Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Heidi Alexander

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Heidi Alexander)]

The Government have made it clear that we are fully committed to bearing down on the Crown court caseload. To relieve pressure on Ipswich Crown court in particular, the south-east region has begun sending appropriate cases to Cambridge Crown court for hearing. Nationally, we have increased the number of Crown court sitting days to 106,500, which is 500 more than agreed by the previous Lord Chancellor.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Heidi Alexander

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

You might want to reopen Chorley court, which is also empty.

[Heidi Alexander]

I hear you, Mr Speaker.

I welcome the question from my hon. Friend. He will know that His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service keeps the court estate under regular review to ensure that it meets operational requirements. I am afraid there are currently no plans to reopen Hartlepool magistrates court, but I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend alongside officials from HMCTS to discuss his concerns. The reasons behind the increased caseload in our criminal courts are complex and multifaceted, but the number of courtrooms available is not the main constraint we currently face.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Heidi Alexander

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

Order. We have a lot of speakers and, as Members are well aware, there is no knife today. I will not be setting a time limit, so in order to get to the second debate I suggest that Members use up to eight minutes, including interventions.

[Heidi Alexander]

I rise to speak to new clauses 22 and 23 in my name. I say at the outset that I will not take interventions because I know other Members wish to speak. I put on record my thanks to George Peretz QC for his help in drafting the new clauses.

New clause 22 would prevent Ministers from using provisions in this Bill as the basis for withdrawing the UK from the European economic area, whether under article 127 of the European economic area agreement or otherwise. It would also ensure that Ministers cannot use the regulation-making powers they seek to give themselves in other parts of the Bill to circumvent that carve-out. It would mean, in effect, that if Ministers wanted to take us out of the EEA, which is the grouping of EU and non-EU countries that together make up the single market, they would need to introduce a separate Bill to authorise that.

Why is this necessary? The UK is currently a member of both the EU and the EEA. Although the bodies overlap, they have different member countries, they are governed by different treaties and they have different guiding principles at their heart. There is one process for leaving the EU, as governed by article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, and another for leaving the EEA—article 127 of the EEA agreement requires a member to give 12 months’ written notice. Parliament should determine whether we trigger article 127 to notify our withdrawal from the EEA, and not the Prime Minister sat behind her desk in No. 10. MPs in this House, the public’s elected representatives, should decide, and there should be a specific, explicit vote that is binding on Ministers.

The Government’s contention that it is not necessary to trigger article 127, and that we do not need formally to leave the EEA as we are a member simply by virtue of our EU membership, does not stand up to scrutiny. All EU states are listed as contracting parties to the agreement, in addition to the EU itself and the three non-EU EEA states.

The Government have changed their argument on article 127 repeatedly over the past year. One minute they argue that our departure would be automatic, and the next that our membership would be unworkable. They assert legal opinion as irrefutable fact. They fail to acknowledge that a basic principle of international law is that a treaty relationship with another state cannot be changed simply by changing a different treaty to which that state is not party and assuming a knock-on effect. And the Government fail to acknowledge that, at a time when we would supposedly be wanting to sign international trade treaties with other countries in our own right, we might be in breach of the treaty that underpins the EEA. This all sounds very legalistic, but the issue has critical importance beyond the legal technicalities.

At its heart, new clause 22 is about democracy and our country’s future. In last year’s referendum there was only one question on the ballot paper:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

The words “European economic area” or “single market” did not feature. Had Parliament wanted people to take a view on the EEA, we could have legislated for that in 2015, but we did not. Some people say, “Everyone knew it meant we’d be leaving the single market,” but that is simply an interpretation of the result. Some people may have voted to leave it, but others did not. The Government are now rewriting history: they claim that coming out of the single market and customs union is an automatic consequence of the leave vote, not their political choice. If just one tenth of those who voted leave believed that we would stay in the single market, there never was a mandate for the sort of Brexit that the Government are now pursuing.

We spend hours in this place debating all the twists and turns of negotiations, parliamentary processes relating to withdrawal and so on, but we never seem to get to the crux of the issue. That is what new clause 22 would do: give us a parliamentary lever to shape Brexit. Parliament must determine whether we leave the single market. We must decide whether Ministers should notify other countries of our intention to leave the EEA. The process must not be reduced to some sort of back-door authorisation that can be cobbled together by adding up various bits of the Bill, but that is precisely what the Government are trying to do.

I believe that the repeal of the European Economic Area Act 1993 contained in part 2 of schedule 8 will be used by Ministers, alongside the powers they want to give themselves in clause 8, to claim parliamentary authorisation for setting the ball rolling on our departure from the EEA. They will claim that the by-product of Parliament’s voting, as part of the Bill, to remove domestic UK rights for the citizens and businesses of EEA countries such as Norway, is a parliamentary authorisation to notify other EU and EEA countries of our intention to leave.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Heidi Alexander

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Today the British Medical Association has announced that it plans to escalate the industrial action of junior doctors planned for 26 and 27 April. Can you advise me whether you have received any notification from the Department of Health about whether the Secretary of State for Health intends to make a statement to the House tomorrow, updating us on what action he will take to avert that industrial action and bring an end to the ongoing dispute?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have had no notification that the Secretary of State is coming forward. However, the hon. Lady has got the matter on the record, and I am sure that people will be listening to the debate that is taking place at this very moment. Let us wait and see.

Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Heidi Alexander

Friday 29th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 9,  page 2, line 20, at end insert—

“(6A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the regulations have the approval in principle of—

(a) the HSCIC,

(b) the General Medical Council,

(c) the British Medical Association,

(d) the Association of Medical Research Charities,

(e) the Royal Colleges,

(f) the Academy of Medical Sciences,

(g) the Medical Research Council,

(h) the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence,

(i) the Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Agency, and

(j) any other body or individual that the Secretary of State considers it appropriate.”

Amendment 15, in clause 5, page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“( ) References in section 2 to medical treatment include references to treatment carried out for the purposes of medical research (but nothing in section 2 is to be read as affecting the regulation of medical research).”

This amendment makes it clear that the database for which clause 2 provides may contain information about treatments carried out for the purposes of medical research (including, for example, in the context of a clinical trial).

[Heidi Alexander]

Setting aside the fact that I question whether what is left of the Bill is necessary, if the database is to be created, it is important that we get its design right. The Association of Medical Research Charities has expressed concern that the database might adversely impact patients and medical research. For such a database to be effective, it will need to be appropriately regulated and quality controlled. I believe that it can command the confidence of the medical profession only if it is developed in consultation with it. With that in mind, amendments 8 and 9 deal with the bodies that the Secretary of State must consult and get approval from before introducing regulations establishing a database of innovative treatments.

As the Bill stands—this is set out in clause 2(1)—to make those regulations the Secretary of State need only consult the Health and Social Care Information Centre. Restricting the statutory consultees to only one organisation seems highly restrictive and is inconsistent with the Bill’s explanatory notes, which state:

“The detailed design of the database would be consulted upon with professional bodies and organisations.”

Amendments 8 and 9 would make the legislation clearer on which bodies should be consulted.

I note that the Minister was unable to support similar amendments tabled in Committee because he felt that the list was “not exhaustive”. Indeed, he went on to say:

“Although it represents a helpful list of consultees, such a provision would need to include many more organisations. While I understand the intention behind the amendment, restricting the process would not be helpful”.

The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) then said:

“I know from my consultation on the Bill with stakeholders that we would need longer lists than those in the amendments.”––[Official Report, Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Public Bill Committee, 16 December 2015; c. 22-23.]

With those constructive comments in mind, I have included in the list a provision allowing the Secretary of State to consult

“any other body or individual that the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult.”

I know that there were concerns that the list of specified organisations could become out of date. However, given that these regulation-making powers would likely be used only once—to create the database—I do not believe that concern is wholly justified. Indeed, if the Minister, or any hon. Member, believes that an inappropriate organisation is on the list set out in my amendments, I would be keen to know which organisation they feel should not have a say in the creation of the database.

I hope that these important amendments will address the concerns raised in Committee and that hon. Members will now be able to support them, because they will ensure that we get the design of the database right.

Junior Doctors’ Contracts

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Heidi Alexander

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sorry, but hon. Members should know that interventions should be short. You cannot make a speech in an intervention, and that should be a lesson for us all. Many Members want to speak and I want to get everybody in.

[Heidi Alexander]

The problem with how the Government have handled the negotiations is that they have provided absolutely no clarity to junior doctors about what the proposals would mean for them individually. Everyone thinks that they are going to lose out.

The Government say that they want to reduce the number of hours defined as “unsocial” and thereby decrease the number of hours that attract a higher rate of pay. They say that they will put the rate of pay for plain time up to compensate, but there is no guarantee that the amount by which basic pay goes up will offset the loss of pay associated with fewer hours being defined as unsocial. Does the Secretary of State understand that those who work the most unsociable hours, the junior doctors who sacrifice more of their weekends and nights, feel that they have the most to lose?

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Heidi Alexander

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

In that case, I will give way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber.