Oral Answers to Questions

John Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We all condemn such a horrendous act and extend our best wishes and condolences to the victim’s family. The allocation of cases is and will always be a matter for the judiciary, and there are sometimes good reasons for their picking the locations that they do, as it is in the interests of justice to do so. I know the Lord Chief Justice well. He is deeply sensitive to the issues that victims face, and I am sure he will look thoughtfully at the letter that my hon. Friend sends him.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

T2. Lord Lexden, the official historian of the Conservative party, has attacked the Lord Chancellor, saying: “Britain must have a Lord Chancellor who puts his duty to the law above party politics.”Why did he say that?

[Chris Grayling]

I believe it is the job of the Lord Chancellor not only to uphold the law but to change it where it is necessary to do so. The reforms of judicial review are necessary, measured and proportionate. They are reforms that were argued for by Ministers in the previous Government, but of course they never did anything about it.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

3. What assessment she has made of progress towards rolling out superfast broadband to 90% of premises by 2015.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

10. What assessment she has made of progress towards rolling out superfast broadband to 90% of premises by 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vaizey]

I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the contract that was signed on 8 March with Onlincolnshire, the brand for the delivery of broadband in Lincolnshire, with £14 million of investment from the Government and £8.5 million coming from BT. At the end of that contract, the coverage will be not just 90% but 94.5%.

[John Robertson]

Following the supplementary question of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) on Question 2, access to broadband and superfast broadband is one thing, but uptake is another. At a time when the Government are trying to make people use broadband to access benefits, what are they doing to ensure that such people have access to broadband and that it is rolled out, considering that, as a written reply they gave me demonstrates, they do not even know the numbers?

[Mr Vaizey]

I treat any question asked by the hon. Gentleman with great respect, given his long and distinguished career with BT. [Interruption.] I would like to answer the question, but I am being heckled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Perhaps when he stops heckling me, I can get on with answering that important question. The previous Government appointed Martha Lane Fox to run the Race Online 2012 campaign, which has become Go ON UK. She has brought together charities and businesses to encourage people to get online, which is very important. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills also has a campaign to encourage small businesses to get online and learn to use e-commerce.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

John Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

We have the first set of knives at 5.30 pm, so we will have had less than 26 minutes to discuss the four amendments from the House of Lords in this group, and we will have less than five hours in total to discuss the 11 amendments passed in the other place—the 11 defeats for the Government.

Let me deal first with Lords amendment 1. This 23-word amendment was supported by a number of prestigious Members of the other House, for whom I have a great deal of respect. Some are Cross Benchers, some are members of the Justice Secretary’s party and some are members of my party. Many Government peers voted with Lord Pannick in the other place when he pressed the amendment to a Division, which was won with a majority of 45. The amendment was carefully drafted; indeed, I should point out that none of the technical deficiencies pointed out today was raised by Lord McNally when he responded in the other place.

The speakers in the debate in the other place included the former Leader of the House of Commons and former Cabinet colleague of the Justice Secretary, Lord Newton of Braintree, who sadly recently passed away. His last contribution in Parliament was on this Bill, and he spoke powerfully against many bits of part 1. I would like to echo the tremendous tributes that have been paid to him in the other place recently, as I am sure would all Members of all parties in the Chamber.

The Bill, as drafted, contains no duty on the Lord Chancellor to provide the services that the Bill permits. Lords amendment 1 would ensure that he had to meet the needs of citizens within “the resources available” and the scope of legal aid, as defined by the Bill. It would quite simply be a statement of legislative purpose at the outset of the Bill. The wording in the amendment has been included in legal aid statutes since the first Act in 1949. Even given the understandable budgetary constraints on the Government, a clause such as this would show that the Government recognised that legal aid was regarded as an essential element of access to justice. It would be modest and sensible, and it would not cost the taxpayer anything, but it would enshrine an important constitutional principle in part 1 of the Bill.

In fact, the amendment does not go as far as the House of Lords Constitution Committee wanted to go. Lord McNally stated:

“I also accept that the duty that the amendment would place on the Lord Chancellor would be qualified by the reference to the duty being subject both to the resources available and to the provisions of Part 1.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 2012; Vol. 735, c. 1569.]

It is therefore unclear how on earth the Government can claim financial privilege in relation to this amendment, or, more pertinently, why they are so unwilling to accept it. We shall oppose their attempt to overturn Lords amendment 1.

Lords amendment 24 seeks to ensure that the telephone gateway that the Government intend to create will not be mandatory, as proposed in the original Bill. This is important for many vulnerable groups, such as those with mental health issues or communication problems. The other place voted by a majority of 28 to support the amendment tabled by Baroness Grey-Thompson to remove the provision of a mandatory telephone gateway and the delivery of legal aid services exclusively by telephone. It is particularly disappointing that the Government are seeking to overturn this amendment as well. Without it, the Bill will give the Government wide powers to make legal aid services available exclusively by phone or other electronic means. For the avoidance of doubt, we accept that telephone advice might suit many people; we are not against its use. We are, however, against it being the only way of getting initial advice. This goes to the matter of access to justice, and the Government just do not get it.

It has been emphasised many times in our debates on social welfare law that it is often the most vulnerable in society who rely most on the support of social welfare—for example, those with learning difficulties, mental health issues or communication problems. Some in those groups already suffer from chaotic lives and find it hard to communicate complex, multi-faceted, challenging problems. I wonder how many of the Ministers on the Front Bench conduct their surgeries exclusively by telephone. Those people’s problems can be further compounded by having to explain them and seek advice over the telephone. Many do not have a landline, and others cannot afford the cost of using their mobile, with waiting time eating into their scarce credit.

The Government appear to agree with that. In response to a question about the impact assessment from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), the Minister did not give the entire information. The Government’s own impact assessment highlighted the fact that the disabled, and those whose first language is not English, would find this a particularly hard way of engaging with the legal aid system. I fear that the result will be that many vulnerable people are deterred from seeking support.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that call centres often have a time limit for handling people? Such a limit would put pressure on people who are already under pressure, probably for financial reasons, which would make it impossible for them to get the information that they need over the telephone. They need face-to-face advice.

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend makes an astute point. We all know from our MP surgeries, including those of us not blessed with having been lawyers in our previous careers, that talking problems through with our constituents often gets to the core of their difficulties and saves a huge amount of time further down the road. That point has been made by Scope and other disability groups and campaigners. The irony of the proposal is that not dealing with such problems at an early stage risks escalation, with increased costs to the taxpayer further down the line.

Labour Members agree with the decision of the other place. We hope that Government Members, who voted half an hour ago to limit debate to less than five hours, will also support the decision to remove the mandatory telephone gateway and recognise that, for some complex and vulnerable clients, face-to-face support is the only effective way to access justice. We will also oppose the Government’s attempts to overturn Lords amendment 24. I do not know whether other colleagues wish to participate in the debate, but there are only five minutes left, so I will finish my comments there.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunt]

Of course, this is a devolved matter for the hon. Lady’s constituents in Scotland, but I am quite happy to consider the development of the whole doctrine of corporate manslaughter. It is very important that the families of those who may be corporate manslaughter victims receive the necessary support, even if a prosecution cannot be successfully secured. That means that Victim Support needs to be notified that there is a requirement of support, which is sometimes not completely clear when someone dies in circumstances that might or might not lead to an investigation or successful prosecution for corporate manslaughter. However, I am very happy to consider the matter.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

19. What steps his Department is taking to provide compensation for victims of overseas terrorism.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

The issue of compensation for victims of terrorism overseas is being considered alongside the Government’s review of victims’ services and compensation, at the conclusion of which we will publish a consultation document. We plan to make an announcement on victims of terrorism overseas at the same time as we launch the consultation, which we intend will be before Christmas.

[John Robertson]

Déjà vu, Mr Speaker: on 28 June, when my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) asked a question on compensation for victims of overseas terrorism, the Minister replied:

“In the coming weeks we intend to launch a public consultation on victims services”—[Official Report, 28 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 749.]

Nineteen weeks down the road, we are still waiting for it. Will the Minister please tell me this: will he put the victims first and forget about his petty differences with the Opposition?

[Mr Blunt]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no petty differences with the Opposition. There are a number of difficult issues to resolve, but the delay is absolutely in the interests of victims, as we identify greater resources so that we can wrestle with the wretched situation that we inherited from the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which was £750 million in debt. We must sort those things out, and once we have done so, we will be able to come forward with a satisfactory policy for victims of crime.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

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

My hon. Friend has just made serious accusations of mismanagement, and I shall certainly consider the issues that he has raised and get back to him shortly.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

T4. The Secretary of State should be aware that the Justice Minister north of the border has said that any questions regarding al-Megrahi resided with the United Kingdom Government. If that is true, will the Secretary of State make a statement? If it is not true, can he put the record straight?

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

My understanding is that this was a decision solely for the Scottish Government and that it was taken on humanitarian grounds. Plainly, it predates my period of office, and that just about sums up my full knowledge of the situation, so I am not in a position to make a statement.