Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Crockart Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Greg Clark]

There is more strategic thinking going on in Manchester, in conversation with the Government, than ever took place when it was suppressed under the regional development agencies. It is a tragedy and a disgrace that a city of the eminence of Manchester should be suborned to a region that was designed in Whitehall and enjoyed no local affection. It is emerging from that and emerging strongly, which is much to the credit of the leaders across Greater Manchester.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Will my right hon. Friend share with the House the progress being made with the first Scottish city deal in Glasgow, and are any discussions taking place with other great Scottish cities, such as Edinburgh?

[Greg Clark]

The city deal with Glasgow was signed during the summer and it is proceeding apace. The medical research centre will be one of the most exciting, cutting-edge opportunities in the country. It involves a long-awaited connection to Glasgow airport and the city. I have received indications from other Scottish cities that they would welcome very much a city deal of their own. No decisions have been taken as to whether that is possible, but I listened very carefully to the representations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Crockart Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I am aware of the issue from my own constituency mailbag, and it relates to those currently on the “Total Heating, Total Control” tariffs. It is a fairly complex position, but I say to SSE that it has enormous customer loyalty from throughout the highlands and islands. When we get the answers to the questions that my hon. Friend poses, I shall be looking at them very closely, because I want to ensure that the customer loyalty that its hydro has in the highlands and islands is valued, and not abused.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Ofgem has estimated that £27 of the average annual fuel bill pays to help the fuel poor, £21 pays for renewable obligations and £6 pays for feed-in tariffs. That comes to a total of £54, which is less than the tax paid on a single tank of petrol. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is a good return on a small outlay?

[Mr Carmichael]

My hon. Friend makes the point very well that although there are such charges on electricity bills the money is then spent wisely on improving the quality of housing and energy efficiency. That, of course, is the real opportunity offered by the energy debate and I think that the Government are sensible to pursue it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Crockart Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We have extended the hours that people get for four-year-olds, extended the hours for people who have three-year-olds, and for the first time introduced child care assistance for people who have two-year-olds. That has changed under this Government. We are also introducing for the first time proper tax relief on child care, so that people who work hard and do the right thing can get help with their child care. I hope that when there is a vote on it, the Opposition will support us.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Q11. One month ago I installed call-blocking technology in a partially deaf constituent’s home. This has shown that in the past month 65% of the calls that Mrs Moffat has received have been nuisance calls. Will my right hon. Friend commit the Government to do all they can to remove this menace, including looking at whether telephone providers should be profiteering by charging to provide information vital to trace these calls?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sure he has advised his constituent about the Telephone Preference Service—TPS—through which one can stop some of the calls that come through, but it is a real bane in some people’s lives so I am sure we can look further at what else can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Crockart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Scotland Office does not directly employ any members of the Department, as I have already confirmed in response to a parliamentary question about zero-hours contracts. As I have just indicated to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), we take this issue seriously. That is why BIS officials have been reviewing the operation of the contracts, and I very much welcome the Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry, which will perhaps provide greater illumination on the specific situation in Scotland.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Zero-hours contracts are undoubtedly misused and abused by many employers but, equally, I have spoken to many employees for whom the contracts fit their lifestyle well. Does my right hon. Friend agree, therefore, that reform is necessary, not abolition, and that nothing shows this better than the number of Labour councils using these contracts?

[David Mundell]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of the statement by Labour’s shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), who said:

“We’re not actually advocating an entire ban…sometimes people quite like to use them.”

I think that that is something with which we can all agree.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Mike Crockart Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Llwyd]

I believe that it does.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Llwyd]

I would like to make some progress.

I have no time to deal with that at this stage. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) may be right; I do not know. I would like to discuss it with him on another occasion, perhaps in Committee.

If clause 7 goes through unamended, there will be no requirement to give excluded parties sufficient information about the case. I have heard the arguments about gisting, but surely in 99.9% of cases the gisting procedure will be the answer, coupled with other safeguards, one hopes.

Nicholas Blake QC, in giving evidence to the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, made the following comments on the situation that would arise after a judgment is given:

“If the special advocate thinks there is an error of law in the closed judgment, he gets permission to say, to pass the message out to the other team to say ‘I think that you should be appealing, I can’t tell you why’...So there is a sort of open appeal. ‘We think there is something wrong but we don’t know what it is.’ And then the court goes into closed session, so it is antithetical to every”

principle

“of due process and open justice.”

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has urged the Government to ensure that if CMPs are to be extended, there must be a

“statutory requirement in all cases to provide the excluded party with a gist of the closed material that is sufficient to enable him to give effective instructions to his Special Advocate.”

That is entirely reasonable, while taking on board what the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) says about avoiding breaches of national security, and so on. The Constitution Committee said in its report on the Bill published in June this year:

“In our view, the court should be required, for example, to consider whether the material could be disclosed to parties’ legal representatives in confidence and whether the material could be disclosed in redacted form.”

A related point that must be raised is the knock-on effect that clause 7 may have on appeals in civil cases, which is something that we really need to think through.

The Law Society has pointed out that the extension of CMPs will have wider implications for civil litigation and the professional ethics of solicitors. Solicitors will be impaired in advising their clients on the merits of a case and the prospects of success if they are unable to see the evidence brought by the other party. They will also be unable to advise on any prospect of an appeal, so undermining the client’s right to legal assistance in the determination of their civil rights and the fair trial guarantees under article 6 of the European convention on human rights.

The provisions contained in part 2 of this Bill will mark a departure—I am not saying that it will be radical, but it will be a departure—from the principles of open justice, and it will possibly undermine confidence in our justice system. I sincerely hope that this House will follow the example of the other place in seeking to amend what appears to be an unbalanced Bill. Discretion as to whether a CMP should be used must ultimately lie, of course, with a judge and not the Secretary of State. Although courts should be required to balance the interests of national security against those of fairness, either party in proceedings should be able to apply for a CMP and, perhaps most importantly of all, there should be a statutory requirement in all cases to provide the excluded party with a summary of the material to enable him or her to give cogent instructions to the special advocate representing his or her interests in court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I am very pleased, as a former member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. Importantly, I was a member when its report on the Bill was written and published. We spent a large amount of time examining the Bill, which was a difficult thing to do as a non-lawyer, but it has been a worthwhile, though arduous, journey from the first time I asked what Norwich Pharmacal actually meant.

When the original justice and security Green Paper was introduced in October 2011, there was understandable and justifiable concern about the proposals. In their original form, it was clear that they were very broad in scope, and some in the Government talked up the need for the powers through rather apocalyptic speeches about the danger to national security—a danger that, once examined, clearly did not exist. There was, as has been said, a perception of a danger to national security—there is one that needs to be dealt with in relation to Norwich Pharmacal—but an actual danger did not exist.

Since then, it is welcome that the Minister without Portfolio has issued many reassurances about the intended narrowness of the Green Paper’s application. It is unfortunate that, whether as a result of lax drafting or conflicting views within the Department, the circumstances allowed confusion to develop about what the Government’s intentions were for closed material procedures.

It is clear that there is a theoretical need for change. One can imagine a situation—many such situations have been mentioned today—in which a fair trial of a civil claim cannot proceed because of the amount of material that cannot be disclosed on the grounds of public interest immunity. It has, however, been exceptionally difficult, even with access to many interested and experienced witnesses, to establish the likelihood of such a theoretical possibility actually materialising. The Bill is undoubtedly an extremely complex and difficult balancing act, but the judgment that must be made requires us to understand whether a problem exists and, if so, its scale, and whether this response is proportionate to the problem.

The Joint Committee was clear in its view that the proposed balance was not correct and, therefore, suggested amendments, which were tabled in the other place. I pay tribute to the excellent staff of the JCHR, who helped us to marshal the evidence and formulate the amendments to improve the Bill. In spite of those significant changes, the Bill’s proposals, particularly those in part 2 relating to closed material procedures, still constitute a radical departure from the UK’s constitutional tradition, which is one of open justice and fairness.

The JCHR report questioned whether the Government had

“persuasively demonstrated, by reference to sufficiently compelling evidence, the necessity for such a serious departure”

from those fundamental principles. Our conclusion was that the Government had

“failed to discharge that burden of justification”.

The Joint Committee suggested amendments to make the Bill compatible with the bedrocks of justice, openness and fairness, while recognising the national security concerns put forward by the Government. Our aim was to achieve a fair—or at least a fairer—balance. The Bill considered by the JCHR did not achieve the right balance. The Bill before us today is much closer to sitting within the parameters of natural justice and fairness protected by the common law, because of the excellent work in the other place. The amendments recommended by the JCHR and adopted to date are, as my noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill said,

“designed to keep faith with the fundamental principles of justice and fairness in our common law system, within the rule of law, and national security protected by the independent judiciary.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1822.]

I do not intend to go through the entire list of amendments suggested by the JCHR, but I will mention the most substantive amendments that have led to successful changes. First, a judge will decide whether a closed material procedure should be used in any given case and the decision will not be taken in form or substance by the Secretary of State. Secondly, a CMP will be available only as a procedure of last resort if fairness cannot be achieved by other means. That allows judicial discretion first to consider alternative methods, such as the public interest immunity system and requiring the court to consider whether a claim for PII could have been made. Thirdly, the court will be required to balance the interests of national security against the interests of fairness and open justice in deciding whether to agree to the use of a CMP at the outset. Finally, it will be open to either party to apply for a CMP and the court will also have the jurisdiction to consider the request on its own motion.

If the Bill had come to this House without some of those measures, the case for throwing out part 2 would be significantly stronger. CMPs are not perfect justice, but they may have a place. David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation who has been quoted extensively today, has said that there is

“a small but indeterminate category of national security-related claims, both for judicial review of executive decisions and for civil damages, in respect of which it is preferable that the option of a CMP—for all its inadequacies—should exist.”

A number of the JCHR’s recommendations have not been adopted at present. The first is the introduction of a sunset clause. The second is the compulsory reporting on and review of the use of CMPs by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The third is an undertaking that any litigant who is excluded from the open hearing by the CMP will be given, at the very least, a summary and the gist of the closed material sufficient to enable them to give instructions to their legal representative and the special advocates, so far as is possible. The absence from the Bill of such a disclosure obligation seriously limits the opportunities for special advocates to mitigate the unfairness caused by the Bill’s departure from open and, more importantly, adversarial justice. I hope that those issues will be given further consideration by Members of this House in Committee. I am fairly confident that that will happen.

Had it not been possible to write effective safeguards into part 2, I would share the concerns that are still being raised by many organisations such as the Bar Council, the Law Society of England and Wales, Liberty and Justice. Their concerns demonstrate that there is still significant review work to be done by a Committee of this House. In as reasonable a way as I can, I caution the Government against any attempt to remove the improving amendments that have been made in the other place.

I support the Bill’s passage into Committee, but with the words of Judge Learned Hand in mind:

“Justice is the tolerable accommodation of the conflicting interests of society, and I don’t believe there is any royal road to attain such accommodation concretely.”

The administration of justice is undoubtedly a balance, but it is the most important balancing act that the state carries out. We should proceed carefully in changing that balance.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Mike Crockart Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be here to debate these important constitutional changes. I admit that while the country is stuck in a double-dip recession and millions are still out of work, this would not have been my priority if I were sitting on the Government Benches, but unfortunately we cannot set the Government’s priorities, and we are where we are.

I am pleased to be here because, frankly, the Deputy Prime Minister’s Bill is a bit of a mess, and I am afraid that his speech did not help matters much either. As a supporter of House of Lords reform, I want to do what I can to ensure that reform comes about, but that it is the right reform and is supported by the people. The Bill has huge implications for how Parliament and our Government operate, so we need to get it right. The reforms will form the basis of a lasting settlement between Parliament and the British people, so we need time to get it right—something I shall speak to a little later.

The Chamber has debated House of Lords reform many times, as anyone who reads the excellent House of Lords Library paper on the chronology of Lords reform will soon realise. It is 95 pages long—and that is only for the period 1997 to 2010. It does not include the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the creation of life peerages in 1958 or other unsuccessful attempts at reform.

The Labour party remains very much in favour of reforming the second Chamber and will support the Bill on Second Reading tomorrow night. Ever since I have been in my current role, I have emphasised our desire to seek a consensus on Lords reform, as did Labour Ministers when we were in government. The Deputy Prime Minister referred to cross-party talks and consensus. I attended the cross-party discussions that he chaired, but unfortunately they were curtailed before we had the chance to discuss all the issues. Our last meeting was in November 2010.

When in government, we recognised that consensus building was crucial to the success of constitutional change, as well as the dangers of impermanence stemming from one Government imposing their will on our constitution, only to see their changes undone by the next Government. Our constitution deserves better than partisan self-serving change.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I have a simple question. The right hon. Gentleman says he needs more time to look at the Bill and get it right. How much more time does he need?

[Sadiq Khan]

I shall give the hon. Gentleman a simple answer: wait and hear!

Rather than working with us on House of Lords reform, the Deputy Prime Minister has occasionally chosen to pursue a lofty, hectoring stance. I am afraid that his piety has done great harm to the cause of constitutional reform. Labour has decided to support the Bill on Second Reading in spite of his attitude, not because of it.

Let me take this opportunity to lay to rest the myths spread about Labour’s record on House of Lords reform. The changes that Labour enacted to the second Chamber between 1997 and 2010 were unparalleled. No political party—certainly not in modern times—comes anywhere near our legacy. Just 15 years ago, in 1997, the second Chamber was still full of hereditary peers, so the government of the country was still determined by a group of people chosen by birth right. It was the politics of a previous century and a different time. After considerable debate, Labour pushed ahead with the removal of hereditary peers. Many here will remember the enormous objections in the other place and from Conservative Members. In fact, 13 of the current Cabinet voted against the Second Reading of the House of Lords Act 1999.

And what did the Liberal Democrats do?

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Crockart Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is important to stress that the Joint Committee did not make that suggestion, and neither have a succession of cross-party committees and commissions over the last several years. All of them have agreed that there is nothing incompatible about increasing the legitimacy of the other place, on the basis of the very simple, uncontroversial principle that the people who make the laws of the land should be elected by the people who obey the laws of the land, and that this matter should in no way need to wait for a wider discussion on the respective powers of the two places.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Given that we are now part of a multicultural and polytheistic society, does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time to remove bishops from the House of Lords, rather than increasing the proportion of seats that they would hold?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I know there are strongly held views on this issue, as on many issues to do with reform of the other place. The balanced approach that we took as a Government in the draft Bill was to reduce the number of bishops from 26 to 12, but not to remove them altogether.

Debate on the Address

Mike Crockart Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who I know takes a great interest in Hartlepool—largely because he spent most of the 2004 by-election there trying to stop me becoming a Member.

In his opening and closing remarks, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned elections both general and local, and I have to tell him that after Thursday’s local elections, on Hartlepool borough council the Liberal Democrats now have no representation whatever, which shows the scale of the challenge that he and his party face in terms of getting into bed with the Conservatives.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I am confused by this continuing slur of “getting into bed with the Conservatives”, because in Scotland we now have coalitions of every possible hue, including Labour and Tory coalitions. Does the hon. Gentleman attack those coalitions with the same vigour that he attacks this one here?

[Mr Wright]

I use the phrase “getting into bed with the Tories” not because it is of my own making, but after speaking to my constituents and people elsewhere who were thinking about voting Liberal Democrat, who might have fallen out of love with Labour following the 2005 general election and who wanted to consider something else in 2010, but who now feel let down and betrayed. That is the scale of the challenge that the hon. Gentleman’s party faces with regard to reinvigorating the trust of the people.

Almost the first words that Her Majesty said in her speech today were:

“My Ministers’ first priority will be to reduce the deficit and restore economic stability.”

Those words were almost identical to the ones that the Queen uttered in the first Session of this Parliament, two years ago, when she stated:

“The first priority is to reduce the deficit and restore economic growth.”

In the intervening two years, the Government have done little that they set themselves on both counts. They have had to borrow about £150 billion more than they originally forecast back in 2010, and they have failed to deal effectively with the deficit and to restore economic growth, because they have focused exclusively—some might say almost obsessively—on the former, reducing the deficit, instead of giving sufficient priority to the latter, economic growth. It should not be an either/or game. Tax revenues are lower because of weak demand and reduced consumer spending, while expenditure is rising because of the need to pay out more in unemployment benefits. The British economy is now in a more perilous state than when the Government took office two years ago.

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor will trot out the excuse of the difficulties experienced in the eurozone, and there is some truth in that, but they cannot escape the fact that the retreat into recession has been caused almost directly by their actions and policies. We are experiencing this country’s longest downturn since the 1920s. Britain is emerging from the deep global recession of 2008-09 more slowly than from previous recessions and, crucially, more slowly than our main economic competitors, meaning that our rivals in the global marketplace are stealing a march on us. The actions of this Government today are compromising our competitiveness in the global economy of tomorrow.

The US economy grew by 3% in the last quarter of 2011 and by 2.2% in the first quarter of this year. Alongside Greece and Italy, Spain is generally—almost universally—acknowledged to be one of the economic basket cases of the eurozone, but even the Spanish economy grew more in 2011 than Britain’s. Today’s publication of UK retail figures, which show a 3.3% fall year on year—the largest fall in more than a year—demonstrates the general weakness of the economy, the lack of demand and the fragility of consumer confidence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Crockart Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I do think the smoking ban is right. I have to admit, as a former smoker, and someone who believes strongly in liberties and who did not support it at the time, that the smoking ban has worked, and I think it is successful. I am much more nervous about going into what people do inside a vehicle. I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman says, but we have to have a serious think before we take that step.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The Prime Minister will be aware of Citigroup’s report, issued yesterday, on green energy investment in Scotland. Does he agree that this report very ably demonstrates that the benefits of green energy in the UK are unlocked only by combining Scotland’s renewable potential with the large-scale investment made possible by the UK; and does he agree that a drawn-out independence referendum is a serious distraction from that?

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Crockart Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the Movember campaign, in which men grow moustaches for the month of November to advance awareness of prostate cancer. Will he join me in congratulating the almost half a million people worldwide, many in the UK, who are on track to raise £25 million this year in sponsorship? Given how good we look, will he consider joining us next year?

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on such a magnificent specimen—the moustache that he has grown. It is absolutely right to raise awareness of prostate cancer. The campaign is a very good charitable move. I can see that some of his neighbours along the Bench have followed his example, as have some of the people in my protection team. They are all to be commended for raising awareness about a real killer that we need to do more about.