Powers of Attorney Bill

Mike Freer Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 9th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for promoting this vital Bill. I look forward to supporting him as the Bill completes its journey and, I hope, makes its way on to the statute book.

My hon. Friend did an effective job of laying out the provisions of the Bill and its purpose. It is immediately clear both from his words and from the contributions of Conservative colleagues—I will turn in a few minutes to the question raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham)—that we all recognise that a lasting power of attorney is a vital resource and how important it is to ensure that the process has sufficient safeguards, while remaining accessible and efficient.

It is a deed that gives peace of mind and assurance to individuals, should there be a time when they lose mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. It gives them peace of mind that there is a pre-selected loved one or professional there to help them, whether to provide support and make decisions about managing their financial affairs, or to make decisions relating to their healthcare. A lasting power of attorney ensures that a person’s wishes and preferences can be taken into account, and reduces the stress and burden on families when capacity is lost unexpectedly.

My hon. Friend rightly highlighted in his opening remarks that we are living in a society with an ageing population. One of the implications of this is that we are likely to see an increase in people who lack mental capacity due to age-related conditions. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) mentioned, the Alzheimer’s Society says that there are currently around 900,000 people with dementia in the UK. That figure is projected to rise to 1.6 million by 2040, meaning an increase in the number of families who will find themselves faced with the reality of needing to make critical decisions about their loved one’s finances or welfare.

I know that those can be difficult decisions, talking about and preparing for the worst-case scenarios, including preparing for loss of capacity. It can be harrowing for people, their friends and their family. However, preparing early is the key to ensuring that life can continue in the way the person wanted. Putting in place a lasting power of attorney gives family and friends an insight into a person’s wishes and preferences and who they would like to make decisions on their behalf when they are unable to do so. Given the importance and significance of the document, and the gravity of the power it confers, it is absolutely right that we look at how we can make the process for making and registering a lasting power of attorney safer, simpler and more accessible.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock for setting out so eloquently the problems that exist in the current system. Members of this House will be aware that the Ministry of Justice has consulted on potential solutions to some of those challenges, and I am delighted that the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend reflects and builds on the Government’s response to the consultation.

Turning to the question raised by the shadow Minister, in terms of the capacity issue, the Government remain committed to the principle of supporting decision making but believe that that is provided best by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The proposals in the consultation were carefully considered by the Government, but we still have concerns that a formal framework may be unnecessarily legalistic and would overlap with other provisions, such as advocacy.

I want to give a commitment to the House that we are seeking to ensure that the system is as simple and easy to navigate as possible. My hon. Friend talked about the current backlog in the Office of the Public Guardian, which is leading to longer waiting times for LPA registrations. That has been exacerbated by the limitations arising from the current legislative framework and the operational practice it requires. My hon. Friend explained that all LPAs are currently made on paper, which creates a huge logistical burden on everyone involved. It is also not reflective of the needs of users in today’s society, but I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) about ensuring that, as we embrace technology, we must also ensure that there are sufficient checks and balances for those who may be vulnerable to abuse.

Frankly, people expect Government services to be available online, while also having the option to do things on paper when they prefer to. I am pleased that the Bill will create a digital channel to make an LPA, while also improving the paper channel for those who need or choose to use paper. A digital route will make LPAs more efficient and realise many benefits. It will allow for a speedier process, reduce the administrative burdens on individuals and automate many checks that should reduce the risk of errors in the paperwork that often delay registration and therefore the ability to use the LPA.

The Bill goes further than simply the digital and paper channels. By facilitating a more flexible system, the ability to move between the channels to create a single LPA will provide a far more flexible service and far more benefits to a wider group of people. Even those who want to use paper will benefit from others using digital elements in the process. The challenges faced by the OPG cannot be solved without reform, which is why I am grateful for the improvements that the Bill seeks to facilitate. I am confident that by introducing a digital process and automated checks and reducing some of the burdens on the organisation, we will build resilience into the process, meaning that people will be able to register their LPAs more quickly. It should also significantly reduce the chances of backlogs forming.

I assure the House that the vast majority of LPAs—there are currently more than 6 million on the register—are used properly to provide the support they are intended for. However, we know that LPA fraud and abuse takes place, and steps must be taken to address it. In 2021-22, the OPG investigated 2,408 LPA cases in response to concerns received. Of those, the OPG took remedial action in 649 cases. Such action can include an application to the Court of Protection to remove an attorney or revoke an LPA, as well as working with the attorney to provide education and guidance on how they should carry out their role.

Although the matters I have outlined apply to a very small proportion of the LPAs registered by the OPG, the impact on the individuals who experience abuse can be significant, which is why I am pleased that the Bill includes provisions to make the process more secure, especially for the donor, and lays the groundwork for further changes to be made in regulations.

In line with the Government’s consultation response, the Bill introduces identity checks as a requirement of registration. This is an important safeguard that will assure the OPG that those who claim to be involved in the LPA are who they say they are and reduce the risk of fraud by false representation. Regulations will support the change by specifying who will be subject to checks—the donor and the certificate provider—as well as how those checks will be carried out and which documents will be acceptable. I am committed to providing a wide range of options as soon as possible, given that the average age of a donor is currently 74 and most are over 65.

Provisions are being made to streamline and improve the objections process so that it is easier to lodge a concern with the OPG. That is a vital safeguard that will include those with a legitimate concern—such as local authorities, care workers and even the police—who previously did not have a formal route through which to express their concern.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock pointed out that the Bill gives us the levers to make further changes in regulations that will improve other protections, including the role of certificate providers. By having the certificate provider take on the role of witness, we are strengthening safeguards. In addition to this increase in safeguarding, by combining the roles of certificate provider and witness we will also reduce the burden on the donor.

I am pleased that the Bill also addresses the role of chartered legal executives. It cannot be right that a chartered legal executive—a legally qualified Chartered Institute of Legal Executives lawyer—who legitimately participates in the creation of a power of attorney should be rendered unable to certify as genuine a copy of the same document that they were instrumental in creating. The Bill will address that anomaly.

In closing, I reiterate how vital the improvements in the Bill are to support individuals to make a lasting power of attorney and to certify copies of such important documents. The efficiency savings will ensure that donors and attorneys have a better system, with the savings made reinvested to increasingly improve the service, so it is an all-round benefit.

Finally, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock and thank my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes, for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) and for Broadland for their contributions.

Devolution of Justice: Wales

Mike Freer Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Vickers; I think this is your first outing in the Chair. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) on securing the debate, and am grateful for her significant contribution on justice in Wales over the past several years. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd secured a previous Westminster Hall debate, which took place on 22 January 2020, on the report by the Commission on Justice in Wales, otherwise known as the Thomas commission, which was published in October 2019. It is inevitable that we have touched on many of the same issues today. In the intervening period, work on considering and, where appropriate, implementing the Thomas commission recommendations was delayed by the coronavirus pandemic, but the right hon. Member has ensured that it remains a live issue for this House.

It will not come as a surprise that the Government’s position on the devolution settlement has not changed. We disagree with Lord Thomas and with the Welsh Government, and do not think that justice should be devolved. Indeed, the many challenges brought by the coronavirus pandemic demonstrated in a number of areas that the settlement is working well.

[Alun Cairns]

The Minister has provided a clear response, and we understand that the Government’s view is that we should not devolve justice. Does he understand Labour’s point of view on the issue? It seems to me that two different messages are coming from Cardiff Bay and from the Opposition in Westminster.

[Mike Freer]

My right hon. Friend asked a very pertinent question and did not get a clear answer from the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin). My understanding is that the official Opposition do not support the devolution of justice—that is what I took from her speech.

Let me go back to what happened during the coronavirus pandemic. The pandemic served to demonstrate that in a number of areas the settlement is working well. In fact, the justice system performed better in Wales than it did in England in several respects, and I will say more on that later. Among the key arguments made by those who support devolving justice to Wales is what they see as the principle that a holistic approach is required to ensure that policy objectives can be delivered effectively. Of course, we agree that policies on substance misuse, education, mental health and social welfare need to be aligned with measures to reduce reoffending and protect the public, which is the responsibility of Westminster, but the notion that justice must be devolved to achieve that is misplaced. The Ministry of Justice works closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that justice policies are aligned and that we take account of distinct Welsh needs.

[Ben Lake]

On the specific point about the alignment between the UK Government, the Ministry of Justice and the Welsh Government, does the Minister accept that it is frustrating, as a Member representing a rural constituency, to have witnessed so many court closures in the past decade? The court closures were made without any clear consideration of the fact that there are no direct transport links, so people have quite literally lost access to justice. Does he understand my constituents’ frustration that, contrary to what some Members have said today, the system is not working in lockstep, is not co-ordinated and is not in alignment to ensure the right access to justice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. For every community that is affected by a court closure, the judiciary and the MOJ have to take into account access to justice. My understanding is that the senior judiciary take that very seriously, but I understand the frustration that he vocalises.

The joint MOJ and Welsh Government blueprints on youth justice and female offenders are successful examples of the co-development of strategies across the devolution boundary. The women’s justice blueprint seeks to transform services for women in Wales, to help keep women and their communities safe and free from crime. A key aim is to reduce the number of women coming into the criminal justice system, while doing a better job of meeting the needs of those already in the system. Services are in place to support women in Wales at all stages of the criminal justice system, avoiding fragmented delivery and enabling greater consistency in the support that women receive. More than 2,075 women across Wales were referred to diversion support in the two and a half years from January 2020 to September 2022, and 2,700 women were referred to the women’s pathfinder whole system approach, which services south Wales and Gwent, over the same period. The service remained operational throughout the covid pandemic, providing support to women with complex needs at a time of increased vulnerability.

Improving family ties is an important part of the blue- print. Through joint HMPPS Wales and Welsh Government funding, a Visiting Mum service is being re-established in HMP Eastwood Park and HMP Styal to help ensure that Welsh mothers are able to maintain positive relationships with their children throughout their prison sentence. Collaboration between the Ministry of Justice and the Welsh Government has led to the procurement of a site for a new residential women’s centre in Swansea. That is a particularly important development for Wales, given that there is no women’s prison in Wales—a position that the Welsh Government support. The new centre will offer vulnerable women an opportunity to stabilise their lives, with a range of support and interventions designed to tackle the causes of their offending.

We worked closely with partners, including the Welsh Government, police and crime commissioners and local authorities, to identify a suitable location for the RWC. We are grateful for the support that we have received from Julie James, the Member of the Senedd for Swansea West, and others at a local level, but it is disappointing that after so much collaborative work, the application for planning permission was turned down last month, and we will now have to consider the next steps with our Welsh colleagues. However, there are other examples of where the justice devolution settlement is delivering for Wales.

I mentioned earlier that Welsh justice services performed well during the pandemic, often exceeding the performance seen outside Wales. A good example of that is the performance of the Welsh courts, where the MOJ, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and HMPPS worked together to keep the courts operating as effectively as possible. As a result, the magistrates courts in Wales were the first to recover to pre-pandemic levels in England and Wales.

During the passage of the Wales Act 2017, it was argued that it was necessary to devolve justice for Wales to operate properly as a legislature in its own right. In fact, we noted in the debate here in January 2020 that the 2017 Act ensures that the Senedd can make law on devolved matters, including the setting of criminal offences and other measures that enable the proper enforcement of its legislation. We have seen examples of where the Senedd has set its own legislative direction and introduced measures to enforce its policies. I again refer to the action taken by the Welsh Government during the pandemic.

Devolving justice would not simplify the system in a divergent landscape. It would simply shift the so-called jagged edge, to use Lord Thomas’s term, so that the devolved justice system has to manage challenges posed by reserved matters, which I would argue would be more complex than the current position.

There are also strong economic arguments in favour of maintaining the current justice settlement for Wales. A fully devolved justice system, akin to the Scottish and Northern Ireland models, would require Wales to be self- sufficient, including with regard to offender management and a prison estate that met the needs of the full range of prisoners. There are no category A prisons or, as I have already noted, women’s prisons in Wales. Wales benefits from the economies of scale that flow from being part of a larger offender management system, including the allocation of prisoners based on need and the risk they pose.

Even under other models, such as making use of the current prison estate but putting in place agreements between the Welsh and Westminster Governments on criminal justice and offender management, there would still be a need for the Welsh Government to have a justice function to manage policy across the board. They would have to develop and implement policy on criminal, civil, family and administrative law, and on matters such as legal aid. They would have to recruit staff sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable in those matters. The result of all that activity would be a significant interface between a devolved justice system and a larger body of reserved law; a much more complicated jagged edge. We are talking about a huge expense for the Welsh Government and, ultimately, the taxpayer.

I am conscious of time, but I will address one particular point raised by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd. That is the call for greater transparency of data. That is not an unreasonable request, and I am pursuing it vigorously as a new Minister to the Department. I am happy to give the commitment to work with her and others to ensure that the data is more accessible and transparent in the interests of justice.

[Robin Millar]

Will the Minister undertake to ensure that that is a reciprocal agreement, and that data is made available from the Welsh Government to facilitate that free exchange of data between the two Governments?

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Only half a picture is no picture at all. There must be transparency both ways.

The UK Government remain firmly opposed to devolution of justice to Wales. We believe that the current devolution settlement is working well and should be retained.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Freer Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

1. What the average waiting time is for a social security benefits tribunal hearing in (a) Northamptonshire and (b) England.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

Between April and June 2022, the average waiting time for benefits appeals in Northamptonshire was 46 weeks. In England it was 28 weeks. Waiting times can fluctuate due to a number of factors, including volumes of benefit decisions made locally, the complexity of the case, the availability of panel members and venue capacity.

[Mr Hollobone]

When I asked the same question three years ago, the figures were 21 weeks for Northamptonshire and 33 weeks across England. While there has been improvement across the country as a whole, clearly things are going backwards quite severely in Northamptonshire. Does the Minister share my concern that this is clearly an unacceptable situation, and will he outline plans to tackle it?

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend is spot on: it is not acceptable that his area is going backwards. I have commissioned officials to report in detail on the exact problems affecting his area, and I will report to him in the next four to six weeks.

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

2. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Common Platform on the delivery of justice by HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking to improve the performance of the Common Platform.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

We have rolled out the Common Platform at 173 criminal courts in England and Wales and 76% of courts are now live. It has improved the format and timeliness of outcomes of hearings generated and shared with our criminal justice partner agencies and removed the need for staff to re-key information across different IT systems. If we are to reform the criminal justice system, we need to press ahead and reform the IT that underpins it.

[Kate Hollern]

The Common Platform has been nothing short of a disaster—one quarter of a billion wasted on a project that was fundamentally flawed from the start and designed primarily to slash thousands of highly skilled legal jobs. Even the Lord Chief Justice has raised serious concerns recently to the Justice Committee. Is it not time the Minister held up his hands, admitted this was a mistake and told His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to build a better system that focuses on delivering justice instead of wasting money in such a damaging and short-sighted way?

[Mike Freer]

The simple answer to that question is no.

[Rachel Hopkins]

Last month, staff at courts across the country, including the magistrates court in Luton, went on strike—not over pay or pensions, but because the Common Platform IT system is so flawed that it is effectively unusable. That should have been enough to make the Government sit up and take notice, but if the Minister will not listen to his own workers and their trade union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, maybe he will listen to the judges who are speaking out? One judge called the Common Platform “completely unsuitable” and “not fit for purpose”. Does the Minister agree?

[Mike Freer]

No, I do not agree. All new IT systems take time to bed down and officials continue to work with user groups, both staff within the criminal justice system and judges. The system replaces eight legacy systems that are at the end of their lives, support for which is being withdrawn. If we do not reform the IT system underpinning the criminal justice system, we will not be able to make the progress we wish.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Sir Robert Neill.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Minister is of course right to say that we need to modernise and improve IT systems and replace the legacy systems, but will he sit down and talk in some detail with users of the system, both judges and practitioners? For example, a platform that is unable to record whether a case concludes in a guilty plea will not be very much help in tracking the progress of cases or improving listing at a time when we have massive backlogs. Practical changes are surely what is needed.

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am always happy to speak to staff groups and my legal friends in the justice system to iron out any particular issues, but the roll-out of the Common Platform needs to continue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Alex Cunningham.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Oh dear, dear, what a mess: our courts systems were in chaos before the pandemic, and now it is much worse, with some cases taking years to come to court and remand numbers at record levels. The Common Platform was supposed to make courts more efficient, but fails in everything from recording criminal convictions to getting crucial data to the Registry Trust on time. Worst of all, it is having an adverse effect on people’s lives, including those who use it. Costs have soared from £236 million to more than £300 million, with Ministers ready to pay an IT firm another £20 million for product enhancements. Will the Minister tell us where the money has gone, why the system has not been sorted and whether he will pause the roll-out until it is?

[Mike Freer]

I point out that the backlogs were on a downward trajectory until the Criminal Bar Association action. The roll-out of the Common Platform is a necessary part of modernising our systems, and I am confident that we will ensure that the system is delivered for the benefit not just of users, but of everyone who touches our criminal justice system.

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. If he will make an estimate of the number and proportion of males convicted under joint enterprise who were (a) Black and (b) from other ethnic groups.

--- Later in debate ---

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to reduce the size of waiting lists for family court cases.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

We established the family mediation voucher scheme in March 2021 to help to reduce the number of private law cases coming into court. We have invested nearly £9 million to date and issued more than 12,800 vouchers to support families. In 2021, family sitting days were at their highest level ever. In July, we introduced a regional virtual court pilot to allow deputy district judges from other regions to sit virtually in London and the south-east so that they can hear as many cases as possible.

[Duncan Baker]

We all know that there are significant backlogs in the family court system. However, what some might not know is that it is having real knock-on effects on families, single parents and children across the country. The sooner those cases can be heard and dealt with, the better for everybody involved. What does my hon. Friend intend to do to address those backlogs, and what specific measures is he taking to ensure that there are enough judges and adequate funding for our family courts?

[Mike Freer]

My understanding is that the voucher scheme has been successful, and that about 65% of families who have used it say that it kept them out of the court process. It is our intention to ensure that the voucher scheme continues, with additional publicity. To address some of the other issues relating to capacity, using the virtual courtroom is a possibility, and the general recruitment of more than 1,000 new judges should help.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Government figures show that, as of last week, the backlog in the family courts now stands at more than 110,000 cases. Given that the Ministry of Justice budget will go up by about half the rate of inflation next year—meaning a real-terms cut of hundreds of millions of pounds—does the Minister think that this and other backlogs will go up or down?

[Mike Freer]

Our intention is to ensure that the backlogs go down by ensuring that as many families as possible are kept out of the court system through the use of schemes such as the family mediation voucher scheme.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on strengthening human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

10. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on reforming the death registration process.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

The Ministry of Justice is working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and the General Register Office on the implementation of a statutory medical examiners scheme, which will provide an additional layer of scrutiny on cause of death in non-coronal cases. We are also working with the General Register Office to consider how families might play a greater role in the registration of their loved ones’ deaths following an inquest.

[Imran Hussain]

I thank the Minister for that response. For many of my constituents, a swift burial is a core tenet of their beliefs and faith, but in many cases this swift burial is held back by bureaucratic legal difficulties in formally registering the death, particularly when GPs cannot be reached, there is a bank holiday or it is the weekend. I think the whole House will agree that no one wants their relatives to be held in a mortuary any longer than is absolutely necessary. Will the Minister meet me and colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care to discuss what can be done to break down these legal barriers and address these issues so that everybody can be afforded dignity in death?

[Mike Freer]

First, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have discussed this specific issue of how faith communities are dealt with by the coroners service. I have discussed it with the Chief Coroner, and I have a meeting next week with representatives of both the Jewish and the Muslim faiths. Once I have had those meetings, I would be very happy to meet him so that, having looked at the issue in the round, we can discuss how we can move forward.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

11. If he will take steps with prisons to estimate the number of children affected by parental imprisonment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

16. Whether he has made an assessment of the effectiveness of the steps taken by his Department to implement the recommendations of the independent review of criminal legal aid. [R]

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

In March we consulted on our approach to recommendations made by the independent review of criminal legal aid, and we published our interim response in July. We have introduced a 15% uplift across most free schemes, in line with the recommendations. That means an additional annual benefit of up to £63 million for solicitor firms, and up to £39 million for criminal barristers in a steady state situation. Uplifts for solicitors and barristers have already started being paid, and we have also applied fee uplifts to the vast majority of existing Crown court cases, to address concerns that the uplifted fees did not apply to ongoing work.

[Karl Turner]

Well before the Criminal Bar Association took action to strike, I warned the Lord Chancellor that that was inevitable unless he sat down with the association and worked constructively. He accused me of being its shop steward. Now, criminal defence solicitors’ firms are on their knees. The Justice Secretary is not known for working constructively, but will he sit down with the Law Society and representative groups of criminal solicitors to come to an agreement on parity of funding between the criminal Bar and criminal defence solicitors?

[Mike Freer]

My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor meets all stakeholders on a regular basis, and I think he has a meeting coming up to address those very concerns. I am sure that he will sit down and discuss those concerns in the next few weeks.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The Lord Chancellor’s successor and predecessor was able to achieve more in a few days than the current Justice Secretary ever has by agreeing a deal and ending the CBA’s strike action. The Law Society has warned that it may be forced to advise its members to stop working in criminal practice if Bellamy’s recommendations are not met. Will the Lord Chancellor get his priorities straight and honour the Government’s own review by giving legal aid solicitors the funding they need to avoid collapse and make our justice system sustainable?

[Mike Freer]

I know that the Lord Chancellor—he is his own predecessor, as was pointed out—has been committed to ensuring that the system remains correctly funded within the spending envelope. He will continue to address the concerns raised by all stakeholders in the criminal justice system. We are entirely committed to working with the advisory board to address all the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

17. What steps he is taking to help tackle racial disparity in the criminal justice system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

In response to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, the Government’s inclusive Britain strategy sets out a clear commitment to tackling race and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. We are reducing the number of individuals from ethnic minorities entering the criminal justice system by expanding the use of diversionary initiatives such as out-of-court disposals to divert towards treatment or drug education courses. For those in contact with the system, we are providing funding for grassroots ethnic minority-led and specialist voluntary sector organisations to provide rehabilitative services.

[Mr Dhesi]

The disproportionate representation of black children in our justice system starts with arrests, with black children over four times more likely to be arrested than white children as of 2019. We must address the deep-rooted causes of that, ensuring that those from ethnic minority backgrounds are not discriminated against and drawn into a cycle of criminality due to a bias in our criminal justice system. The Lammy review exposed that bias and discrimination more than half a decade ago, so why have the Government still not implemented its recommendations in full?

[Mike Freer]

We have implemented the majority of the actions that we committed to in response to the Lammy review. The hon. Gentleman raises important points regarding the over-representation of ethnic minority children in the system. There is a range of activities, including work that we are doing in two test areas, to ensure that those people who are arrested have access to and can only opt out of legal representation, to try to ensure that the issues that he raised are addressed. I am happy to meet him to go through those activities and discuss them in much more detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

T3. There are long waiting lists for the Crown court in Essex, and I am told that that is in part due to a shortage of judges. What progress is being made to shorten the waiting lists and appoint judges in Essex?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

We are working hard to ensure that we recruit over 1,000 new judges. We are allowing 80 circuit judges and 125 fee-paid recorders to sit for more days to ensure we increase capacity. We are boosting circuit judge recruitment, with about 90 new appointments, who will sit in London and the south-east, including Essex, to address the issues my right hon. Friend raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

My Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 comes into force in February. Will the Minister confirm that cross-departmental work with the relevant Departments is taking place, so that from day one teachers, social workers, police, Border Force officers and others will have had the right training and know exactly what to do when faced with a case of child marriage?

[Mike Freer]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on pursuing this important issue. As she said, the law will come into effect in February 2023. I can confirm that cross-departmental work has been taking place to ensure that officials across Government, the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council are as up to date as possible. The Home Office has been updating its forced marriage guidance, which provides detailed advice to groups such as Border Force officers, social workers, police and teachers on what to do when faced with a case of forced child marriage. I hope that in swift order the work she has been so passionate about is enforced.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

T7. In 2010, there were 1,861 firms of criminal solicitors with duty contracts; there are now 964. The profession of criminal defence solicitor is broken and so is the justice system. Who does the Lord Chancellor think broke the system? [R]

[Mike Freer]

I do not accept the hon. Member’s characterisation. The Government have invested—

[Karl Turner]

Those are numbers and facts.

[Mike Freer]

The Government have invested significantly in the criminal justice system, not just through the recent settlement with the Criminal Bar Association, but in the run-up to the settlement. There is continued investment in the criminal justice system. He may disagree, but those are other facts.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to increasing rape charging rates and the positive news regarding rape convictions, the facts suggest that what is happening is somewhat to the contrary. In the year ending March 2022, the police recorded the highest annual number of rape offences to date—70,330—but charges were brought in only 2,223 cases. With the split in responsibility between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, what steps can my right hon. Friend take, working with his Home Office colleagues, to make sure that more people are charged and put before the courts?

Family Law Terminology

Mike Freer Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

As ever, it is a joy to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for securing a debate on this important topic. It is a topic on which I know she has campaigned for quite some time and with vigour. I tried to find the blog she wrote some years ago, but I suspect I may have to dig a bit deeper to find it. If she has a copy to hand, I would be very interested in reading it.

As parliamentarians, we are all aware of the power of language to influence, to make others reflect and to be a force for good. The focus of the family court must always be on acting in the best interests of the child, as well as on creating stability and reducing conflict for families. The language used by professionals, and in the systems, processes and guidance that make up the family court, can set the tone for how families and individuals interact with it and with each other, both in and out of court. Our choice of language makes it clear what we value the most, and it can act as a reminder that children are at the heart of the family justice system.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned, the Family Solutions Group, which is a collection of multidisciplinary experts looking at how to improve the family justice system for children and families, noted in 2022 that the

“language for separating families has evolved out of an adversarial legal system: it is accusatory and divisive. It is also potentially harmful, increasing conflict through battle metaphors while parents compete for justice and control of their children.”

The Government have recognised that the language used in the family court needs to move away from pitting parents or couples against each other. Instead, the emphasis should be on clear and simply terminology that recognises children as children, not as cases, and that encourages individuals to reach joint agreements. We should be moving away from arguments about custody and residence, and towards what is the best outcome for the child, instead of perpetuating the idea that there are winners and losers in the family court. We should be encouraging resolutions and agreements.

Reducing conflict between separating parents is a priority for the Government. I will set out the actions we have taken to support them and their children before turning to some specific measures to improve the language used in the system. We are introducing measures to reduce the number of disputes that come to court in the first place so that we reduce the time that children are left to deal with uncertainty and minimise exposure to the court system for young people.

My hon. Friend mentioned the family mediation voucher scheme, which was launched in March and is designed to remove the barriers that parents face in accessing mediation. Family mediators are trained to support separating parents to move past their conflicts and resolve issues in a non-adversarial way. Mediation can often be a quicker means of reaching an agreement. We hope that by offering separating parents the opportunity to mediate, we can reduce the period of uncertainty and distress for children by avoiding more lengthy court proceedings.

More than 11,800 couples have now accessed the mediation voucher scheme and received £500 towards the cost of their mediation. A Family Mediation Council survey of the first 2,800 cases suggests that 65% of separated parents reached whole or partial agreements in their mediation, which means that they no longer needed to attend court. Clearly, an amicable agreement will always be in the best interests of the children.

Where court is unavoidable, we are working to ensure that disputes are resolved as quickly as possible, and that the processes are as understandable and stress-free as possible, especially for children. For instance, we have adopted a more investigative approach to proceedings. In February, we launched the first integrated domestic abuse courts pilot in Dorset and north Wales, delivering on a 2019 manifesto commitment. This new approach to child arrangement cases seeks to reduce conflict, protect victims and survivors and enhance the voice of the child by gathering more information during the early stages of the process, which allows courts to narrow down issues, and minimises the time spent pitting parties against each other in a courtroom setting. The new pilot also includes the option for children to meet judges or have direct access to a judge in their case who can give them direct feedback in simple, plain language on the recommendation decisions about their lives. Of course, that puts a human face to the process.

The Government introduced the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 to allow no-fault divorce and end the pointless blame game when a marriage or civil partnership has irretrievably broken down. Instead, it allows couples to focus on resolving more important priorities, such as how best to co-parent any children. The Act also aimed to help couples to reach amicable decisions by introducing joint applications for divorce, which was not previously possible. Joint applications replace the adversarial concept that divorce is something done by one party to the other. We have also made changes to the language of divorce to reduce language that automatically pits individuals against each other. We have removed terms such as “petitioner” from the process. Those are simple changes, but they set the tone for how individuals engage with each other in court.

My hon. Friend stressed the importance of language and terminology. The Government used the Children and Families Act 2014 to remove the concept of winners and losers from cases involving children. It removed terms such as “residence” and “contact”, and replaced them with more child-focused language such as “child arrangements”.

Technology also plays a significant role in how people access and understand the family justice system. The Government are creating a more modern and straight- forward justice system that is accessible to all. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s reform programme has been running since 2016, and aims to move court applications across all jurisdictions online. That commitment includes providing online systems and resources that are written in plain English. Although there are times that legal language is required, all HMCTS forms and gov.uk resources go through a plain English review to make sure they are clear and accurate. We are committed to making not only the family courts accessible but the wider justice system. So far, divorce, probate and public law proceedings have moved online, and private law cases also have an option for online applications. We are continuing to work on providing more resources for child arrangements, finance applications, adoption and certain protective orders.

Finally, I want to champion the work of the Family Justice Young People’s Board, and set out how it contributes to improving how the family justice system is using language and terminology. The young people’s board is a group of over 50 children and young people, aged between seven and 25 years old, with either direct experience of the family justice system or with an interest in children’s rights and the family courts. It works directly with the Ministry of Justice and other partners across the family justice system to share their experiences and unique viewpoints, helping to bring a vital perspective to our work. The board has been working to demystify the family justice system for children and young people, both in private and public law proceedings.

Working with the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, the Family Justice Young People’s Board have produced several resources and guides for children that aim to break down family court terminology, as well as more complex procedural processes that children will experience in court. I encourage everyone to read their “Mind Your Language!” guide on the words for professionals to avoid using in proceedings, such as terminology that is too complex. I also recommend their first book, “In Our Shoes”, for the moving first-person testimonies it provides from children and young people going through the family justice system.

To conclude, the Government are committed to improving the experience of the family courts for children, and are taking action to make the family justice system a less adversarial experience for those who go through it. We are doing that by supporting parents to resolve their issues without the need to come to court, by improving the language and terminology used in the systems and that underpin family court, and by ensuring that at all levels the voices of children and young people who experience family justice are heard.

I reiterate the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud made; family justice system reform remains a top priority for the Government, and I can reconfirm that it remains a priority for the Lord Chancellor. The projects on law reform and reducing court backlogs are a key priority for the whole Department. As my hon. Friend stressed, if we can get people out of the courtroom, it releases court time for more complex cases. The FSG remains a key partner of the Department, and the family division sits as an observer of the family justice board. The Department is entirely aligned with the objectives of my hon. Friend and the points she raised have firmly landed. I look forward to working with her in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Freer Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I have repeatedly raised the anguish that my constituents, the parents of Chloe Rutherford and Liam Curry, are going through. Chloe and Liam were murdered in the Manchester Arena terror attack. Archaic law in relation to terror attacks prevents my constituents registering their precious children’s death. I first raised the issue in March—it was urgent then. Despite multiple promises from the Government Benches that legislative change was being considered, nothing at all has been forthcoming to me or my constituents. Why?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

I thank the hon. Lady for the work that I know she has being doing on the issue and I am very conscious that the matter is outstanding. I can only reassure her of the Government’s commitment to find a route through the current legal blockage that does not allow the families to take part in registration. I promise her that I will bring forward a solution as soon as I can.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Yesterday, The Telegraph reported on some very worrying cases of babies who were born alive but sadly died soon after, but whose deaths have been recorded as stillbirths by the hospital, meaning a coroner could not investigate. Three and a half years ago, my Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019 required the Secretary of State to prepare a report on how the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 could be amended to give coroners the power to investigate those stillbirths. Why has it still not happened?

[Mike Freer]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are still reviewing those recommendations and looking forward to bringing forward methods, with the Chief Coroner, on how we can address that backlog.

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

Will the new team look at the way we handle miscarriages of justice in this country? Will they look at the report from the all-party group on miscarriages of justice, which is chaired by me and the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and help us to reform the way in which we treat miscarriages of justice?

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Mike Freer Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I mentioned the closure of the head shops, which is really good news—good stuff. I also referred to the detective sergeant in the Drugs and Organised Crime Bureau. He outlined an issue that the Irish are now trying to address. It is good to be able to refer to other examples of hard and fast legislative change to address such issues. In the Republic of Ireland, they have been partially successful in relation to online sales—they are almost there—but we must also do that.

I commend the Minister and the Government on what they have introduced. This is the sort of legislation that I and my constituents, as well as people from across the whole of Northern Ireland, want. I look forward to supporting the Minister when it comes to a vote—if it comes to a vote.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

I thank the shadow Minister for a balanced speech that contained some well-judged comments. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his courtesy when I took a delegation to him from the National AIDS Trust, Stonewall, Millivres Prowler and Boyz magazine to discuss this topic.

It is clear not just from this debate, but from the debate that has been raging in the gay press over the past few months, that there is considerable concern over the need to ban poppers. What has come to the fore over the past few months while I have been working on the topic is the complete lack of empirical data one way or the other. I appreciate that the Home Office believes—I have no reason to think that this belief is not genuine—that deaths have occurred from the use of poppers. However, that evidence has never been forthcoming.

I therefore decided to do a bit of research of my own. I would like to draw attention to some American research, particularly that of Dr Thomas Hall of the University of California in Los Angeles, who gave evidence to the Gay Times for a report on the effects of isopropyl nitrite. I will not quote the whole document, you will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, but he said:

“There is very little specific research on the health effects of alkyl nitrites other than amyl nitrite.”

He went on to say:

“My summary statement would be that in the grand scheme of drugs of abuse, the risks from nitrite poppers are fairly benign… Isopropyl nitrite and other nitrite poppers appear to be far less harmful to the body in general than chronic alcohol consumption.”

I then looked at The New England Journal of Medicine, which stated in 2010:

“To our knowledge, over the past 10 years, there have been only two case reports of visual loss after inhalation of poppers, and the anatomical basis of this injury remains elusive.”

Finally on medical research, I turned to the US Department of Health and Human Services report of January 2014. It stated:

“To date, use of alkyl nitrites as a psychoactive substance among MSM”—

men who have sex with men—

“has received little attention in addiction textbooks, where they are subsumed among other inhalants.”

We have heard about that today. The report continues:

“This is unfortunate, because lumping these disparate agents together based on mode of administration”—

that is, inhalation—

“obscures substantial differences in both mechanism and typical risk between alkyl nitrites, which act on a specific…pathway, and inhaled solvents and propellants”

that have other effects. That is about the sum of the medical evidence that I could find.

In the absence of medical evidence or hard facts in the UK, I wrote to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The chairman could not have been more blunt. He said that poppers were

“not seen to be capable of having harmful effects”.

There has been talk of a medicinal benefit to poppers, which I thought was an interesting turn of phrase until I received an email. I have to bow to the knowledge of our SNP colleagues, because it was from a gentleman from Croy in Inverness. He said: “Alkyl nitrites are carried, used and, when the need arises, shared by many people who work in the countryside as the first line of treatment if one is bitten by an adder.”

I confess that adders are not common in Finchley and Golders Green. Mr Joyce of Croy went on to say:

“A substantial number of people are bitten each year in Britain and the bite is rarely fatal, but whether that is because the venom is not particularly powerful against modern healthy humans or because treatment, with Alkyl nitrite or one of the eight known anti-venoms, is almost always administered very quickly is a question that is open to debate.”

That email shows that there is a conflict between the views that are held and what limited information and fact are out there in the public domain.

I support the view that there is a need to provide up-to-date empirical evidence. There also needs to be proportionality. Everything that we do carries a risk, whether it is smoking or anything else. If one drinks bleach, one will be harmed, but we are not proposing to ban bleach. When we seek to control, regulate or ban anything, we must deal with it in the round and consider the proportionality of doing so.

I welcome the response to the Home Affairs Committee report, because it states that an investigation will be under way shortly into the impact of the ban on the relationships of gay men and women. I am told that this issue affects not just gay men, but gay women. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, whom I would like to call my right hon. Friend, talked about anal sex. That is quite a crude way of saying that poppers can facilitate sex, through the relaxation of muscles. However, this is not just about the physical side of a relationship. If people want their relationship to be as intimate as possible and poppers facilitate that, they are an important element in the emotional wellbeing of that couple. Therefore, if we are talking about the medicinal benefits, we have to include the emotional and mental health benefits that the use of poppers in a relationship can bring.

When we are talking about risks—I have mentioned proportionality—it is important that we do not start banning things on the basis of one or two incidents. There has to be a significant risk of significant harm to a significant number of people, otherwise we would be banning cigarettes and alcohol tomorrow.

I say to the Minister that the investigation and report must be as open and transparent as possible. I ask him to give an assurance when he responds that evidence will be taken not just from organisations such as Public Health England, elements of the NHS and the ACMD, but organisations such as the National AIDS Trust, the Terrence Higgins Trust and Stonewall. It should also be taken from organisations such as Millivres Prowler, which I believe is the largest retailer of poppers in the UK, because it has a strong, relevant and up-to-date evidence bank of how poppers are used and how they are sold. Because it is a reputable retailer, it also has an enormous amount of data on the illegal import of the more dangerous poppers that are coming in through the internet. I hope that the Minister will also say that evidence will be taken from the international bodies, a few of which I mentioned earlier, that have done medical research into the benefits or disbenefits of the use of poppers.

Finally, if the Home Office decides that there is a risk that needs to be mitigated, but that an outright ban is not necessary, I urge it to consider licensing poppers for sale through sex shops. That would allow some level of control, regulation and protection, without the need for an outright ban, which might lead people to be exposed to all sorts of underground drugs.

There is a lot of work to be done. I welcome the swift action of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). Members might think that my conclusion will be that I will support Opposition amendment 5, and I have to say that the Opposition have spoken a lot of sense. However, I will support the Government because I want an exemption based on empirical evidence. If poppers are exempted by the summer recess, as outlined in the response to the Home Affairs Committee report, that exemption could not be easily overturned on the whim of a future Home Office Minister, because it would be based on empirical evidence, whatever it says. On that basis, I will support the Government on this issue.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I think that I have to beg to move the amendments that stand in my name. If I have not to beg, I have to do something else, I am sure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Freer Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

A whole range of issues will be covered in the consultation and there will be plenty of opportunity to receive and listen to views, especially on article 8. That provision has clearly created problems concerning the deportation of foreign national offenders, and I would have thought that people across the House and the United Kingdom would support our consultation on that.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

3. If he will take steps to ensure that coroners provide an out-of-hours service for faith communities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice (Caroline Dinenage)]

The Government are committed to ensuring that bereaved people are at the heart of the coroner system, and we are working with coroners, local authorities and the police to develop a pan-London out-of-hours service. On 15 October we launched a post-implementation review of the coroner reforms of 2013, including views on the availability of out-of-hours services.

[Mike Freer]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but may I press her specifically on Orthodox Jews and Orthodox Muslims, who require a speedy service and a speedy burial? Will she commit to giving strict guidance to coroners that they should turn around such decisions so that those burials can take place very quickly?

[Caroline Dinenage]

Coroners understand and should be sensitive to the fact that some faiths have religious and cultural wishes for burials after death. They should always try to take those wishes into account. In May 2014, the Chief Coroner issued guidance to coroners on their legal duties to deal with urgent matters out of hours. As I have mentioned, we are working with key partners to develop an out-of-hours service in London.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Freer Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we want people to have such programmes as quickly as we can get them. He will recognise that the statistics we might collect—statistics on this issue are collected locally—will mask the fact that some offenders need such programmes urgently while some can perhaps wait a little longer. I understand the point he is making, and we will always try to supply as much information as we can. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s written question on this matter, I pointed out that such information is not collected centrally, which makes it hard for me to give him a figure.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

14. What his policy is on funding victims services in London.

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)]

More money than ever before is being made available for services to support victims of crime, with a potential total budget of up to £100 million—double the Ministry of Justice’s current spending of around £50 million. That means that more will be spent on victims of crime in London, with the Mayor of London making decisions on how the majority of the money will be spent.

[Mike Freer]

The figures I have from the Mayor of London show that victims in my constituency and across London will receive a 40% cut in victim support. Will the Minister agree to a capital city uplift so that my constituents are not disadvantaged?

[Damian Green]

It is simply not the case that there will be cuts in funding to London. As I have said, nationally, we are increasing funding considerably. Our current estimate is that, under the current indicative budget, London will receive more funding than is estimated to be spent under current Ministry of Justice funding arrangements. We are determined to continue to provide quality services to victims of crime both in London and in the rest of the country.

Interpreting and Translation Services

Mike Freer Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Beith]

I will return to how we proceed from here. I am tempted to comment that people always say that when it is proved that standards fell after big changes and that some of the predictions were fully justified. That should be a warning to the Government, as they engage in a number of other contracts. I will come back to that as well.

It is worth pointing out that the problems encountered by the Ministry in contracting for the work, while serious in themselves, also have implications for wide swathes of its other activities. The Ministry is putting out to contract 70% of rehabilitative services under the transforming rehabilitation proposals, £450 million in custodial services over the next six years and a large part of criminal legal aid, all of which will be the subject of contracts. I do not need to spell out that if things go wrong in those areas as they have in court interpreting, we face a multiple-train crash. Does the Ministry really have the capacity to do the kind of contracting on which many of its policy proposals are based? I am not arguing about whether it is a good or bad idea to contract out those things, but the Ministry must have the capacity to do so well and properly.

Before I turn to the substance of the report, I will mention another point of considerable concern to my Committee: the Government’s insistence that they acted reasonably in discouraging court staff from taking part in the online forum that we set up as part of our inquiry to seek personal experiences of interpretation standards in court. That was a retrograde step. We did something similar with prison officers. Many contributed to our online forum, and as a result, we produced a much better-informed report than we could otherwise have done. We did the same thing with court staff, but they were strongly pressed by the Government not to co-operate. That is deplorable. We shall continue to use such mechanisms where appropriate in our inquiries, not with any intention of getting civil servants to question policy, but to get a proper understanding of how it is working on the ground. If Departments repeatedly give that kind of non-co-operation injunction to their staff, they may find themselves in contempt of the House, and the whole House may seek to do something about it.

On the substance of our report, we recommended that the Ministry of Justice audit the amounts being expended on interpreter pay and travel and said that it might be necessary for the rate of pay for tier 1 interpreters —the most highly qualified—to be increased. We also said that the MOJ and Capita should prove that the framework agreement could attract, retain and deploy an adequate number of interpreters to meet the requirements of the courts and other agencies. We called on the professional interpreter community to work flexibly with the Ministry to find an acceptable way to restore their services to the justice sector.

In response, the Ministry introduced, with effect from May, a number of changes to the system of remuneration for interpreters, which it says amount to an average 22% increase in rates. Those changes involve mileage payments, cancellation fees, payment in 15-minute blocks rather than by the minute, payment in accordance with the qualification tier of the interpreter and a daily fee for incidental costs. We welcome those changes, but it is not yet clear that they will be enough to encourage many more interpreters to undertake work under Capita’s auspices, given the breakdown in relations between the Ministry and interpreters and the fact that many interpreters cleave to the view that the framework agreement is fundamentally flawed and cannot be salvaged.

The Ministry says in its response that it has met Professional Interpreters for Justice since late 2012, but goes on rather ruefully to say that it

“accepts that it will not always be possible to agree with the Professional Interpreters for Justice Group but seeks to maintain ongoing dialogue.”

I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Minister should try to establish better relations—I would expect no less of her in going about things—but a lot more work clearly needs to be done if the professional interpreter community is to be won back.

The group has a different slant on the dialogue. It says that it was invited to a meeting with the Ministry’s interpretation project in March, at which it was presented with a package of proposed changes. It says that changes proposed at separate meetings by interpreters registered with Capita were rejected, and it does not accept that the Government’s changes will attract and retain interpreters.

The dialogue has been inauspicious from the outset. We commented that the Ministry

“did not have a sufficient understanding of the complexities of court interpreting work prior to initiating the procurement of a new service.”

We endorsed the NAO’s conclusion that the MOJ did not give sufficient weight to the concerns and dissatisfaction expressed by many interpreters, even though having sufficient numbers of skilled interpreters was essential to the new arrangements’ success, to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt).

A constructive dialogue requires both sides to participate with good will. When we published our report, we were encouraged by the Minister’s commitment to repairing relations, but can she explain why she thinks relations between her Ministry and the main organisations do not appear to have improved? On what evidence or other basis did the Ministry choose to make the changes on which it lighted? How does the Ministry plan to monitor those changes to ensure that they bring about the desired improvements in the service?

On the quality of interpretation, we agreed with the NAO that the tiered system should be independently evaluated and that interpretation quality standards should be independently reviewed. The MOJ said that it would take that forward and report back to us on progress. The Minister gave us some more information in a letter dated 18 June. I am grateful to her for that. In the letter, she says that steps have been taken to “scope and initiate” the quality assessment and, following discussion with interpreter groups, Capita and others, will commission the advice and report back to my Committee in the autumn. Perhaps that should have been got on with a bit quicker, because it is a pretty fundamental prerequisite for improving the service. I urge swifter progress.

The Ministry has claimed that the changes to terms and conditions that it has made

“will increase the number and availability of Tier 1 and Tier 2 interpreters and therefore reduce the need to use Tier 3 interpreters”.

In her letter of 18 June, the Minister says that it is too early to say whether this is happening, although she notes that Capita says that there is an increased interest in accepting bookings from their existing pool of interpreters. I should like the Minister to report back to my Committee in the autumn on the extent to which the expectations have been satisfied.

We noted in our report problems with performance data being compiled to demonstrate the effectiveness of Capita in fulfilling courts’ requests. This is fundamental to a contract: there must be adequate performance data. Again, this reads across to some other contracts that the Ministry will have.

There were ambiguities about, for example, what constituted a customer cancellation, which is an ambiguous category. Professional Interpreters for Justice subtracts cancellations from the total number of requests, as well as failures by the contractor to deliver, to arrive at a figure of 80% of requests having been fulfilled by Capita, which is way below the contract requirement.

Even on the Ministry’s figures, performance is falling well short of the 98% target, and it tailed off markedly in January. That cannot be regarded as satisfactory. It is clear that, despite the substantial extra investment that the company has made since taking over from ALS, Capita continues to perform below the required standard under the contract.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Has the Committee had an estimate of the impact of the cost of delays, extended custody and the performance off-contract on the expected savings that this outsourcing was meant to deliver?

[Sir Alan Beith]

No, but we think that the Ministry of Justice should have some reasonable estimates of those costs. Such estimates are quite hard to put together, but we have talked to people in the courts—judges, counsel, solicitors and court staff—and they all point to incidents, each of which involves significant additional costs, which clearly have to be offset against the savings.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Mike Freer Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

Amendment 15 seeks to right a wrong that we have caused. I fear, however, that we may make errors in the Bill, not because of any intent to get things wrong, but because of the consequences of complex issues working together. Amendments 13 and 14 deal with one such issue. Where a couple are married and one transitions, there is a requirement to have a gender recognition certificate. Under current provisions, their partner would have to agree to allow them to get that certificate. Therefore, if I am married to somebody and wish to transition and change my gender, they get to veto whether that is fully legally recognised. Why should that be? A relationship might have terminally broken down for some reason, in which case it is possibly heading towards divorce, but that may not be so. The couple might not wish to go through that, yet one person is allowed to say to the other, “You may not do this; you may not legally change your gender fully. You will have to force through a divorce, which can take a very long time.” We should try to avoid the spousal veto.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree it is bizarre that a man or woman who is transitioning can have surgery and change their name but cannot have a gender realignment certificate without spousal approval?

[Dr Huppert]

I find it very bizarre. There are a number of anomalies in the whole process because of how it is set up, but a gender recognition certificate may be applied for only two years after someone has transitioned into the acquired gender full time, so there has already been quite a long time to try to sort out other issues. Amendments 13 and 14 would simply end the spousal veto, so that people who transition do not have to rely on their spouses to give approval. Some spouses will not give permission for that to happen.

Amendment 16 deals with marriage and birth certificates when there are transgender issues. It argues that replacement marriage certificates should be available for people who have transitioned, so that we do not force them to be outed every time they have to show a marriage certificate. We would reissue a marriage certificate with the original date and new names. That is a simple thing, but it will make a big difference. Not everybody who has transitioned wants to be known as somebody who transitioned. Many people just want to be known by their new name and new gender, and they do not wish to explain their past in every case. They already face that often enough when dealing with various institutions and medical issues. We should not force people to out themselves every time that they need to present a marriage certificate.

--- Later in debate ---

Now that we are debating the final set of amendments to the Bill, however, I have to ask where the call is for the details that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) mentioned. Where are the demands to drive those changes? There is certainly a trajectory in society that suggests that the amendments should be debated as part of the wider Bill. Like other MPs, I have had a full postbag and inbox, and I am grateful for the correspondence on these issues. Some of the language has been quite creative and provocative.

[Mike Freer]

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Speaking as a gay man in a civil partnership, I had no idea that my pension rights could be curtailed until someone wrote to me about it. The reason my hon. Friend might not have had much about that in his postbag could be that most gay people in a civil partnership have no idea that they are being discriminated against if they are in a contracted-in scheme.

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The question is whether the Bill should be the vehicle for making those changes, but I very much respect his views.

I represent the beautiful, very diverse constituency of Bournemouth East. It has a substantial elderly population—some Members of Parliament have chosen to call Bournemouth “God’s waiting room”—as well as a vibrant town centre with a huge gay population. It is also a university town. So it has an elderly population and a young generation, as well as a large gay community. I have talked to members of the gay community about the Bill. I have also made an effort to speak to religious groups, individuals and organisations across the town, not only about pensions but about matters such as gender recognition. We debated those matters in schools as well. I have to say that I heard no significant call for these proposals generally, and certainly not for the provision in amendment 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). There were no planned demonstrations or pent-up anger because the issues had not been addressed.

Many people in the gay community like the general proposals in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) has just pointed out, certain aspects in life need to be corrected, and this debate has been helpful in that regard. In general terms, however, most of the people I spoke to said, “Go away and focus on the economy.” They suggested that this was an important issue, but wondered why we were dealing with it right now.

The Bill was not mentioned in any Queen’s Speech, and I believe that the Government could have helped themselves by following the normal protocol of announcing that the measures would be introduced in a particular legislative period. Given that backdrop, I take my hat off to the Secretary of State and her Ministers for their stamina in pursuing the amendments they have tabled. They must have known from the start how controversial the amendments and the Bill as a whole would be. I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s assurances, especially on Government amendment 25.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

May I return to the topic of amendment 49, which I was very pleased to co-sign with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)?

Let me start by reassuring my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) that building a stable and cohesive society is one of the most fundamental roles of Government, so to be doing that today through debating this Bill is a highly appropriate use of parliamentary time. To those who ask whether we should be doing something else, I say that I can, perhaps unusually for a man, multi-task, so I think I can manage both to speak in this debate and to deal with other pressing issues.

Turning specifically to the amendment, it is important to distinguish between contracted-in and contracted-out pensions. This is quite a technical change and it does not apply to contracted-out pensions; it applies only to contracted-in pensions. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, two-thirds of pension schemes already allow spousal survivors in civil partnerships equivalent widow or widower benefits without having to be forced to do so by the law, but one-third of them are discriminating. What is worse, that is an optional discrimination; they are choosing to discriminate against surviving civil partners in contracted-in pension schemes.

Let me try to explain why that is so fundamentally wrong. The hon. Lady gave the example of John Walker. Had he married a woman, she would have got a pension on his death of £41,000, but his civil partner got a pension of just £500 per annum. That diversity is the wrong kind of diversity; that is pure discrimination. Let us assume two men or two women join a pension scheme on the same day, and they both have the same level of service, and they both enter into some form of partnership, but one gets married and the other goes into a civil partnership, and let us also assume that the day after they get married or enter their civil partnership, they are both, by some quirk of fate, killed in a car accident. The pension of the widow in marriage will be go back to the date her former husband joined the pension scheme, let us say some 20 years previously, but the civil partner only gets to go as far back as when civil partnerships came into law. That cannot be right by any stretch of the imagination.

When researching why the Government were resisting this amendment, I was told that one of the issues is the cost factor. Everything we as a Government do has a cost, so I thought there must be some huge cost—perhaps £4 billion, which was a ready price-tag yesterday. In fact, the cost of giving equal pension rights on contracted-in pensions to civil partners is £18 million—not £80 million or £80 billion, but £18 million. It is true that that is a lot of money, and I certainly would not mind having £18 million in my bank account, but let me put that into perspective. The assets under management of the pension industry amount to £360 billion, so the cost of removing this anomaly is 0.006% of assets under management. I do not think that is a price we cannot afford.

I was also told that it is wrong to force pension providers to make retrospective calculations on which they did not base their pension actuarial decisions. That, too, is a flawed argument. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, the actuaries behind a pension scheme make a whole variety of assumptions about longevity, how many of their pensioners will die in service and how many of them will die as a pensioner, and how long they will stay in the pension, and the accrual rate will be based on an assumption that most of their members will get married. It is complete nonsense to suggest that pension providers cannot allow civil partners who survive to get the same benefit as a widow or widower because it has not been accrued, as there is absolutely no evidence that the actuaries have not been able to make that calculation. If they made the calculation that X% of their pensioners would get married, they could simply make assumptions about a man in a civil partnership. They will have had no knowledge of whether that man or woman would have decided to get married or to enter a civil partnership and there is no logical or financial reason why the anomaly cannot be removed.

I hope that the Minister will give some commitment from the Government that the anomaly will be reconsidered. I know it was mentioned in Committee and that the Government are resisting the amendments, but I urge my ministerial colleagues to address the issue.

[James Duddridge]

I totally support the comments my hon. Friend is making about removing the anomaly. Is there a list of companies that are already doing the right thing and, crucially, those that are doing the wrong thing? Are those companies named and shamed? Often, when we flick through the glossy corporate reports they say lots of glowing things and that the company is doing the right thing, but are they putting their money where their mouth is and supporting equal rights?

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have tried to dig around to find out the size of liabilities and which companies are doing this, but unfortunately I cannot find that information. It is fair to say that many corporates take great pleasure in trumpeting in their annual reports what they would regard as their social responsibility, but I think that they should be saying loud and proud—to coin a phrase—that they are treating civil partners in the same way as heterosexual widows and widowers.

I hope that my ministerial colleagues can give some ground and say that the Government are willing to reconsider the matter. The cost is not even a rounding error in the Government accounts or for the pension industry, but the benefit to the recipients is beyond value.

[Kate Green]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Grant]

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

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

[Mike Freer]

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

[Mrs Grant]

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

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

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

[Mike Freer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Grant]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Freer]

I raised that question because of the anomaly that a gay man or a straight man joining the pension scheme will pay contributions at the same rate but receive different benefits, which is discrimination.

[Dr Huppert]

It is absolutely discriminatory. It is also the case that a bisexual man or woman would pay at the same rate and would get a different pension transferred depending who they happen to end up with. That seems truly bizarre. The position is not at all sustainable and if the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion presses her amendment to the vote, I expect that I and my colleagues will support her. It is a free vote but I promise my support. However, given that Opposition Front Benchers have said they will not support the proposal, I will understand if the hon. Lady wants to leave her amendment for consideration in another place. The situation is completely unsustainable and it should not last the passage of this Bill. Amendment 15 is right in principle, but I accept that it will not win support, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

Effect of extension of marriage

Amendment made: 25, page 11, line 8, leave out from ‘other’ to end of line 10 and insert

‘ecclesiastical law (whether or not contained in England and Wales legislation, and, if contained in England and Wales legislation, whenever passed or made).’.—(Maria Miller.)

Clause 15

Orders and regulations

Amendments made: 26, page 12, line 36, leave out from ‘order’ to ‘would’ in line 38 and insert

‘or regulations under this Act, except an order under section18(3), containing provision which’.

Amendment 27, in clause 15, page 12, line 40, leave out ‘consult’ and insert ‘obtain the consent of’.

Amendment 28, in clause 15, page 12, line 41, leave out from ‘order’ to ‘would’ in line 42 and insert

‘or regulations under this Act, except an order under section18(3), containing provision which’.—(Maria Miller.)

Clause 17

Extent

Amendments made: 51, page 14, line 1, at end insert

‘, except for section (Review of civil partnership)’.

Amendment 52, in clause 17, page 14, line 5, at end insert

‘, except for section (Review of civil partnership)’.—(Maria Miller.)

Schedule 2

Extra-territorial matters

Amendment made: 29, page 21, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (5).—(Maria Miller.)

Schedule 3

Interpretation of legislation

Amendments made: 30, page 23, line 30, leave out from beginning to ‘legislation’ in line 32 and insert

‘In existing England and Wales’.

Amendment 31, page 24, line 7, leave out

‘which has effect as indicated in section 11(2)’.

Amendment 32, page 24, line 21, leave out

‘which has effect as indicated in section 11(2) and’.—(Maria Miller.)

Schedule 4

Effect of extension of marriage: further provision

Amendments made: 33, page 26, line 28, leave out from ‘courts)’ to end of line 30 on page 27 and insert

‘is amended in accordance with this paragraph.

‘(2) Subsection (1): after “entertain” insert “any of the following proceedings in relation to a marriage of a man and a woman”.

(3) After subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) Schedule A1 (jurisdiction in relation to marriage of same sex couples) has effect.”.

(4) Subsection (6): after “Wales” insert “(whether the proceedings are in respect of the marriage of a man and a woman or the marriage of a same sex couple)”.

7 Section 6 (miscellaneous amendments, transitional provision and savings), subsection (3): after “Act” (in the first place) insert “, or by virtue of Schedule A1 to this Act,”.

8 Before Schedule 1 insert—

“SCHEDULE A1

Jurisdiction in relation to marriage of same sex couples

Introduction

1 This Schedule shall have effect, subject to section 6(3) and (4), with respect to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain any of the following proceedings in relation to a marriage of a same sex couple—

(a) proceedings for divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage;

(b) proceedings for an order which ends a marriage on the ground that one of the couple is dead; and

(c) proceedings for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage.’.

Amendment 34, page 27, line 32, leave out ‘a divorce order’ and insert ‘divorce’.

Amendment 35, page 28, line 3, leave out ‘a nullity order’ and insert ‘nullity of marriage’.

Amendment 36, page 28, line 28, leave out from ‘for’ to ‘even’ in line 29 and insert

‘divorce, judicial separation or nullity of marriage’.

Amendment 37, page 28, line 32, leave out from ‘for’ to end of line 38 and insert

‘an order which ends a marriage on the ground that one of the couple is dead on an application made by the other of the couple (“the applicant”) if (and only if)—

(a) at the time the application is made, the High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain an application by the applicant under section 1 of the Presumption of Death Act 2013 for a declaration that the applicant’s spouse is presumed to be dead, and’.

Amendment 38, page 28, line 44, leave out ‘of validity’ and insert

‘as to the validity of a marriage’.

Amendment 39, page 29, line 47, at end insert—

8A (1) Schedule 1 (staying of matrimonial proceedings in England and Wales: interpretation), paragraph 2: after “kinds” insert “(whether relating to a marriage of a man and a woman or a marriage of a same sex couple)”.

Transitory provision until commencement of Presumption of Death Act 2013

8B (1) This paragraph applies if section 1 of the Presumption of Death Act 2013 has not come into force at the time when the amendments of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 made by the other provisions of this Part of this Schedule come into force.

(2) Schedule A1 to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 has effect with the following modifications until section 1 of the Presumption of Death Act 2013 comes into force.

(3) Paragraph 1 has effect with the following provision substituted for paragraph (b)—

(b) proceedings for death to be presumed and a marriage to be dissolved in pursuance of section 19 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; and”.

(4) Schedule A1 has effect with the following provision substituted for paragraph 3—

3 The court has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for death to be presumed and a marriage to be dissolved if (and only if)—

(a) the applicant is domiciled in England and Wales on the date when the proceedings are begun,

(b) the applicant was habitually resident in England and Wales throughout the period of 1 year ending with that date, or

(c) the two people concerned married each other under the law of England and Wales and it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to assume jurisdiction in the case.”.’.

Amendment 40, page 34, line 4, at end insert ‘, or

(c) married to a person of the same sex in a relevant gender change case.

“(1B) The reference in sub-paragraph (1A)(c) to a relevant gender change case is a reference to a case where—

(a) the married couple were of the opposite sex at the time of their marriage, and

(b) a full gender recognition certificate has been issued to one of the couple under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.”.’.

Amendment 41, page 34, line 13, after ‘(2)’ insert ‘—

(a) paragraph (a): after “man” insert “, or a woman in a relevant gender change case,”;

(b) ’.

Amendment 42, page 34, line 18, after ‘woman’ insert

‘(other than in a relevant gender change case)’.

Amendment 43, page 34, line 27, at end insert—

‘( ) After subsection (9) insert—

(10) In relation to an earner who is a woman, a reference in this section to a relevant gender change case is a reference to a case where—

(a) the earner is a woman by virtue of a full gender recognition certificate having been issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and

(b) the marriage of the earner and her widow (that ends with the earner’s death) subsisted before the time when the certificate was issued.

(11) This section is subject to regulations under section 38A.”.’.

Amendment 44, page 34, line 29, after ‘woman’ insert

‘or a woman married to a woman in a relevant gender change case’.

Amendment 45, page 34, line 32, after ‘woman’ insert

‘(other than in a relevant gender change case)’.

Amendment 46, page 34, line 34, at end insert—

‘( ) After subsection (3) insert—

(4) In relation to an earner who is a woman, a reference in this section to a relevant gender change case is a reference to a case where—

(a) the earner is a woman by virtue of a full gender recognition certificate having been issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and

(b) the marriage of the earner and her widow (that ends with the earner’s death) subsisted before the time when the certificate was issued.

(5) This section is subject to regulations under section 38A.”.’.

Amendment 47, page 34, line 35, leave out paragraph 20 and insert—

20 (1) Section 37 (alteration of rules of contracted-out schemes) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (4) substitute—

(4) The reference in subsection (3) to a person entitled to receive benefits under a scheme includes a person who is so entitled by virtue of a qualifying relationship only in such cases as may be prescribed.

(5) For that purpose a person is entitled to receive benefits by virtue of a qualifying relationship if the person is so entitled by virtue of being—

(a) the widower of a female earner;

(b) the widower of a male earner;

(c) the widow of a female earner, except where it is a relevant gender change case; or

(d) the survivor of a civil partnership with an earner.

(6) In relation to a widow of a female earner, the reference in subsection (5)(c) to a relevant gender change case is a reference to a case where—

(a) the earner is a woman by virtue of a full gender recognition certificate having been issued under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and

(b) the marriage of the earner and her widow (that ends with the earner’s death) subsisted before the time when the certificate was issued.

(7) This section is subject to regulations under section 38A.”.

20A Before section 39 insert—

“38A Regulations about relevant gender change cases

(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision for—

(a) section 17,

(b) section 24D, or

(c) section 37,

to have its special effect in relevant gender change cases only if conditions prescribed in the regulations are met.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, prescribe conditions that relate to the provision of information by—

(a) one or both of the members of married same sex couples, or

(b) the survivors of such couples.

(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make further provision about cases where (because of regulations under subsection (1))—

(a) section 17,

(b) section 24D, or

(c) section 37,

does not have its special effect in relevant gender change cases.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular, provide for the section in question to have its ordinary effect in relevant gender change cases.

(5) Regulations under subsection (1) or (3) may, in particular, modify or disapply any enactment that concerns information relating to—

(a) the gender or sex of a person, or

(b) the change of gender or sex of a person,

including any enactment that concerns requests for, or disclosure of, such information.

(6) In this section, in relation to section 17, 24D or 37—

(a) “relevant gender change case” has the same meaning as in that section;

(b) “special effect” means the effect which the section has (if regulations under subsection (1) of this section are ignored) in relation to relevant gender change cases, insofar as that effect is different from the section’s ordinary effect;

(c) “ordinary effect” means the effect which the section has in relation to same sex married couples in cases that are not relevant gender change cases.”.’.—(Maria Miller.)

Schedule 6

Marriage overseas

Amendment made: 48, page 45, line 31, at end insert—

‘(2) In the case of an Order in Council containing provision which would (if contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament) be within the legislative competence of that Parliament, no recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty under this paragraph unless the Scottish Ministers have been consulted.

(3) In the case of an Order in Council containing provision which would (if contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly) be within the legislative competence of that Assembly, no recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty under this paragraph unless the Department of Finance and Personnel has been consulted.’.—(Maria Miller.)

Title

Amendment made: 54, title, line 4 after ‘overseas,’ insert

‘and for the review of civil partnership,’.—(Maria Miller.)

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We should recognise those people’s marriages. We should be proud to do so, and we hope that other countries across the world will join us, including countries where there is still terrible homophobic discrimination, which we should be fighting against. I hope we can lead the way by championing this Bill. We should remind people why we are doing this. It is time to give same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples to get married. It is time for equality in marriage.

[Mike Freer]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for taking a chance on me. This week alone, two more countries and six states in America have approved same-sex marriage. Is not the tide of history with us and not against us?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I pay tribute to the work he has done to champion this legislation. I think we are on the right side of history by taking it forward. It is time to celebrate, not discriminate, when a couple decide they want to make a promise to stick together for as long as they both shall live.

I have had many letters and e-mails since Second Reading; I want to share some briefly with the House. One man wrote to me describing the difficulties he had had being accepted by his family because of his sexuality. He said:

“'My partner of 14 years is neither recognised nor accepted. It is however fantastic to hear politicians…standing up for people like me, ensuring that we can become equals at least in the eyes of the state, if not in the eyes of our parents and our religions.”

Another wrote to me to say:

“I’m a 23 year old gay man…I’ve had people tell me all my life that I am less worthy, wrong and sinful because of my sexuality, and although I’ve been incredibly lucky to have supportive family and friends throughout, it does grind you down. And it can hurt, really and truly hurt.”

He, too, described the importance of seeing politicians in this House

“so publicly and passionately support the rights of people like myself and many others to have a more equal standing in society is really one of the most empowering things that can be done—political leaders standing up for those whose voices so often get silenced. I truly feel it is an historic moment in Britain and all I can say is thank you.”

That is what this Bill is all about. Rarely is legislation so personal. Rarely does this House have the chance strongly to reaffirm the equal respect we have for every human being, regardless of their sexuality, and the equal respect we have for their loving, long-term relationships.

We have heard strong objections to the Bill in the course of these debates. In this House we show respect for each other’s views, even though we disagree with them. Some have been concerned about the impact of the Bill on their faith and some have objected to aspects of it on grounds of their faith. It is important for us to respect freedom of religion, and I believe that the Bill has done exactly that. I hope those Members will feel reassured that their concerns have been respected. Of course, no religious organisation or priest can be required to conduct same-sex marriage and there are multiple locks in the Bill to prevent that from happening.

It is also important to remember that many people with strong faith, of all faiths, strongly support this Bill. We should not see it as something that promotes a secular-faith divide, because it does not. I am pleased, too, that Quakers, Unitarians and Reform Judaism have said that they want to be able to celebrate same-sex marriages. I am pleased that they will be able to do so as a result of this Bill. I hope that other faiths will change their minds over time, because that is freedom of religion too.

We have heard other objections to the Bill in these debates. We have heard people claim that allowing gay and lesbian couples to get married will somehow undermine the marriage of heterosexual couples, but how will it? There are MPs in this House who want to get married who will be able to do so as a result of this Bill: excellent—I personally hope I get an invitation to the reception—but does that undermine my marriage? How could it—unless, of course, they want to marry the shadow Chancellor, which could pose a few challenges. This Bill does not undermine the marriage of anybody in this House or across the country. The idea that two brides tying the knot says anything about the relationship of their neighbours next door is simply ludicrous. Nor is it good enough to say that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, because marriage has rightly changed before and it can do so again. That is not a definition; it is discrimination.

We have seen this subject become part of the internal debates within the Conservative party. To Conservative Members I would simply say that fighting over Europe is one thing—they are welcome to that—but I hope that they will stop fighting over this. I hope that they will join Members across the House in being proud of this Bill. I have heard many Conservative Members talk about the anger in their constituencies and the anger among their party members. I hope that they will now feel able to stop talking about the anger and to start talking about the joy. This is about the joy that we can deliver for those who want to get married just as their parents did, the joy that we can make possible for the couple who want to get married just as their sister or brother did last year, and the joy that we can provide by saying to couples across Britain, “We won’t discriminate against you on the ground of your sexuality. We respect, support and celebrate your relationship.”

Members might recall that I argued on Second Reading that marriage was about the joy and the sorrow, about the excitement and the tragedy, and about the romance of the wedding day as well as the deeper romance of growing old and grey together, even once the party has faded. I gave the example of an elderly couple, one of whom was caring for the other who had dementia. I described the love, commitment and duty that that showed, and said how powerful that was, whether it was between a man and a woman, two men or two women. In response to that, I received an e-mail from a man who wrote:

“I was particularly touched at your reference to a couple enduring dementia. This is precisely what my parents are now facing after 54 years of marriage. The example they have shown me over my lifetime and now that my mother suffers with the disease is precisely what marriage is all about. I try every day to live up to their example, as I enjoy a wonderful relationship with my partner whom I love very much. I expect in this day and age, and for generations to come, that we should be able to have our commitment to each other acknowledged in law in an equal way with our straight friends. Your argument is truly Christian in nature, entirely humanist and on the right side of history. My partner and I, our families, and our future children thank you from the bottom of our hearts.”

I thank all those who are supporting the Bill. Let us be loud and proud. Let us start the singing. Let us celebrate, not discriminate. Let us pass this Bill. Let us put aside the anger, and let us hear it for the joy.