they had completed their investigation, that the child was not at risk and that no further action was needed. If the local authority concluded that action was needed, it would put a child protection plan in place. As I have said, legal aid will be available in private law children cases in which a child is at risk of abuse for a party seeking to protect the child where there is objective evidence of the risk of abuse. A child protection plan will be accepted as objective evidence in criteria that will be set out in regulations under clause 10. That means that if a local authority put such a plan in place, that would trigger funding for the party seeking to protect the child.

Providing for legal aid to be available for any family proceedings involving the child, as amendment 98 would do, would mean that legal aid would not be targeted on proceedings about protection of the child, but could be available for proceedings that might not concern protection at all. For example, a case about financial relief for the parents could be covered if an application were made for financial relief for the child. Given that the words “involving a child” do not give much indication of how closely the child needs to be concerned, it might even be that a case between the parents about a matter that did not directly concern the child was included.

Amendment 98 would also provide for legal aid to be available for all parties to the proceedings. We intend to target funding on the protecting party. Where a party is not the person taking action to protect a child from abuse, the same level of importance and risk would not apply.

Amendments 94 and 95 would also widen the availability of legal aid under paragraph 11 beyond the parties seeking to protect the child. That would mean that legal aid would be available for the other party in private law children cases where a child is at risk of abuse. As I have explained, we decided to keep those cases in scope for the protecting party because protecting children from abuse is paramount. Where a party is not the person taking action to protect a child from abuse, the same level of importance and risk would not apply.

The tests we wish to use to determine the availability of legal aid in these cases are designed to be as objective as possible and to minimise the risk of false allegations. The tests are: where there is a criminal conviction or ongoing criminal proceedings for a child abuse offence; where a local authority has put a child protection plan in place to protect the child; or where there is a relevant finding of fact by the family courts that child abuse has occurred. They will provide clear and objective evidence of the risk of abuse. However, if the particular facts of an individual case mean that failure to provide legal aid for both parties would be likely to result in a breach of the individual’s rights under the Human Rights Act or European Union law, exceptional funding would be available.

I turn now to amendments 99 to 102, which seek to retain legal aid provision for all parties in private family cases where the court has made a child a party to proceedings. Identical amendments were debated in Committee. The Government intend to retain legal aid for a child who is a party in these circumstances. However, as we made clear in Committee, we do not accept that, where a child requires representation, adult family members should as a matter of routine also be given legal aid. There are a variety of reasons for a child to be a party, and not all will involve the complexity of a case. In cases where a child is represented, it does not follow that the case will necessarily be so complex or that the child’s involvement will render the case so complex or difficult as to require representation for all parties.

By their nature, some of the cases will be complex, and we recognise that in some circumstances people will be unable to represent themselves, but we think that those cases will be the exception. The exceptional funding arrangements will ensure that legal aid will be available where required. A failure to provide legal aid in cases where people genuinely could not represent themselves would be likely to breach an individual’s right to legal aid under the Human Rights Act or EU law.

I turn now to the immigration amendments, which include technical Government amendments, Government and Opposition amendments relating to domestic violence immigration cases and other amendments seeking to widen the scope of legal aid for refugee family reunion matters and immigration judicial review cases. Government amendments 61 and 62 will amend paragraph 25(1) of part 1 of schedule 1 to correct an omission in the meaning of asylum in the Bill. That will ensure that persons who make a claim to enter or remain in the UK based on the EU qualification directive are eligible for legal aid. Government amendment 60 will make a similar change to paragraph 25 to cover claims based on article 2 of the European convention on human rights, which sets out the right to life. Although most claims for asylum will be made on the basis of the 1951 refugee convention or article 3 of the European convention on human rights, the amendment will allow funding for cases involving execution and the death penalty; serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict; and unlawful killing.

Government amendments 55 to 58 clarify the wording of paragraph 17(7) of part 1 of schedule 1 with regard to the exceptions from scope to the exclusion of certain types of immigration judicial review proceedings. Amendments 55 and 56 will amend paragraph 17(7)(a) to clarify that the exception applies only to a judicial review of a negative decision in relation to an asylum application where there is no right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal against the decision. Amendments 57 and 58 will amend the exception in paragraph 17(7)(b) to add a reference to section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Section 94 allows the Secretary of State to issue a certificate on a number of different grounds, for example when an asylum claim is clearly unfounded. The certificate prevents an appeal to the first-tier tribunal being brought while an individual is in the UK. The amendments clarify the position and ensure that the policy is given effect.

Amendment 83 seeks to maintain within legal aid civil funding certain immigration judicial review cases that are very likely to be without merit. We debated an identical proposition in Committee. These are cases that either have already had a hearing on the same, or substantially the same, issue within a period of one year, or are judicial reviews of removal directions where there is less than one year between the giving of the direction and determination of the decision to remove. In response to our legal aid consultation, the Judges Council highlighted the large number of immigration judicial reviews that were without merit and, in effect, clog up the system. Only a minority of those would receive legal aid. As we made clear in Committee, the Government’s view is that it is wrong in principle for such cases to remain within the scope of funding.