Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Speaker has certified the Civil Liability Bill [Lords] under Standing Order No. 83J as relating exclusively to England and Wales on matters within devolved legislative competence. I remind the House that this does not affect proceedings in the debate on Second Reading, or indeed in Committee or on Report. After the Report stage, the Speaker will consider the Bill again for certification and, if required, the Legislative Grand Committee will be asked to consent to certified provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have up to 22 Members standing. I just want to try to help everybody, so if we use up to eight minutes each, we will make sure everybody gets a fair go.

Court Closures: Calderdale

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate. I know that the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) is very interested in this issue and has campaigned hard for her constituents. I am aware of how hard she campaigned against the original closure of the courts in Halifax on the basis of travel times and lack of access to justice. I was aware that, as she said, she met the chief executive officer of the Courts and Tribunals Service in July 2017 to discuss opportunities to establish a video link and, as she identified, she has recently asked a number of written parliamentary questions on this topic.

I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) is present; he, too, campaigned against the closure of the courts in Calderdale. I also see that Mr Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir Lindsay Hoyle), is in the Chair; he is campaigning vigorously against the closure of his local court in Chorley and I have met him several times to hear his concerns and those of his constituents.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am awaiting good news.

[Lucy Frazer]

Before I turn to the particular instances that affect the hon. Lady’s Halifax constituency, it is important to make a number of broad points about access to justice and the courts estate. In every sector, digitalisation is improving access to services, including to public services. Technology has reformed the way that we live our lives and made many processes more efficient. In such circumstances, we ask ourselves whether justice should be immune from digital advancement.

In 2015, the Civil Justice Council wrote a report, stating that online dispute resolution had enormous potential to bring two great benefits to our justice system: a lower-cost court system and an increase in access to justice. The Ministry of Justice is now in the process of improving and upgrading our justice system to bring it up to date in the 21st century.

Technology is not the only answer to any upgrade. The provision of justice depends on people and courts and on lawyers and judges. However, in circumstances in which 41% of courts in 2016-17 were used at less than half of their available hearing capacity; in circumstances in which the money from the proceeds of the sale of a court are put back into the justice system; in circumstances in which we are spending £1 billion on our courts reform programme; and in circumstances in which finances are not unlimited, we do need to ask ourselves where money on the justice system is best spent. It is in that context that the closure of the courts in Calderdale took place.

The closures of the county and magistrates courts were proposed because they were poorly used. For example, in the financial year before the consultation, the magistrates court had been used for 33% of its available hours. Both the magistrates court and the county court were also grade II listed buildings and not fit for purpose. The court consultation resulted in a proposal to move the work to Bradford, where better facilities were available for those using the courts.

The courts were closed only after the Ministry of Justice had consulted and considered carefully the responses and the Lord Chancellor was satisfied that the courts could be closed without compromising access to justice. The consultation response document stated that the Ministry of Justice would explore the potential for those living in Halifax to give evidence into court remotely from another location in the town. Finding an appropriate IT solution and local venue has taken longer than we had initially hoped, but I am pleased to be able to advise the hon. Lady that arrangements are being put in place to allow witnesses and users, subject to judicial approval, to give evidence via a video link located in the Calderdale council building. The facilities will require some initial testing to make sure that they meet all necessary requirements, but I am told that we will be able to provide this enhancement for those who need to give evidence in court and who are unable to travel to Bradford.

I know that this has taken a long time, and I will identify some of the reasons why that is the case. Initially, it was necessary to find a building. One was identified, but there were problems. The Ministry of Justice then looked at two other buildings: Customer First and the citizens advice bureau. It progressed with Customer First. There was then an issue of incompatible IT, but that issue is now solved. Then it had to bid for funding. It is now working with the judiciary on where the video facility will go in Bradford, but it thinks there will be a solution imminently. Then the IT will have to be installed.

I know that the hon. Lady welcomes video facilities. She mentioned that she was a member of the Prisons and Courts Bill Committee and that she visited Kent police’s video-enabled justice system. I note that she said that she “genuinely welcomed” the move to introduce modern technology into the justice system, so that vulnerable victims can record their evidence just once to save potentially painful and unnecessary repetition; so that we can cut down the time spent by police officers in court; and so that justice can be accessed on an iPad in a front room. She went on to say that such changes would be “fantastic”.

Across the court estate, we have established video link facilities that allow vulnerable victims and witnesses routinely to give evidence without having to be in the same courtroom as the defendant. We have more than 2,000 operational video links, with witness links in magistrates and Crown courts.

On the wider programme of reform, we are making considerable progress. So far, we have delivered high-quality new digital services. For example, the public can now apply for uncontested divorce online; apply for probate online; make pleas online for low- level offences, such as traffic offences or evading their bus fare; and respond to civil money claims. Thousands of people have already used these pilots and received straightforward digital access to the courts for the first time. Public feedback has been extremely positive.

This is not just about efficiency. Offering court and tribunal services online can significantly improve the experience of those using the courts. For example, the rejection rates for paper divorce applications was 40% due to errors and omissions. Since the latest release of the online divorce service, the online application rejection rate is now less than 1%, and surveys show user satisfaction of about 90% for our online services.

The hon. Lady has raised several important and interesting points about the experience in her constituency. She mentioned the particularly important aspect of domestic violence, and I recently held a roundtable with practitioners in the judiciary and those who use the courts to work out how we can improve the court service for those who have experienced domestic violence. She made several points that I am happy to look into.

I am grateful that we have had an opportunity to debate this important topic today. The Government are investing a significant sum to enhance access to justice, and we will work hard to drive forward the transformation of our courts and tribunals to make sure that we continue to have a justice system that we can be proud of.

Question put and agreed to.

Criminal Legal Aid

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. With so many Members wanting to speak, I suggest that each Member aims to speak for about six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

We cannot have those with the ability and will to try to enter the criminal law profession impoverished by debt and a lack of basic resources to live, especially those who come from perhaps a more humble background. The new scheme seems to distribute some money from middle or senior junior barristers to the more junior barristers, but I gather the effect on senior junior barristers could be a fall in income of as much as 35%, but the impact on the most junior criminal barristers is simply not very much. The truth is that the system does need more money, which cannot be found simply by switching around payments within it. Criminal barristers are self-employed and they must also meet the unavoidable overheads of practising, which normally range from about 25% to 35% of their income. There is no entitlement to pensions, holiday pay, sick pay or, indeed, maternity or paternity pay. Assuming a junior criminal barrister earned a total of, say, £60,000 annually, after they paid overheads and pension contributions and compensated for holidays, he or she would probably present an income of only around £30,000 to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

A career at the Bar is insecure and financially uncertain: trials can be moved by judges without consultation; witnesses can be taken ill; defendants may accept advice to plead guilty; and charges may be dropped. All can have a significant impact on barristers’ income, without warning. In such an uncertain climate, reasonable fees are necessary. The level of debt with which new criminal law barristers must deal, insufficient fees and increased demands make a social and family life almost impossible. I understand that right now morale is low and dismay universal among junior criminal barrister and, indeed, among some senior junior barristers, too. I very much hope that the Minister can tell me honestly that junior criminal law barristers will have a much better deal than they had in the past.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Sergeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill (Money)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Money resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I was about to put the Question, but Mr Hanson wishes to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Who is intervening—I am now beginning to lose even myself at this stage? I think what we should do is hear Maria Caulfield and then we will come back to the Minister to answer. I think that that is the best way to deal with this.

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Assaults on police constables (No. 2)—

“In section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996, leave out from ‘offence’ to end of subsection (1) and insert—

‘and liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine, or to both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 24 months, or to a fine, or to both.’”

This new clause would make assaults specifically on police constables carry greater penalties than are currently available to match the new offence and also to ensure that Crown courts have greater powers of sentence for the offence than magistrates’ courts.

New clause 4—Assaults in prison—

“In section 243A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted any person listed in Section 3 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a sentence of less than 12 months who assaulted an emergency worker during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release.

New clause 5—Assaults in prison (No. 2)—

“In section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (1A) insert—

‘(1B) Subsection (1) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted any person listed in Section 3 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a fixed term sentence of more than 12 months who assaulted an emergency worker during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release.

New clause 6—Assaults in prison (No. 3)—

“In section 246 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (4)(i) insert—

‘(j) the prisoner has assaulted any person listed in Section 3 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a fixed term sentence of more than 12 months who assaulted an emergency worker during that sentence would not be eligible for early release.

New clause 8—Assaults in prison (No. 5)—

“In section 247 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (2) insert—

‘(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted any person listed in section 3 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving an extended sentence under sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 who assaulted an emergency worker during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release after the requisite period.

New clause 9—Assaults in prison (No. 6)—

“In section 243A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted any person listed in section 3(d), (e) or (f) of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a sentence of less than 12 months who assaulted a prison officer or anyone carrying out the same functions as a prison officer or a prison custody officer during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release.

New clause 10—Assaults in prison (No. 7)—

“In section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (1A) insert—

‘(1B) Subsection (1) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted any person listed in section 3(d), (e) or (f) of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a fixed term sentence of more than 12 months who assaulted a prison officer or anyone carrying out the same functions as a prison officer or a prison custody officer during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release.

New clause 11—Assaults in prison (No. 8)—

“In section 246 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (4)(i) insert—

‘(j) the prisoner has assaulted any person listed in section 3(d), (e) or (f) of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a fixed term sentence of more than 12 months who assaulted a prison officer or anyone carrying out the same functions as a prison officer or a prison custody officer during that sentence would not be eligible for early release.

New clause 13—Assaults in prison (No. 10)—

“In section 247 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (2) insert—

‘(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted any person listed in section 3(d), (e) or (f) of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving an extended sentence under sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 who assaulted a prison officer or anyone carrying out the same functions as a prison officer or a prison custody officer during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release after the requisite period.

New clause 14—Assaults in prison (No. 11)—

“In section 243A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted a prison officer during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a sentence of less than 12 months who assaulted a prison officer during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release.

New clause 15—Assaults in prison (No. 12)—

“In section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (1A) insert—

‘(1B) Subsection (1) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted a prison officer during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a fixed term sentence of more than 12 months who assaulted a prison officer during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release.

New clause 16—Assaults in prison (No. 13)—

“In section 246 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (4)(i) insert—

‘(j) the prisoner has assaulted a prison officer during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving a fixed term sentence of more than 12 months who assaulted a prison officer during that sentence would not be eligible for early release.

New clause 18—Assaults in prison (No. 15)—

“In section 247 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, after subsection (2) insert—

‘(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted a prison officer during the course of their sentence.’”

This new clause would mean that a prisoner serving an extended sentence under sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 who assaulted a prison during that sentence would not be eligible for automatic release after the requisite period.

Amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, after “battery” insert “including spitting”.

This makes explicit that this section applies to incidents of assault or battery that are spitting.

Amendment 9, page 1, line 10, leave out “12” and insert “24”.

This amendment would increase the sentence for the new offence from 12 to 24 months in Crown courts to allow for longer sentences and to ensure Crown courts have greater powers of sentence for the offence than magistrates’ courts.

Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

“(aa) an offence under section 3 (sexual assault) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003”.

This causes the fact that the victim was an emergency worker to be an aggravating factor in cases of sexual assault.

[Philip Davies]

I am delighted to support the Bill today—a Bill that I have supported from the outset. I am pleased to be one of its sponsors. May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on getting his Bill to this point and on using his customary charm to do so? I also congratulate the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who has played an invaluable role in supporting the hon. Gentleman in getting the Bill to where it is today. As we all know, she is a doughty supporter of the police, and I know that they appreciate her support greatly. While I am at it, may I thank the Minister, who has played a crucial role in ensuring that the Bill has got to this stage? We are all very grateful for the constructive way in which Ministers have engaged with the process.

My amendments begin with new clauses 1 and 2. I have quite a few to go through, but I will rattle through them as quickly as possible. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Well, everything is relative. I will also ensure that I do my amendments justice.

New clause 1 would make assaults on police constables carry the same penalty as the new offence in the Bill, not just the six months currently available to the courts. New clause 2, which I will discuss together with new clause 1, would make assaults on police constables carry a greater penalty than the new offence and ensure that Crown courts had greater powers of sentencing for the offence than magistrates courts. The two new clauses are alternatives—people may consider which one they think would do the job. I would be perfectly content with either.

In an ideal world, I would like to see the highest sentences possible given for offences against the police. Assaulting a police officer is currently a summary only offence that cannot usually be dealt with by the Crown court, and certainly no more than a six-month sentence can be given. I appreciate that assaults against police officers can be charged as other non-police offences of violence, but that is another story. It is relevant to the new clauses, but not something I want to dwell on. I believe that if we have an offence of assault against a police officer, it should attract a robust sentence, because in reality a lot of assaults against the police will be charged in this way.

I have been helpfully informed by the West Yorkshire Police Federation of the number of such assaults in West Yorkshire. Perhaps, in passing, I might praise Nick Smart from the West Yorkshire Police Federation, who does a fantastic job of representing the interests of his members. He is absolutely first class and has done a brilliant job in helping with this Bill. He gave me the Home Office figures that had been collated for April 2016 to March 2017, which showed that there were 1,240 recorded assaults on West Yorkshire police officers in one year. Those figures are not deemed 100% accurate, but they certainly give an idea of the number of assaults going on. The West Yorkshire police figures, based on recorded crime, show that there were 1,729 recorded assaults on police officers from April 2017 to March 2018.

I am sure everybody would appreciate that those are very high figures. They mean that nearly five West Yorkshire police officers are assaulted every day. To me, that is completely and utterly unacceptable, and it is one reason why the Bill is so worthy and important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 4, page 4, line 23, leave out clause 4.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 5, page 6, line 6, leave out clause 5.

Amendment 6, page 8, line 14, leave out clause 6.

Amendment 7, in clause 7, page 9, line 37, leave out from “only,” to end of line 38.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.

Amendment 8, in title, line 3, leave out from “duty;” to “and” in line 6.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 4 to 6.

[Chris Bryant]

I will not delay the House long on these amendments, but I should explain why I tabled them. They would take three clauses out of the Bill, which I am fairly confident will have the support of the whole House.

Although these clauses are about the taking of samples, in particular when an emergency worker is in danger of contracting an infectious disease by virtue of being spat at or through some other means, the aim of the Bill was never to take samples. The aim of the Bill was always to stop spitting. Thanks to the Minister’s earlier interventions, and to today’s debate more generally, I think we have had a clear statement from Parliament that spitting is included as part of common assault or battery.

Joint Enterprise

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Under the Standing Orders, the Member moving the motion should usually speak for around 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that where 14, 16 and 19-year-olds have gone to prison for significant periods of time when it is absolutely clear to the community that they have not committed murder, as happened in her community of Moss Side, it undermines the black community’s sense of justice, fewer people co-operate with the police, fewer people have faith in the justice system and it undermines all she is attempting to do?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I hope to give everybody 10 minutes. If Members intervene, the danger is that I will have to drop the time limit immediately.

[Lucy Powell]

I fully agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), but I will try to make some progress.

There was a political context when the joint enterprise law began to be overused and extended in its use during the 1990s and the noughties, but there is a different political context today. As my right hon. Friend has just said, we now more clearly understand the consequences of disproportionate and unfair applications of the law against certain groups. I am pleased the Government recognised that when they launched the Lammy review and in the Prime Minister’s recent comments on “burning injustices”—I hope she can live up to that rhetoric.

Practice and the law have been far too slow to catch up with the changing mood in the country. I will briefly discuss what the Supreme Court ruling does and does not say, and what still needs to be addressed. First, the ruling is clear that the law governing secondary liability has taken a “wrong turn” and has resulted in the “erroneous” application of the law. However, it also sets out that, in order for appeals to be heard “out of time,” a substantial injustice test, not the usual unsafe conviction test, will be applied. Yet the substantial injustice test was not clearly set out in the ruling and has never been set out by Parliament. The substantial injustice test has subsequently been tested through case law and is now an almost impossibly high bar for people to clear. That is why, nearly two years on, there has yet to be a single successful appeal awarded by the Court of Appeal.

Finally, in our opinion the Supreme Court failed to address another question put before it: does joint enterprise over-criminalise secondary parties?

What needs to change in the law—first, what needs to change going forward, and secondly, how can we put right some of the injustices of the past? It is clear that joint enterprise continues to be overused and is disproportionately used against groups of young men, particularly those from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. I saw that at first hand in a recent case in which 11 young black men from Moss Side faced charges of murder. Seven of them were convicted of murder and four were convicted of manslaughter. The youngest was only 14 and many of them were not previously known to the police. As research by Manchester Metropolitan University has shown in its study “Dangerous Liaisons”, more than half of all those serving life sentences are children or young adults, and more than half are from a black and ethnic minority background.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Mr Andrew Mitchell, with a 10-minute limit.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 345, in clause 8, page 6, line 32, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, include regulations to match or exceed World Health Organisation air quality standards.”

This amendment is intended to ensure that the UK continues to meet international air quality standards after withdrawal from the EU.

Amendment 292, page 6, line 38, at end insert—

“(e) impose or increase taxation”

This amendment would prevent the imposition or increase of a tax by regulations made under Clause 8 to comply with international obligations.

Amendment 390, page 6, line 38, at end insert—

“(e) confer a power to legislate (other than a power to make rules of procedure for a court or tribunal).”

Amendment 352, page 6, line 40, at end insert—

“(5) Any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation conferred or modified under this Act and its schedules must be used, and may only be used, insofar as is necessary to ensure that standards of equalities, environmental protection and employment protection, and consumer standards will continue to remain in all respects equivalent to those extant in the EU.

(6) In particular, no agreement relating to international trade or investment with the EU or with a third-party state or states shall be made that permits or requires standards of equalities, environmental protection and employment protection, and consumer standards to fall below those extant in the EU at the time.”

This amendment would ensure that in exercising the powers under this provision, the Government maintains equivalent standards to the EU, and in particular, in making trade agreements.

Clause 8 stand part.

[Mr Leslie]

What a privilege it is to have the opportunity to speak on such a momentous evening when Parliament has had the guts and foresight to stand up to the Executive, take back control and give hope to those who thought that all hope was lost, and to see Members from all parties working together in the national interest.

Prison Reform and Safety

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I should say that there is a time limit on speeches of five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the Rochester issue. He might like to know that we found on one wing that some 22 showers had been out of operation for months. When we spoke to people there, they said that the nub of the problem was that the facilities management contractors do not see the governors as their client. They see their client relationship being with MOJ’s commercial arm. That needs to be got right, because it means that the efforts of governors get nowhere—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Can I be honest? We need shorter interventions. The hon. Gentleman was hoping to get two minutes at the end of the debate; he is eating into those two minutes, and he will understand if he does not get them.

[John Howell]

I fully accept the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), which goes back to what I said about the prison having given up on trying to invest any money in refurbishment or in replacing its ageing facilities. I have already quoted the chief inspector of prisons, who said that the shower and lavatory facilities in many prisons are filthy and dilapidated.

What will the Government do to address our concerns about the quality of the ageing estate? What are they doing about the current programme of reform and estate modernisation? What impact is the uncertainty about closures having both on the prisons themselves and on the lives of prisoners? Those are the three most relevant questions.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I should like to inform the House that on 11 and 17 October I tabled written questions in which I mistakenly omitted to include a reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes a visit, in September this year, to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, sponsored by the Foreign Ministry of that country. I am pleased to be able to put that on record, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for your patience.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That has been corrected.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 79, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert—

“(2) Regulations under section 19(2) bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Prime Minister is satisfied that resolutions have been passed by the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly signifying consent to the commencement of subsection (1).”

This amendment would make the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 on exit day conditional on the Prime Minister gaining consent from the devolved legislatures.

Clause 1 stand part.

Government amendments 383 and 381.

Amendment 386, in clause 14, page 10, line 25, leave out from “means” to “(and” in line 26 and insert

“the time specified by an Act of Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU”.

This amendment would require ‘exit day’ to be specified, for all purposes, in a separate bill seeking approval for the final terms of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. It would therefore have the effect of requiring a statute on the withdrawal terms - whatever they might be - to be passed by Parliament before ‘exit day’.

Amendment 43, page 10, line 25, leave out

“a Minister of the Crown may by regulations”

and insert

“Parliament may by a majority approval in both Houses”.

This amendment together with Amendments 44 and 45 would empower Parliament to control the length and basic terms of transitional arrangements, and would allow Parliament to start the clock on the sunset clauses within the Bill.

Amendment 6, page 10, line 26, at end insert

“but exit day must be the same day for the purposes of every provision of this Act.”

To prevent the creation of different exit days for different parts of the Act by SI.

Government amendment 382.

Amendment 387, page 11, line 24, leave out from “Act” to end of line 32 and insert

“references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at the time specified by an Act of Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 386 and ensures that references to exit day in the Bill and other legislation operate correctly in relation to the time as well as the date of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.

Amendment 44, page 11, line 25, leave out

“a Minister of the Crown”

and insert “Parliament”.

This amendment together with Amendments 43 and 45 would empower Parliament to control the length and basic terms of transitional arrangements, and would allow Parliament to start the clock on the sunset clauses within the Bill.

Amendment 45, page 11, line 30, leave out

“a Minister of the Crown”

and insert “Parliament”.

This amendment together with Amendments 43 and 44 would empower Parliament to control the length and basic terms of transitional arrangements, and would allow Parliament to start the clock on the sunset clauses within the Bill.

Amendment 81, in clause 19, page 14, line 32, at end insert—

“(a) section 1(2);”.

This amendment is a consequential amendment resulting from Amendments 78, 79 and 80 to Clause 1 requiring the Prime Minister to reach an agreement on EEA and Customs Union membership, to gain the consent of the devolved legislatures and to report on the effect leaving the EU will have on the block grant before implementing section 1 of this Act.

[The Chairman]

May I first draw the attention of the Committee to a mistake on page 1 of the amendment paper? The name of the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) should not have appeared as a supporter of new clause 49.

[Frank Field]

I rise to speak to the new clause in my name and all the other names that still remain on the amendment paper. Although I am limited to speaking to new clause 49, it is linked to new clauses 50, 51 and 52, for reasons that I will develop.

I wish to begin by declaring my sentiments in tabling this new clause and supporting the new clauses that are umbilically attached to it. I am a reluctant Brexiteer. I am too old to feel that I was born to bring us out of Europe, and I have not had one of those evangelical revivals in thinking that somehow life began again once we entered the Common Market and that my aim, purpose, being, and everything I breathed was towards getting us out of that organisation. That is not so.

In my own constituency and in the small amount of work I did nationally, I stressed that things were on a balance: we had to make a decision about Europe. We did not need more facts about Europe, but had to draw on our very natures—all that we had been taught in our culture and where, in our very being, we felt we stood in this country—to make the decision about whether we wished to leave or not.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman]

Let us not worry too much about time because we are eating away at it at the moment. It is a matter to be decided in the debate, not for me to decide. When we get there, we will know better. Let us not take up more time now.

[Frank Field]

That was a good intervention. My new clause decides on British time when to leave, whereas the Government’s amendments are at the beckoning of Europeans. We have a very clear choice. I will willingly take interventions that are trying to trip me up in making this short contribution.

I fought the referendum campaign, as much as I could, as a reluctant Brexiteer. On balance, I thought that our country’s future would increasingly thrive outside rather than inside the European Union. I have always wanted to make a deal, although it is immensely sensible, in any negotiations, to make sure that the other side knows that one may be banking on and planning for no deal.

The next factor—I will touch on this again when we think of what the House of Lords might do to a Bill of this size—is that it has been very difficult for most of us to come to terms with what our role has been as MPs in a representative democracy, and with how we digest the fact that a referendum has taken place and the British people have spoken. How do we react in those circumstances, which I believe are unique and in no way comparable with any other parliamentary procedure that we deal with in this House?

As I said at the beginning, before I was helpfully interrupted, this new clause stands with three other new clauses. Together they present the Government with a clean, small, slimline Brexit Bill. By the time we get to the end of this process, they will thank the Lord that this life raft is in the Bill and they are able to get on it. In the new clause, we decide on the date—by British time, not European time—when we actually leave. That is our choice. It is about the beginnings of the freedom that we hope will flow—with difficulties, of course—from setting us on the course of leaving the European Union.

The second new clause simply ensures that all the laws and regulations come on to our statute book at that point in time—British time, not European time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Chairman]

Order. We do not need everybody standing up at the same time. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman is going to give way, as he has already done, he will say so. Please, do not all keep standing up at the same time.

[Frank Field]

I would also say—

[Paul Farrelly]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[The Chairman]

That includes Mr Farrelly, who has already had a good start to the day. Let us not continue in the same way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Field]

I have one last point to make. I thought that my proposed new clause merely implemented article 50, which we all voted for, to tell our constituents that we had—[Interruption.] Well, apart from one Member who voted against triggering article 50. [Interruption.] Apart from two or three—[Interruption.] Were there any more than four? Perhaps there were five, six, seven or eight.

I thought that what I had to say was so uncontentious that my speech would last only five minutes. I apologise to the Committee for the time I have taken. All the proposed new clause does is put on the statute book the actual timing of article 50, which we voted for in overwhelming numbers almost a year ago. I move the new clause in my name and the names of those on the amendment paper.

[The Chairman]

Before I call the Minister, I inform the Committee that he is not feeling well today and, for the sake of clarification, another Minister will come along later.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)]

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Hoyle. I very much hope that my voice makes it through these remarks.

I rise to support clause 1 stand part and to speak to Government amendments 381, 382 and 383. It may help the House and members of the public if I say that the decisions on those amendments will be taken on days seven and eight.

Clause 1 reads:

“The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.”

It is a simple clause, but it could scarcely be more significant. In repealing the European Communities Act 1972, the clause will be a historic step in delivering our exit from the European Union, in accordance with last year’s referendum. I hope that all people on all sides of this issue can agree that the repeal of the Act is a necessary step as we leave the European Union.