Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), whose contributions to our debates on this Bill at every stage have been exemplary, moving, powerful and reasoned.

I am very pleased to welcome warmly many of the amendments on transgender issues. I particularly welcome Government amendments 40 to 47, and I thank Ministers, who I know have taken on board issues raised in Committee about pension protections for transgender couples. I am pleased that the concerns raised in Committee have been addressed in the amendments. They will create no new liability for pension funds and will remove for some couples the hideous decision about whether a member of the couple should proceed with gender reassignment and, in the process, remove the pension rights of a much-loved spouse. I know that following the debate in Committee, transgender people and their partners are pleased by the Government’s response and I want to put on record my thanks to Ministers for that.

I also welcome the other amendments on transgender issues in the group. Although I have some concerns about the compensation provision, the calculation given to us by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) suggests that there is relatively—indeed, microscopically—little cause for any Chancellor to be concerned. I hope that the Government will consider very carefully the whole package of amendments on transgender issues proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others. As I think the hon. Gentleman said, many of the injustices that the amendments seek to address are probably inadvertent injustices, but they are none the less deeply wrong injustices suffered by transgender couples. I invite Ministers to look, even as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament, at ways in which we might put rectifying action in place.

On amendment 49, on pensions, I too recognise the anomaly that exists between the treatment of pension rights for married couples and same-sex civil partners. I also recognise that resolving this anomaly is not without difficulty. We have always accepted the estimate of £18 million potential additional cost to private contracted-in occupational pension schemes, and I agree with hon. Members who have already said that in the scheme of overall funds under management for pension companies, that seems a very small amount indeed, although I also accept the concern that extending pension rights to civil partners could have a disproportionate impact in a very small number of cases, particularly in small and often charity employer schemes.

In relation to other schemes and the possible wider effect, for example on contracted-out occupational pensions, where Ministers have suggested a potential impact of £90 million, or in relation to public sector schemes, I must say that I am still puzzled as to why we think there is any further implication. In February I obtained a note from the House of Commons Library which pointed out that civil partners are already entitled to survivor benefits in contracted-out and public sector schemes in relation to benefits going back to 1988. That is a result of the Civil Partnership (Contracted-out and Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) (Surviving Civil Partners) Order 2005. The Library said that the same was true of public sector schemes, as I say. So I am not clear how the exemption would affect those contracted-out and public sector schemes.

Although I have great sympathy for the amendment, the Government should come forward with a full analysis in order for Parliament to take an informed decision on what the cost implications would be. That is why I tabled new clause 17, which was not selected for debate. I understand the reasons for that, but it would have asked for the full report of the pensions costs implications for all forms of occupational pension and the impact on pension funds and pensioner poverty to be presented to Parliament. Although the new clause has not been selected for debate, I join the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green in asking Ministers to present the fullest possible information to Parliament so that we can make a proper decision. I recognise that if we get it wrong, we could drive very small pension schemes out of business, which would exacerbate inequalities in other ways.

As things stand, we are without a proper review of the cost. Ministers have expressed concerns that it could be more—potentially considerably more—than £18 million, and on the basis of the information before us, I regret that I cannot support amendment 49 today. However, I want to place on record my strong support for the principle that underpins it, and I very much hope that information that will enable us to move forward will be available to the House as soon as possible.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

It is nice to be able to make a contribution at last to this important debate, after sitting on the Front Bench for quite a few hours.

I will first speak to Government amendments in the group. This is a large group of amendments that, in broad terms, concern pension entitlements, gender reassignment, devolution and a number of miscellaneous matters. Government amendment 25 ensures that the protection for the Church of England in the Bill is both full and clear. We have been continuing our discussions with the Church since we knew that it had doubts about whether the power provided in clause 11(5)(c) would be sufficient to enable us to provide full protection for Church of England ecclesiastical law from the effect of clauses 11(1) and 11(2). It is an important part of the protection that Church of England canon law should not be affected by the provisions in the Bill and that references to marriage shall continue to mean marriage between a man with a woman only. Having consulted the Church of England, we have decided to provide further protection by referring to ecclesiastical law in the Bill. The amendment affects only law applying to the Church of England in the limited cases where the effect of marriage is at issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lady Hermon]

My intervention relates specifically to Northern Ireland and harks back to the useful advice given at the beginning of the debate by the Attorney-General in relation to the risk of discrimination. The Minister will know that under the Bill as drafted, if it is enacted, schedule 2 means that a couple who avail of the facility of a same-sex marriage will be fine in England and Wales, but as soon as they go to Northern Ireland it reverts to a civil partnership. My concern, mirrored by the Attorney-General’s intervention in relation to an earlier amendment, is that within the United Kingdom, surely that is discrimination on grounds of different status in Northern Ireland as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Mrs Grant]

I could not quite hear everything that the hon. Lady said, but my consideration is that it is down to Northern Ireland to respond. I am assured that that is right, but if that is not correct I will write to her to clarify that.

[Jim Shannon]

Perhaps the Minister’s correspondence could clarify the matter. I believe that the authority lies with the Northern Ireland Assembly. Perhaps she might like to reply, if that is in order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mrs Grant]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am being reassured from both flanks, and from much higher authorities than me, that that is the situation.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on these devolution matters and for the work the Government have done to ensure that we have our own separate legislation for same-sex marriage. Can she assure me that she will do all she can to work with Scottish Ministers and ensure that everything required for a legislative consent motion will be approved by the UK Government so that we can go ahead with our own process in Scotland?

[Mrs Grant]

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We will certainly work very hard on that together.

I turn now to Government amendments 30 to 32, which are purely technical and simply ensure that the use of the phrase “existing England and Wales legislation” is entirely coherent, so as to remove any possible doubt as to its meaning. Government amendments 33 to 39 are technical and make changes to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 to ensure that it works entirely properly for same-sex marriages. Amendment 33 makes changes to the 1973 Act in relation to what applies to opposite-sex and same-sex marriages and to give effect to schedule A1.

Amendments 34, 35, 36 and 38 make changes to ensure consistency of language with the 1973 Act. Amendment 37 inserts a provision into schedule A1 to enable applications for an order to end a marriage because one of the couple is dead to be made under the Presumption of Death Act 2013. Amendment 39 enables schedule A1 to work using the presumption of death provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 if the 2013 Act is not in force when the Bill comes into force. Amendment 39 also amends schedule 1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 provisions on staying—meaning halting—matrimonial proceedings in England and Wales when there are other court proceedings at the same time outside England and Wales about that same-sex marriage. That will ensure that such proceedings on the same divorce, judicial separation or annulment do not give rise to conflicting decisions, which would prevent resolution of the issue.

[Lady Hermon]

I am listening intently to the Minister and am sorry to interrupt her at this stage, but I must bring her back to Northern Ireland. I really want an assurance from the Government that we in Northern Ireland will not see legal challenges on the grounds of breaches of the European convention on human rights by those who, if the Bill becomes law, avail of same-sex marriage in England and Wales. It is specifically paragraph 2 of schedule 2 that concerns me. It states:

“Under the law of Northern Ireland, a marriage of a same sex couple under the law of England and Wales is to be treated as a civil partnership… (and accordingly, the spouses are to be treated as civil partners).”

I just need reassurance from the Minister.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are getting to Third Reading points and I would not want the hon. Lady to use up the points that would be better made then.

[Mrs Grant]

I am afraid that, as this is a devolved matter, it is impossible for me to give the assurance that the hon. Lady is asking for. Northern Ireland, rightly, has to look at the issue itself.

Government amendments 40 to 47 deal with pension entitlements. They amend part 6 of schedule 4, which provides for same-sex married couples to be treated in the same manner and to be entitled to the same survivor benefits as civil partners. As drafted, that includes couples in same-sex marriages who have preserved their marriage following the change of legal gender of one of the spouses, and it is designed to ensure that all same-sex couples are treated alike for this purpose. We recognise that our policy of treating same-sex marriages in the same way as civil partnerships for occupational pension survivor benefits may create a problem in relation to survivor benefits for a very small group of individuals whose spouses change gender during their marriage. We understand that this could deter a transsexual person from seeking to change their legal gender because of the financial impact on their husband or wife. If the amendments are made, widows of marriages that become same-sex as a result of the husband’s change of legal gender during the marriage will still be treated as widows for the purpose of calculating survivor benefits in a contracted-out occupational pension scheme; and for schemes that are not contracted out, in calculating any entitlement to survivor benefits, the marriage will continue to be treated as opposite-sex marriage.

[Mike Freer]

If I heard the Minister correctly, she said that any transgender couple who transition will keep their full entitlement from the date of joining the pension scheme, but a civil partner survivor will still be restricted to the point at which civil partnerships became law. Does not that create yet another anomaly?

[Mrs Grant]

I think that I have made the position clear. The concession is intended to target a very small group of people, and we do not intend to open it up any further. The main reason for giving the concession is that there has been no break in the marriage.

Amendment 49 would remove the exception in the Equality Act 2010 that allows occupational pension schemes to take into consideration only accruals from 2005 for the purpose of survivor benefits for those in a civil partnership. It would also remove the provision in the Bill that extends the exception to same-sex married couples. When civil partnerships were introduced, an exception was added to equality legislation that allowed schemes to restrict access to survivor benefits for those in civil partnerships, so that schemes are required, when calculating survivor benefits, to take into account only accruals from 2005, when civil partnerships were implemented.

We have a responsibility to balance the interests of all parties involved in a pension, so while we are of course absolutely committed to equality for same-sex couples, we do not believe that it would be right to put on schemes the significant additional and retrospective financial burdens that would arise from removing the Equality Act exception. We are very conscious that defined-benefit schemes already face difficult economic conditions.

[Mike Freer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Grant]

I would like to make a little headway, as I have a fair way to go.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referred to the recent case of Walker, which was supported by Liberty, in which an employment tribunal found that a pension scheme had discriminated against a member by using that exception. The Government do not agree with that finding. The decision of the tribunal is not binding and there is nothing in it that leads us to question our policy. We intend to challenge the decision robustly. The Government have recently been added as an interested party in the appeal. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion not to press the amendment.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister explain what the situation will be if the Government lose the appeal, which seems entirely likely given the legal case?

[Mrs Grant]

As an optimist, I would prefer to decide what action is appropriate if that happens. I do not want to prejudge the appeal.

I shall now deal with the non-Government amendments on gender reassignment. Amendment 15 would enable a marriage to be held to be continuously valid from the date of the original marriage solemnisation, effectively restoring the original marriage. Amendment 22 would allow couples who have continued to live together following the annulment to apply to have their marriage reinstated from the date on which they notify the registrar of their wish to have their marriage reinstated.

I understand the concerns that prompted hon. Members to propose those amendments, and the Government have great sympathy for couples who felt required to make the difficult choice to end their marriage to enable one party to obtain gender recognition. However, it is not possible to reinstate a marriage that has been lawfully ended by an order of the court. It will be possible to backdate converted marriages to the date of registration of the civil partnership, as the civil partnership will not have been lawfully ended.

Couples who have continued to live together will be able to marry by virtue of the changes in the Bill. I realise that that will not be a reinstatement of the original marriage, but I sincerely hope that couples will feel able to make use of these important provisions. I realise that some transsexual people in this situation may be disappointed, but we need to ensure that a person’s legal relationship status is completely clear at all times in the eyes of the law.

Amendment 18 would enable a one-off payment of £1,000 from public funds to be made as compensation for the distress caused to and costs incurred by couples who had their marriages annulled to enable one or both parties to get gender recognition. I cannot support that amendment because we have to take the law as we find it. It is not fair arbitrarily to compensate couples who decided to end their marriage under the law that applied at the time. There will be other couples who felt unable to end their marriage and who may have suffered distress as a result of not being able to obtain gender recognition. We have taken on board the issues that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) have raised, and we will continue to listen carefully.

The first part of amendment 16 would provide a power for the Registrar General to make regulations about the issuing of new marriage certificates to couples in which one or both parties have obtained gender recognition that reflect the trans party’s acquired gender, but retain the original date of registration. That could include the date of registration of a marriage that had been annulled. I assure the House that that part of the amendment is unnecessary because the power provided in the Bill is wide enough to deal with those matters. We will give serious consideration to the registration date that should be referred to on any new marriage certificate issued to a couple who are to stay married following gender recognition. We will also need to ensure that the certificate does not inadvertently reveal that one party has gender recognition.

The second part of amendment 16 would provide a power for the Registrar General of England and Wales to make regulations providing for amended birth certificates for transsexual people’s children to reflect the transsexual person’s acquired gender. The amendment does not seem to be directly related to equal marriage, and in any event I cannot accept it as section 12 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 makes it clear that gender recognition does not affect the status of a transsexual person as the father or mother of a child. That section is necessary to ensure the continuity of parental rights and responsibilities and to protect the right of children to know the details of their biological parents.

Amendment 12 is intended to remove the provision in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 that makes a marriage voidable when a transsexual person marries a non-trans person but does not inform that person of their trans status prior to the marriage or at the time when it takes place. I cannot accept the amendment, because the current provision in the 1973 Act and the corresponding provision in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 provide important protection for the non-trans spouse. If a non-trans person finds themselves in a marriage to which they did not fully consent, it is only right that they should be able to apply to annul the marriage rather than have to wait to bring time-consuming and often costly divorce proceedings.

Amendments 13 and 14 would require the Gender Recognition Panel to issue full gender recognition certificates to all applicants in protected marriages, irrespective of the non-trans spouse’s views. It would then be open to the non-trans spouse to issue divorce proceedings. I understand that the amendments are intended to remove the so-called “spousal veto” in schedule 5. However, let me be clear that non-trans spouses will not be able to veto their spouses obtaining gender recognition. I also understand that the amendments are intended to deal with the problem of hostile or obstructive non-trans spouses who deliberately seek to delay nullity proceedings. I have not seen any evidence that that is a widespread problem. If the grounds for the marriage being voidable are met, the hostility or absence of the non-trans spouse should not delay a court in issuing a decree of nullity. If there is evidence that unnecessary delays are occurring, we believe that it should be a matter for the court.

It must be remembered that a marriage is contracted between two people who should have an equal say in the future of that marriage. We consider that it would be unfair to remove the right of every non-trans spouse to have a say in the future of their marriage before gender recognition takes place. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their amendments relating to gender reassignment.

Finally, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate. I am conscious of time and know that I need to leave a little time for the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) to respond, so I will conclude my remarks.

[Dr Huppert]

We have discussed some important and detailed issues that matter intensely to a range of people. I am grateful for the tone in which the debate has been conducted by almost everybody; it has been productive. I know that people from the trans community and other minority sexual communities who have been watching are impressed that Parliament is able to discuss these matters.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is no longer in his place, said that there is no pent-up anger about some of these issues. I would quote comments sent to me by some of my transgender colleagues, but I suspect the language would be rather unparliamentary. There is certainly pent-up anger among people about their stolen marriages.

As I am sure the Minister is aware, I disagree on some of the detail about these amendments and I maintain that there are some concerns. I was worried by some of the language about not fully consenting to a marriage, although I am sure the Minister did not mean to imply that people need to be protected from transgender spouses or transgender people—I am sure that is not what was intended. I was grateful to hear her say that the Government will continue to listen carefully on such issues. I hope there will be further discussion in another place and that the Government will reflect on what more they are able to do.

There has been some progress and I acknowledge some of the Government amendments. On stolen marriages, amendment 15 was always an ideal, and I am well aware of the Government’s objection to backdating. It would be wonderful if it were possible to do so, and I am sure the Attorney-General is a good enough lawyer to find a way to do that. The Minister highlighted the fact that couples will be able to backdate their new marriage to the date on which their civil partnership was formed, so there is some form of backdating, which is welcome. In many cases, there will be a one-day gap between two otherwise identical marriages, which is slightly odd, but I am grateful for that progress. Amendment 15 was always somewhat optimistic, but I hope we can make progress on some of the other issues.

Amendment 49, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), is critical. It has been noted that the current position gives rise to some truly odd anomalies. We are introducing—quite correctly—protection for someone who is transgender and transitions, so that they do not lose out on pensions by virtue of that, but we are leaving in place a slightly bizarre anomaly, mentioned by the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), regarding people who have a same-sex relationship, because we are not backdating that to before 2005. That seems deeply anomalous and I am sure the Attorney-General will give clear advice about discrimination on that basis.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on the costs and benefits of his reforms to judicial review.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The impact assessment of 23 April and the Government response to the consultation clarify the costs and benefits of our reforms, which are intended to tackle delays and reduce the burden, while upholding access to justice.

[Caroline Lucas]

Figures published by the Minister’s Department confirm that the proportion of judicial review applications for planning and environmental cases has remained unchanged since 2005. Does she agree that, rather than facing a culture of so-called meritless judicial review applications, what we actually face is a meritless attack on people’s fundamental constitutional rights to challenge unlawful behaviour by public bodies and protect their environment, without a shred of evidence to substantiate the changes she is rolling out?

[Mrs Grant]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady. Judicial review is a critical check on the power of the state—and it will remain so—but it is also subject to abuse, stifling innovation, frustrating reforms and imposing unnecessary costs on individuals, business and the economy. Our reforms will tackle the burden while maintaining the benefits of the rule of law, access to justice and the right to a fair hearing.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

In welcoming my hon. Friend’s remarks, may I urge her to look at other, wider areas where judicial review might be considered to some extent to be supplanting Parliament by interfering with the answerability of Government? I am thinking of some immigration tribunals and areas of the benefits system, where judicial review has been misused.

[Mrs Grant]

This is an area that we will keep under review. I am very happy to take sensible suggestions from my hon. Friend.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

How can the Minister possibly claim that these changes are not damaging access to justice, when she knows full well that by reducing the possibility of taking cases to judicial review, public authorities and the Executive cannot be held to account by ordinary citizens? Why is she destroying what is so important in our justice system in this country?

[Mrs Grant]

We believe our proposals strike the right balance. They are proportionate and targeted, and do not restrict access to justice, the rule of law or the right to a fair hearing. Our proposals also encompass a number of safeguards to help vulnerable people.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with the principle that public power should not be exercised to abrogate fundamental common-law values, at least unless abrogation is required or those concerned are empowered by clear primary legislation? If we have better and clearer primary legislation, we are likely to have less judicial review.

[Mrs Grant]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes an astute and sensible point.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

2. What steps he plans to take to reduce the number of offences committed by people on probation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

3. What progress he has made on improving the feedback from tribunal judges to the Department for Work and Pensions on the reasons for overturning employment and support allowance refusal decisions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The provision of feedback on reasons for tribunals’ decisions is always a matter for the judiciary. As the hon. Lady will be aware, new arrangements for this were put in place in July 2012. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is continuing to work with the judiciary, the Department for Work and Pensions and the other organisations involved to find ways of improving feedback.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The problem is that the feedback mechanism, which involves the use of a drop-down menu, is very brief. For example, the reason given for 40% of the overturned decisions was “cogent oral evidence”. That does not give decision makers in the DWP any real help in understanding how they can make changes that would result in fewer appeals. Surely it is necessary for the Department, which bears the cost of the appeals, to do something about this.

[Mrs Grant]

We are continuing to work hard across Government to improve initial decision making, with the ultimate aim of reducing the number of appeals. A new pilot is being considered, and I will be happy to write to the hon. Lady with details of that.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The waiting times for appeal hearings for employment and support allowance claims are far too long. The waiting time at the Leicester venue is now 40 weeks, which is a complete disgrace. What is the Minister going to do to sort this out?

[Mrs Grant]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important to deal with these cases in a timely manner. National waiting times for ESA appeals are actually down, from 21.5 weeks in December 2011 to 16.7 weeks in December 2012. The figures are even better in Scotland, but of course more needs to be done.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

That is a very good tie, by the way, Mr Speaker.

Does the Minister agree that so many incorrect first decisions having to be overturned by judges not only causes massive grief for the families concerned but incurs significant additional cost to the taxpayer? That is a double whammy. Surely it is time we got this right.

[Mrs Grant]

The judiciary provides feedback, which is being considered. In November 2012, over 60% of appeals allowed by tribunals had reasons for the decisions attached. As I indicated in response to the question before last, we are looking at a new pilot, and I will write to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) about it.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The Minister told us earlier about what she views—wrongly in my view—as the exploitation of judicial review. Is it not the case here that poor decisions by Atos are piling work on the tribunals service and therefore costing the public more money? Why does her Department not liaise properly with the Department for Work and Pensions, or is this another case of one arm of the Government not knowing what the other is doing?

[Mrs Grant]

It is the DWP decision makers who make decisions, but I can tell the hon. Lady that many measures are being put in place to increase capacity and reduce waiting times—

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Such as?

[Mrs Grant]

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) says “such as” from a sedentary position. Those measures include recruiting more judges, securing additional venues and more Saturday sittings in addition to striving continually to improve original decision making.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

4. What the Government’s strategy is on the future of the probation service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

20. What the Government’s strategy is for victims of crime.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

For many years victims have felt overlooked and completely unsupported by the criminal justice system. The Government are determined to put that right, which is why we are implementing a range of reforms that will put victims at the very heart of the criminal justice system, which we say is where they belong.

[Stella Creasy]

Today we will hear more about the tragic case of Maria Stubbings and how she was dealt with as a victim of domestic violence. Ministers have acknowledged that delays in our courts system disproportionately affect victims of sexual violence. Will they acknowledge that too many female victims in Britain get a raw deal in our criminal justice system, and what do they intend to do about it?

[Mrs Grant]

I categorically do not agree with what the hon. Lady has said. The Government are absolutely committed to tackling domestic violence and violence against women and girls. We have set up a national taskforce, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, to protect children and vulnerable people from sexual violence. We have also opted into the EU directive on combating child sexual exploitation and will continue to do everything we possibly can to ensure that vulnerable people are protected from the devastating crimes that can do serious long-term harm.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

T9. . What can the Secretary of State do the reverse the increase in the compensation culture in the UK?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

Our whiplash consultation closed on 8 March. We looked into the use of independent medical review panels and increasing the small claims compensation threshold. A response to the Government’s consultation will be published in autumn this year after the Transport Committee’s inquiry into whiplash.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

T2. What plans does the Minister have to monitor the banning of referral fees in personal injury matters and to review the payment of referral fees in conveyancing?

Justice

Helen Grant Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Rehman Chishti]

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the victim surcharge.

[Official Report, 26 March 2013, Vol. 560, c. 1106W.]

Letter of correction from Mrs Grant:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on 26 March 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mrs Grant]

Since its introduction in 2007, the victim surcharge has raised £41.2 million, which has funded vital services for victims and witnesses of crime. The reforms to increase and extend the surcharge, introduced by this Government, will see more offenders take responsibility for the harm they have caused. They will contribute up to an additional £50 million per year towards the cost of victims' services.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mrs Grant]

Since its introduction in 2007, the victim surcharge has raised £41.9 million, which has funded vital services for victims and witnesses of crime. The reforms to increase and extend the surcharge, introduced by this Government, will see more offenders take responsibility for the harm they have caused. They will contribute up to an additional £50 million per year towards the cost of victims' services.

Whiplash Claims

Helen Grant Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The Government share the widespread concerns about the disproportionate growth in whiplash claims and the impact they have on the price of motor insurance premiums. To address these issues, I announced to this House on 11 December 2012, Official Report, column 32WS, that the Government were launching a consultation on “Reducing the Number and Costs of Whiplash Claims”.

The consultation ran for 12 weeks and sought views from stakeholders on proposals to introduce independent medical panels and on whether to amend the small claims threshold for damages for personal injury claims. It committed the Government to review the submissions received and publish a response in spring 2013.

The consultation closed on 8 March. However, on 15 March the Transport Committee announced an inquiry into whiplash, which would include an examination of the Government’s consultation proposals.

The Government believe that, prior to taking any final decisions on whiplash reform, they should give due consideration to the views of the Transport Committee. The Government also believe that the impact of their recent civil reform programme on the price of motor insurance premiums needs to be assessed. Consumers should be rewarded with the lower litigation costs being reflected in lower insurance premiums.

For these reasons the Government have decided to defer publication of their formal response to the consultation until after the Committee has reported.

The Government’s consultation document was laid before Parliament when the consultation began. It is also available online at:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/reducing-number-cost-whiplash.

Deaths of Service Personnel Overseas

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I wish to make the latest of our quarterly statements to the House to report progress with inquests into the deaths of service personnel on active service overseas. Once again we want to record our deep gratitude to and admiration for all our service personnel who have served in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations. Their determination, their professionalism and their courage on behalf of us all have been totally dependable. We remember those service personnel who have made the ultimate sacrifice, and their families left behind. We particularly remember the families of the four service personnel who have given their lives since our last statement in January.

In this statement we give details of inquests conducted by the Oxfordshire coroner, the Wiltshire and Swindon coroner and other coroners in England and Wales. This statement gives the position at 6 May 2013.

We have placed tables in the Libraries of both Houses providing additional information to supplement this statement. The tables show the status of all current cases and include information about cases where a board of inquiry or a service inquiry has been held or has been directed to be held.

Our Departments continue to work together to improve our processes and ensure that they are as effective and timely as possible. As we have previously informed the House, the Chief Coroner for England and Wales is in post and will have a number of specific powers and duties in relation to service personnel inquests. Section 12 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 came into force last year and enables deaths of service personnel killed abroad on active duty to be investigated in Scotland, where this is appropriate. The remainder of the chief coroner’s powers are due to come into force this summer.

We will continue to support the coroners who are conducting inquests into the deaths of service personnel. We are sincerely grateful to coroners, their staff and all who help and support bereaved families throughout the inquest process.

Since October 2007 both Departments have made funding available for additional resources for the coroners for Wiltshire and Swindon and for Oxfordshire. This is to help the coroners conduct the inquests of service personnel who have been repatriated to airbases in their districts. These are RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire, the airbase for repatriations from 1 April 2007 to 31 August 2011, and RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, where repatriations have taken place since 1 September 2011. The funding prevents any backlog of inquests and helps the coroners to balance the service personnel inquests within their community workload.

Current status of inquests

Since we made our last statement there have been 11 inquests into the deaths of service personnel on operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. A total of 569 inquests have been held into the deaths of service personnel who have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan or have died in the UK from injuries they sustained in those operations. There are three cases where no formal inquest has been held. In one case, a serviceman died from his injuries in Scotland, and it was decided that a fatal accident inquiry would not be held. In the other two cases, the death was taken into consideration at inquests into the deaths of other service personnel who died in the same incidents.

Open inquests

Deaths in Afghanistan

As at 6 May 2013, there are 44 open inquests into the deaths of service personnel in Afghanistan. Three of these inquests relate to deaths in the last six months.

The Wiltshire and Swindon coroner has retained nine of the open inquests and the Oxfordshire coroner has retained 19. Coroners closer to the next of kin are conducting the remaining 16 inquests. Two hearing dates have been set.

Deaths of service personnel who returned home injured

There are five open inquests into the deaths of service personnel who returned home injured but died of their injuries. Two hearing dates have been set. When investigations into the remaining three deaths are completed, they will be listed for hearing.

We will continue to inform the House of progress.

Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010

Helen Grant Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

In my written ministerial statement of 18 December 2012, Official Report, column 96WS about the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”) I undertook to make a further statement before the end of the current Session of Parliament.

I am pleased to announce that the Government intend to amend the 2010 Act to include (a) a number of specific insolvency situations and (b) a power for the Secretary of State to add further insolvency situations to the 2010 Act by order should the need arise. We intend to bring the 2010 Act into force as soon as reasonably possible after these amendments have been made.

The specific insolvency situations omitted are within the scope of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 and the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 (Northern Ireland). Commencing the 2010 Act without first including them would deprive third parties, such as individuals and businesses, of the protection they now have from the consequences of the insolvency of the person who has incurred a liability to them. These insolvency situations include: administrations (other than those ordered by the court) under the Insolvency Act 1986; debt relief orders in Northern Ireland; and certain subject specific types of administration orders, such as air traffic administration orders and energy administration orders. The proposed power will provide a straightforward means to remedy any other omissions that may exist now and to add any insolvency situations that are created in the future.

Legislation to effect the necessary amendments to the 2010 Act will be introduced when parliamentary time permits.

Language Services Framework Agreement

Helen Grant Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

Today the Government responded to the Justice Committee report “Interpreting and translation services and the Applied Language Solutions contract”. This sets out some of the work which has already taken place and some of which is planned in order to bring about improvements to the contract and the associated framework agreement for the justice sector.

Part of this work was to review the current terms and conditions for interpreters under the contract in discussion with Capita and taking into account the feedback from groups of interpreters. I can announce that several changes will come into effect in May this year which will have a direct impact on take-home pay for interpreters. We are confident that these measures are affordable for the taxpayer, but will also have a direct effect on performance levels by attracting more interpreters to register to work, as well as encourage those already registered to undertake more bookings.

The changes address a number of concerns that interpreters have raised with the Department and Capita and include paying interpreters at their qualified tier and in 15-minute blocks, extending the use of mileage payments and introducing cancellation fees where the hearing is cancelled or runs significantly shorter than expected through no fault of the interpreter. We are also introducing a fee to cover incidental costs that the interpreter might incur.

Other work is ongoing in our challenge to Capita to improve performance under the contract.

Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

Defamation Bill

Helen Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I beg to move,

That this House agrees with Lords amendment 2B in lieu of Lords amendment 2, to which this House has disagreed.

The reasons that this House gave for disagreeing to certain amendments to the Bill have been considered in the other place, and a further amendment has been agreed there that now requires consideration by this House. I ask the House to agree to Lords amendment 2B.

The Lords amendment is to clause 1 and makes it clear that a body that trades for profit will satisfy the serious harm test only if it is able to show that the statement complained of has caused that body, or is likely to cause it, serious financial loss. As I made clear when we originally considered Lords amendments, we recognise the strength of feeling that exists on whether there should be a specific provision in the Bill on the issue. I indicated that I would consider the matter further, and the amendment reflects the outcome of those considerations.

As the Government explained at earlier stages of the Bill’s passage, we amended what was initially a “substantial harm” requirement to one of “serious harm” to raise the bar for bringing defamation claims. The Lords amendment therefore refers to “serious financial loss”, to reflect that aim, and is now linked explicitly with the serious harm test.

We consider that the approach that we have taken is clearly preferable to that in the earlier Lords amendment 2 for two main reasons. First, the use of the words “serious financial loss” makes it absolutely clear that the financial loss required to meet the serious harm test must itself be serious. By contrast, the reference in the earlier amendment to “substantial financial loss” could inadvertently have weakened the requirements of what must be shown to satisfy the test.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

Why does my hon. Friend say that? What is the difference between “serious” and “substantial”?

[Mrs Grant]

I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will go into details about the motion that he tabled, but as we have made clear, we think it is helpful that there will be a direct link between serious harm and serious financial loss. That will make the situation absolutely clear to those wishing to bring an action.

The second reason why Lords amendment 2B is preferable to the earlier Lords amendment 2 is that the term that we have used to define those who will be subject to the requirement—

“a body that trades for profit”—

is a much clearer and simpler definition. Those are the bodies about which people have expressed concern, so we have phrased the amendment specifically and directly to meet those concerns.

I believe that the Lords amendment represents an effective and proportionate approach that addresses the concerns that have been expressed in this House and elsewhere. I urge the House to support it.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Thanks to a lot of hard work—especially in the other place, it has to be said—the Bill is now in a much better place. It is still far from perfect, sadly, which is a huge shame. It could have been perfect and a marvel to behold, but sadly the to-do list in the Bill includes early strike-out, website operator regulations and clarification for booksellers of the innocent dissemination rules, about which they were concerned. It also includes costs, which are a strange case, because we are really no further forward on them.

Indeed, we are left in a wholly unsatisfactory place. The last-minute announcement of a consultation on costs over the summer shows how sloppily this Government have treated parts of the Defamation Bill. The mess in respect of defamation, Leveson and the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 means in future people in a similar position to the Dowlers, Simon Singh and Peter Wilmshurst who will fight defamation cases will probably be in a worse position on costs than they would have been had the Government not got their hands on this legislation. Despite the promises that were made during the passage of the LASPO Act, costs is a major issue, and it should have been dealt with properly before this Bill returned to the Chamber.

The Minister commented on extending the Derbyshire principle to private companies. It is estimated that, following this Government’s privatisation agenda, in the NHS alone private companies will take over £16 billion- worth of Government contracts to provide services previously carried out by the public sector. Those services will go to private companies that use the law to chill debate in a way that the NHS cannot. Atos frequently suppresses disquiet, and Baroness Hayter cited Serco in the other place yesterday.

I hope the judiciary is listening to this debate and has listened to some of the other debates, because as Ministers both in this House and the other place have repeatedly said, the courts should further develop the Derbyshire principle in line with the will of Parliament. That is an unsatisfactory position, however, and this is on the to-do list of things that would have improved the Bill dramatically, but I hope the courts will now extend Derbyshire to contracts between the private sector and the Government or local authorities, because that is in line with the will of this House. [Interruption.] The Minister has commented on that, as I have said.

It is thanks to Opposition Members that the Bill has been improved. No matter what is claimed on the Liberal Democrat Voice website, not once have the Lib Dems backed us against the Government. Indeed, yesterday in the other place in the vote on the Derbyshire aspect of what was amendment 2—[Interruption.] The Minister keeps chuntering about Derbyshire, but the issue here is clearly that the will of this House has been expressed on many occasions, but thanks to the Liberal Democrats supporting the Government, we are not able to take that forward. It is important to put that on the record. No matter what they say, it is all talk and no action from the Liberal Democrats.

This is now a better Bill, but it is not the best it could be, and we will need to return to it after Labour is re-elected to government in 2015—or sooner, I hope. It is the best we can expect at present, however, and that is a shame. I am disappointed—and also surprised, although perhaps I should not be—that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) has introduced his proposal. We will hear his observations on this matter in a few moments. We will decide whether what is before us is the best we can get today after we have heard the Minister’s final comments.

--- Later in debate ---

When I asked the Minister about the difference between serious financial loss and substantial financial loss or harm, she said simply that I would be able to answer that question better myself. If that is what she said—

[Mrs Grant]

indicated dissent.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

She is shaking her head to say she did not, but I am not sure that is an answer to the question. The Government should come to the Dispatch Box and have a coherent case to make, but they do not.

Old and ill-tempered Members of Parliament, whether they represent Worthing or Harborough, must draw their remarks to a conclusion at some stage so I shall do that now. I do so, however, with acute disappointment, and I think the Government are letting themselves down.

Sharia Law

Helen Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) for bringing this timely debate to the Chamber. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of the concerns raised in the BBC “Panorama” programme last night on this subject.

My hon. Friend has eloquently, carefully and respectfully explained why he is opposed to any establishment of a state-sponsored, alternative judicial process in England and Wales. I recognise that there is some confusion about what the exact position is on this issue. Therefore I start by stressing plainly and clearly that sharia law has no jurisdiction under the law of England and Wales and the courts do not recognise it. There is no parallel court system in this country, and we have no intention of changing the position in any part of England and Wales.

On the points raised by my hon. Friend, sharia law is the code of personal religious law governing the conduct of Muslims. Those principles can extend to all aspects of people’s lives. There are a number of sharia councils in England and Wales that help Muslim communities resolve civil and family disputes by making recommendations by which they hope that the parties will abide, but I make it absolutely clear that they are not part of the court system in this country and have no means of enforcing their decisions. If any of their decisions or recommendations are illegal or contrary to public policy—including equality policies such as the Equality Act 2010—or national law, national law will prevail all the time, every time. That is no different from any other council or tribunal, whether or not based on sharia law.

Britain is proud of its tradition of religious tolerance. The Government do not prevent individuals from seeking to regulate their lives through religious beliefs or cultural traditions. Provided that an activity prescribed by sharia principles does not contravene the law of England and Wales, there is nothing that prevents people from living by sharia law.

The use of religious councils or other extra-legal bodies to deal with civil disputes is well established and non-contentious. Communities have the option to use religious authorities to adjudicate disputes and to agree to abide by their decisions on a voluntary basis, but such decisions are subject to national law and are not legally enforceable. Any member of any community should know that they have the right to refer to an English court at any point, especially in the event that they feel pressured or coerced to resolve an issue in a way with which they feel uncomfortable.

Because sharia councils do not have any legal means of enforcing their decisions, they can only make recommendations that they hope the parties will follow. There is no appeal mechanism. If a party decides to challenge a decision in a civil court, any decision would be made in accordance with English law.

Any use of sharia law in Scotland would be a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament. My understanding is that there are no sharia courts in Scotland and that there is no intention of setting any up. However, individual parties can, if they wish, agree to use sharia law to settle disputes, so long as there is no conflict with the law of Scotland.

I understand the concerns, expressed by many, regarding religious councils involving themselves in matters of domestic violence, to which my hon. Friend referred. Domestic violence is a dreadful form of abuse and is not acceptable in our society; it is not condoned or supported by any religion. It is absolutely essential that victims and potential victims are aware of their rights and of all the advice and support that is available. The Government are committed to working with both statutory and voluntary organisations to ensure that our messages reach across all communities.

My hon. Friend knows that Baroness Cox’s Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill had its Second Reading on 19 October 2012. The Government are aware of the level of concern about the perceived use and interpretation of sharia law in this country, as was highlighted by the amount of support for that Bill on Second Reading. After careful and considered deliberation, however, it was evident that the provisions already existed in current legislation and so were unnecessary. Instead, we believe the issue is more about raising awareness of the existing position under English law. We are fully committed to protecting the rights of all our citizens and will consider what is required to educate people further on the protections afforded to them by UK law.

Under criminal law, any person who commits a criminal offence is liable to be prosecuted for that offence, provided it is in the public interest to do so. In England and Wales, criminal proceedings are always heard in a criminal court. We do not recognise any criminal law decision made by an alternative court in this country. The Government have no intention of changing that position.

My hon. Friend also asked about the recognition of sharia marriages by English courts. We are working to raise awareness of the need to have a legally recognised marriage, and we are encouraging mosques to register to carry out legally recognised marriages in their various facilities.

I hope that I have answered all the important issues raised by my hon. Friend. This has been a useful and timely debate, and I am grateful to him for his contribution.

Rightly, this country celebrates diversity. We are a country where everyone has an opportunity to contribute, no matter what their background, ethnicity or religion, but that must be within a set of laws and a judicial framework that is common to all and understood by all. There can be no question of there being a parallel court system in this country. I hope that that clarification of the Government’s position reassures my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who are present

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Grant Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

4. What steps she is taking to prevent women from becoming victims of human trafficking.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Helen Grant)]

Raising awareness with potential victims in source countries and training front-line professionals in the UK are key to our work in identifying and preventing the exploitation of potential victims of all ages, genders and nationalities.

[Mr Burrowes]

Given the shocking statistic that British girls trafficked for sexual exploitation make up nearly half of all modern-day slavery victims in the UK, what voice and help is the Minister giving those voiceless and helpless girls?

[Mrs Grant]

The Government recognise that, sadly, trafficking can and does occur in the UK. The inter-departmental ministerial group on human trafficking brings together all parts of the Government and raises awareness of trafficking, which can affect boys and men in addition to women and girls, across the UK. The group also highlights the tailored support available through the Government’s contact with the Salvation Army. The police are also doing a great deal of very good work to tackle trafficking.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister talk to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee about how women who are terrified of publicity could give evidence to Select Committees in confidence that they will not be named and identified?

[Mrs Grant]

I am very happy to have a conversation about that with the hon. Gentleman and the Chairman of the Select Committee.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I think the Minister is being a little reticent. She perhaps forgot to say that on Monday the Prime Minister is opening an exhibition about human trafficking and the hidden number of slaves in our constituencies. Will the Minister welcome the Prime Minister’s intervention? It would be good if she did.

[Mrs Grant]

I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s reminder of that. It is an excellent idea, I welcome it, and I will visit it.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that many women who are victims of human trafficking, instead of being given the support they need, end up being prosecuted or having action taken against them under immigration rules. What assessment have the Government made of the suggestion by the Centre for Social Justice in its report last month that there should be a modern slavery Act that outlines an obligation to investigate indicators of slavery so that when there is a suggestion that there has been human trafficking, it is investigated rather than people being prosecuted?

[Mrs Grant]

It sounds like a very interesting report. I have not yet read it in detail, but I certainly will, and I will look at what the hon. Lady said. Our aim, at the end of the day, is to tackle this terrible issue at source. It is an abhorrent crime. We want to work smarter at our borders, have better law enforcement, and make sure that people do not become victims.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

5. What assessment she has made of the cumulative effect of the Government’s policies on disabled people.