Migration Statistics

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, the survey relies on full and frank answers from those being interviewed even to include them. If people say that they are just visiting a relative for a week, they are not counted as migrants. To that extent, the 70,000 range for potential error within the 95% confidence interval is of significant size for the estimate.

If annual immigration is 120,000 or 150,000, there is only a 5% or one in 20 chance that the official figures are on target. The figures could say that the Government are missing their net immigration target by tens of thousands when in fact they are meeting it, or they could show that the UK is meeting its target when in fact it is missing it by tens of thousands. We do not have enough confidence to know. It is clearly a completely inadequate measure of net migration, but we must be careful before dismissing it, because it is all we have.

That degree of confidence applies only to the headline numbers. The ONS estimate simply does not provide sufficient detail to judge properly the social and economic consequences of different types and origins of migration, and the effects of immigration policy on, for example, students or people from particular countries. Nor does it provide any useful idea about international migration in and out of local areas. Efforts to achieve a blunt net migration target are therefore bound to have unintended consequences, such as skills shortages and effects on universities.

The shortcomings of relying on the IPS were highlighted when the 2011 census showed that the population of England and Wales was 465,000 higher than expected, given the recorded number of births and deaths and the estimated level of net migration during the decade since the previous census. The ONS identified several possible causes for the difference but considered that the

“largest single cause is most likely to be underestimation of long-term immigration from central and eastern Europe in the middle part of the decade”,

which of course was not picked up by the international passenger survey. The ONS concluded that the underestimation came partly from taking samples of people from the wrong airports. That is, the IPS sample under-represented airports such as Cardiff and ports such as Newcastle, where more immigrants are coming in than was previously understood.

As a result, this April, the ONS published a revised set of net migration estimates for the United Kingdom for the period 2001 to 2011. Total net migration during that period is now estimated to have been 346,000 higher than previously thought; the original estimate of 2.18 million has been revised to 2.53 million, plus or minus 35,000.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

With current technology, there is no reason not to have accurate figures, never mind estimates. Clearly, the most appropriate way to get them is at ports of entry and departure, but I have gone through Heathrow and Gatwick airports and seen enormous queues of people coming in who are non-EU citizens; it is actually quite bad for EU citizens. My only caution is that if we are to get adequate figures, we must ensure that sufficient personnel are made available, so we do not have 24-hour backlogs of people coming through our airports at entry.

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend highlights the complexity of moving purely to a counting in and counting out system. Only two countries in the world base their immigration and emigration estimates entirely on counting. One is Australia, which is a good example. A less encouraging example is North Korea. However, every other country in the world bases its migration flow estimates on samples, measuring and estimating or a population register. Germany, for example, keeps an up-to-date population register—the equivalent of a census kept constantly up to date—to monitor its migration flows.

We are in a no man’s land at the moment. We neither count effectively nor sample effectively, and even though we have the decennial census, which has provided the correction of 346,000, that does not resolve the problem between censuses. The underestimation of net migration was identified only by the census on a 10-yearly basis, so the ONS is unable to revise its annual estimates of immigration and emigration as components of migration during the same period, even though it knows that they must be wrong. As a result, for the years from 2001 to 2011, our best estimate of net migration each year is not equal to our best estimate of immigration minus our best estimate of emigration. We are into an Alice in Wonderland world of numbers in which we know that our official figures for each year are wrong, but they cannot be changed, as we have no other sources to use.

In all probability, the actual population of the country will be even larger than that recorded in the census. Many people in the country do not consider themselves to be “residents” and thus decide not to complete the census form. Many others, who have overstayed or are in the country illegally for other reasons, are most unlikely to complete the form. Immigration will thus have been even higher in the last decade than was estimated by the census.

The PASC concluded that the UK’s immigration statistics are not fit for purpose. There was some pushback from the Home Office in reaction to our report last summer, but I think we have to regard that as a natural reaction of denial about the failure of the system of immigration statistics that has been building up for decades. The UK Statistics Authority agrees with us in that respect, saying in its response to our report:

“The limitations of the International Passenger Survey (IPS) in particular and UK international migration statistics in general, especially for local areas, have long been known and debated. The Statistics Authority believes that action must now be taken to address this.”

As I mentioned, when we look at smaller groupings within the 3,000 immigrants identified, such as immigrants from the EU or from specific countries, the system becomes even less reliable, as the 95% confidence interval becomes larger relative to the size of the sample, eventually becoming larger than the sample itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Turner]

That is absolutely right, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing it out.

I also welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Public Administration Committee’s recommendation to use data held by other countries. The Government are hamstrung by EU free movement legislation, which prevents their gathering information on why people from EU countries are coming to the UK and how long they intend to stay.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the normal price for a visa is £83, but for people staying a year or more the price is £300? That is a substantial sum. Surely some of that visa money should be allocated to ensuring that we have proper software and data collection systems in place. I do not apologise for going back to make certain that people are welcomed when they come into the United Kingdom via our airports. We want to ensure that people, particularly tourists, are not kept unduly in long queues while we collect the data that are necessary for us to have accurate information.

[Mr Turner]

We should be able to collect the data rapidly, as we all recognise. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering what can be done. In the meantime, I urge the Minister to make all possible information available to the ONS to help it improve its statistical analysis of migration figures. I ask him to keep in mind possible sources of information that might help the ONS and make those sources of information available, and to do so even when he is not being held directly to account by the Public Administration Committee, the Home Affairs Committee, the whole House or even those who sit in another place. I hope he is able to assure me that he will do so.

People across the UK, whatever their political persuasion, welcome the Government’s aim to cut immigration. In 2003, I made it clear that growing immigration levels would have an effect on the already overstretched jobs market, as well as on the public services to which immigrants would become entitled. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) echoed my statement. There is huge demand for housing in our cities and larger towns, with consequent movement into more rural towns, which was called “white flight.” My statement followed the admission of the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), that he “hadn’t a clue” about the number of illegal immigrants in the UK.

Even some of those on the Opposition Benches now decry Labour’s disastrous policy of opening this country’s doors to all comers—a policy with no mandate, implemented in secret. Andrew Neather, a former Government adviser, suggested that Labour’s policy was

“to rub the Right’s nose in diversity.”

Labour conducted its affairs privately so that, by encouraging mass migration, it would not alienate its core working-class vote. Such actions are neither acceptable nor beneficial to the country in any way.

The Labour Government brought two and a half cities the size of Birmingham—a total of almost 3 million people—to this country without breathing a word. There is little doubt that we have made significant progress in putting better controls in place and repairing some of the damage, but we need accurate statistics that demonstrate that our policies are working. So as well as knowing who is coming in, we need to know who is leaving. I hope the Home Secretary’s expectation that full exit checks will be in place by next year is met.

I will draw my remarks to a close by saying that I understand how difficult a job my hon. Friend the Minister and his Conservative predecessors have had. They inherited a right old muddle, and sorting it out was never going to be easy or quick, but if people are to have confidence in migration statistics, those statistics need to chime with the reality of people’s day-to-day experiences. At present, the statistics simply do not do that, so I particularly welcome the Government’s sensible and positive response to the Committee’s recommendations on communicating the statistics to the public better. These are complex issues, but improvements in communicating the data will help the public to understand them better and lead to more informed debate, which is something we will all welcome.

Home Affairs

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), as we are both alumni of the London Nautical school, albeit a few years apart. I leave it to Members to judge what has happened to the educational standards there since I left, but it is a pleasure to follow him. This is the first time that I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), have spoken in the Chamber in the past couple of years in a debate without a time limit on Back-Bench speeches. Nevertheless, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware of your exhortation and I shall attempt to be as brief as I can.

I am not sure whether this Queen’s Speech is the final act of this Government or the epilogue. It is patently clear that it is not designed for a full Session of Parliament; it is not a full programme at all. Given the provisions for five-year Parliaments, this Parliament will be dissolved at the end of March, so this is a programme for little more than nine months, including the times when the House is in recess.

The Queen’s Speech contains some welcome measures—I cannot think of any Queen’s Speech introduced by any Government that did not contain some welcome measures—although the devil will be in the detail, and more information needs to be obtained. The Modern Slavery Bill, which the Home Secretary and others have mentioned, commands universal support across the House, and we can only hope that it will have the desired effect.

The measures relating to child care costs will also be welcome, provided they do not merely translate into increased prices from the providers of child care, as has been the case in the past. I also welcome the further reforms to pensions, although we should tread warily, given the history of mis-selling of pension products once that market had been liberalised. I also note that the Government intend to introduce a more collective approach to pensions, along the lines of the system currently operating in the Netherlands. My understanding, however, is that the Netherlands Government are considering changing their scheme. We must also bear in mind the fact that the contributors to that scheme pay substantially more than people in this country are used to contributing to their pensions. None the less, I am sure that we can make progress in that regard.

Other measures are more contentious, even though this Queen’s Speech is very thin. The infrastructure Bill will contain measures on fracking, and the Government are engaged in a three-month consultation period on that at the moment. There are those who are opposed to fossil fuels, full stop, and who would never accept the case for fracking, even if it were totally safe for the environment and for residents. However, there is always a conflict in which the broader national interest is set against legitimate local concerns. Everyone will be keen to see the results of the Government’s consultation.

Further controversy might arise over the proposed levy on plastic carrier bags, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. I would have thought that such a proposal would have registered as one of Lynton Crosby’s barnacles, yet it still seems to be in the Queen’s Speech. We must assess the environmental impact of 7 billion bags being used each year. If the Bill’s objective is achieved, I am not sure who will get the income from the levy. I suspect that it will simply save the supermarkets an awful lot of money and increase their sales of bin-liners, because that is what most people use their plastic carrier bags for, but we shall have to wait and see how events unfold.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

It was a delight to hear Her Majesty say the words “plastic carrier bags”, but I am sure that that is not the reason why they were put into the Queen’s Speech. Money will be raised from the levy initially, although I believe that it will deter people from using such bags in the longer term. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this will provide the supermarkets with an opportunity to direct that money towards some kind of social networking or community action groups within their areas, in order to support local communities?

[Jim Dowd]

The charitable and philanthropic activities of the supermarkets are of course to be welcomed wherever they occur; most supermarkets have community schemes of some kind. There is a paradox involved, however. If the aim of this tax, levy or cost—whatever we care to call it—is to reduce demand, very little income will be generated by it. I was as amazed as everyone else to hear Her Majesty utter the words “plastic carrier bags”, as I am not sure how often she comes across such things, but it was not clear whether the objective of the measure is to depress demand or to raise revenue. We will discover from the details whether it will be beneficial. I openly confess that the first job I ever had was in my local supermarket. In those days, we had nothing so glamorous as plastic carrier bags. We had brown paper bags with handles that almost invariably came off when anyone put more than a couple of tins of beans in them.

The hon. Member for Peterborough mentioned the proposed recall provisions—the so-called recall provisions. I think they are inadequate; they do not command a wide degree of public trust. I have also seen early-day motion 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), and that does not make much sense either, even though he is a stern critic of the Government’s proposals. Far more consideration needs to be given to this matter. We need to reach a conclusion that will be workable and viable, and that will command public support.

I am deeply disappointed by the absence of one measure from the Queen’s Speech, despite a previous indication from the Prime Minister that it would be included. The absence of a commitment to ban the use of wild animals in circuses is extremely disappointing, especially as the Prime Minister pledged that action would be taken when he met a delegation from various animal welfare charities in April this year. This measure might well be one of Lynton Crosby’s barnacles that the Government have rejected, but it is undeniably extremely popular with the public and I cannot understand why the Government do not just introduce this simple measure, given that it has such widespread public support.

In the light of that, I have today tabled the following early-day motion:

“That this House is deeply disappointed that the Gracious Speech did not contain measures to ban the use of wild animals in circuses, despite repeated pledges from Ministers that action would be taken; notes that since the House of Commons voted unanimously in favour of a ban in 2011 big cats have returned to Britain and is concerned that the continued delay may lead to other wild species being forced to perform in circuses; further notes that the draft Wild Animals in Circuses Bill has already been scrutinised by the Environment and Rural Affairs Committee; supports Animal Defenders International and other animal welfare organisations in their ongoing campaign to end this outdated practice and calls on the Government to introduce legislation to ensure a ban can be introduced during the current session.”

Extremism

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that the vast majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom despise hate crimes, extremism and terrorism, and that we in this House all have a duty to do what we can to promote inclusion within our own communities?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that everyone in the House has a duty to promote inclusion. He is also right that the majority of people in Muslim communities despise hate crimes. Sadly, too many people in Muslim communities are themselves the victims of hate crimes; we should not forget that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is being so negative. I have seen that report. More people, including women and people with disabilities, are participating in sport in this country than ever before, which should be celebrated. Of course there is more to do, and we will do it. We are focusing action on 14 to 25-year-olds, who have competing demands on their time. We expect the sports bodies to focus on this. If they do not, there will be consequences. They receive a large amount of public money, and if they cannot produce the goods, we will get other people involved.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)]

T3. If the Secretary of State came to Lancashire and had a selfie done with me and was enthusiastic to show it to the wider public, she would find that uploading it would be a bit hit and miss, because in Lancashire only 55% have access to superfast broadband, compared with 65% nationally. Will she ensure that, rather than being left in the digital dinosaur age, Lancashire will have superfast broadband rolled out as quickly as possible, and that 100% will get access to it?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right to say that every corner of the country needs to be in our targets when it comes to rolling out superfast broadband. I am delighted to tell him that that is exactly why the Government are investing more than £1 billion of public money in rolling out rural superfast broadband. We are making rapid progress in his area. As of the end of last month, more than 11,000 premises had been passed, and Ofcom data now show that Lancashire county council has more than 67% availability of superfast broadband. We are making progress, but we need to ensure that that continues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

VisitEngland and VisitBritain do very good work, and I am sure they both have comprehensive strategies, but the hon. Gentleman has made a good point. I shall be happy to meet him and hear about any ideas that he may have, and I shall certainly pass them on.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)]

One iconic institution that attracts a lot of tourism into the United Kingdom—and, indeed, within the United Kingdom—is the great British pub, where people can enjoy tremendous real ales, tremendous food and a wonderful welcome, but far too many pubs are still closing every week. Will my hon. Friend discuss with fellow Ministers what more can be done to retain the vitality of this amazing industry, particularly in the realms of rate relief for rural pubs?

[Mrs Grant]

I am very fond of my own local pub, the Unicorn in Marden, and I do step in there now and again. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are doing a great deal to assist the business sector, and that includes helping pubs by reducing fuel and beer duties. We are also trying to simplify planning, and are continuing to cut red tape, regulation and bureaucracy.

Immigration Rules: Sponsors

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Kerry McCarthy, I must explain that, at 5 o’clock, the hon. Lady will be interrupted so that the same question can be put by the Whip. It is a procedural thing that will no doubt be looked at by the Modernisation Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend cites a number of cases. I think this whole process is unfair because it is quite clear that families who can afford to maintain themselves without making any demands on public funds are being kept apart. My hon. Friend has cases of people returning to the UK, and just this week I have had two constituents contact me about similar issues. One case was a man returning here from India who has £82,000 in a UK bank. Clearly, he and his wife could properly maintain themselves. However, savings do not count. The man is self-employed, but will not have the long record of employment needed to meet the £26,000-plus requirement, so he is unable to have his wife here with him. The other person—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but this is supposed to be an intervention, not a speech.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Perhaps when I have spoken for a little longer, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) will be able to intervene again and make her second point. Indeed, if she intervenes several more times, she may eventually be able to tell the whole story.

I understand that those who earn less than £18,600 can top it up if they have savings, up to a maximum of £62,000. A constituent who was in that situation came to see me the other day. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify the position when he responds, but I think that people have to show that they have had the money in their accounts for six months and it has not just been lent to them.

The final case to which I want to refer is that of a constituent whose girlfriend is based in Hong Kong, but is of Philippine origin. He wants her to join him in the United Kingdom, but they cannot marry. She was married to an abusive husband in the Philippines—she fled to Hong Kong to get away from him—but divorce is illegal in the Philippines, which in itself raises interesting questions. What happens if someone from the Philippines comes to this country and wants to marry a British citizen? What will be the impact on that person’s immigration status if that is not allowed?

The couple cannot live in the Philippines together, which is an option that they explored. If my constituent were in a relationship with an undivorced woman in the Philippines, he could face seven years in jail and she could face three to four years.

It turned out, after we had looked into it, that my constituent’s income is just enough for him to qualify under the rules. He came to see me because he had heard about the £62,000 savings limit, and thought that he was expected to have that much money in the bank on top of his income. However, if he had earned just £100 a month less, he would not have been able to bring his partner to the United Kingdom either. They were exploring the possible options. His partner was considering going to Canada, and he thought that perhaps he would be able to join her there.

The situation is ridiculous. My constituent has family responsibilities, and is settled in employment in the UK. The fact that he would have been forced to go to the other side of the world to be with his partner when she could join him here seems nonsensical to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Division seems to be taking an excessively long time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am sorry, I did not hear the hon. Gentleman.

[Paul Flynn]

My point of order was about the length of time the Division is taking given the small number of Members present. Are people playing games?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Mr Flynn, I cannot believe that that could possibly happen. If somebody is playing games, I am not sure who it is. You made your point of order just as I was rising to ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in both Lobbies.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am on the verge of sending somebody to see where the Serjeant at Arms has gone. Has this got anything to do with Comic Relief by any chance? It is that time of year.

[Mr Harper]

Comic Relief is tomorrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We may still be sitting tomorrow!

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is some confusion over whether it is technically possible under “Erskine May” to call for a Division on the Adjournment. Of course, you are the gatekeeper and the guardian of good order, but my understanding is that there have been occasions on which the House has divided on the Adjournment. I believe that after an Adjournment debate on Norway in 1940, there was a Division on the Adjournment. Any guidance that you can give me would be gratefully received.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I know that the House is waiting with eager anticipation for the answer. The answer is that it is gone 5.30, so the Question would not be put in any event. Therefore, the Question cannot be put.

[Thomas Docherty]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am incredibly grateful for that clarification. I had a brief opportunity in the few moments that I spent in the Aye Lobby to look at “Erskine May”, but I could not find that reference. Is it possible for it to be circulated, for the benefit of Members such as me who are not as knowledgeable as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that we do not waste any more of the House’s time?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Some people may interpret what is going on now as being a waste of time, but certainly not the Chair. I am absolutely certain that clarifications on the rules of procedure will be made. The Question could have been put before the moment of interruption, for instance at 5.29, which, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, has happened in the past. I think that the last time it happened was in the 1970s. On this occasion, we have clearly gone past the moment of interruption and, therefore, the Question will not be posed.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the Question that this House do now adjourn cannot be put, how can we decide whether the House is to adjourn or not? Surely if we have missed the opportunity for putting that Question, we need to carry on sitting.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you, Mr Rees-Mogg, for that point of order. We are past the moment of interruption. Had the Minister carried on speaking until half past 5, I would have just stood up and not put the Question.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

I beg to move amendment 22, page 17, line 21, at end insert—

‘Part 4A amends the selection procedure for certain senior judicial appointments until Part 4 of the Schedule is in force,’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 10 to 21.

Amendment 100, page 224, line 42, schedule 13, at end insert—

‘Each of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice must at all times engage in a programme of action which is designed—

(a) to secure, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, that appointments to listed judicial offices are such that those holding such offices are reflective of the community in England and Wales;

(b) to require the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so, to secure that a range of persons reflective of the community in England and Wales is available for consideration by the Judicial Appointments Commission whenever it is required to select a person to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to a listed judicial office.’.

Government amendments 23 to 59.

New clause 7—Enforcement services

‘(1) The Legal Services Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 125 insert—

125A (1) For the purposes of this Part (and sections 1, 21 and 27 as they apply in relation to this Part)—

(a) the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council is to be treated as an approved regulator;

(b) enforcement services are to be treated as a reserved legal activity;

(c) a person authorised under sections 63 and 64 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act services is to be treated as an authorised person in relation to that activity;

(d) the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council is to be treated as a relevant authorising body in relation to such a person, and

(e) regulations under the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the National Standards for Enforcement Agents are to be treated as regulatory arrangements of the Bailiffs and Enforcement Agents Council as an approved regulator.

(2) For the purposes of sections 112 and 145 (as extended by this section), a person authorised under sections 63 and 64 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act, is to be treated as a “relevant authorised person” in relation to the Regulator.”.’.

New clause 17—Protection of vulnerable debtors

‘(1) At any time after a notice required under paragraph 7, Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 is served on a debtor, the debtor may apply to the court to stay or suspend the notice on terms on either of the following grounds—

(a) the enforcement action being taken is disproportionate to the debt and circumstances involved; and

(b) the debtor’s goods may be insufficient in value to satisfy the debt involved.

(2) The court may, in its discretion and if satisfied with the above grounds, suspend or stay any judgment or order given or made in prior proceedings for such time and on such terms as the court thinks fit.

(3) Enforcement proceedings under Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 are proceedings for the purposes of section 71(2) and section 88 of the County Court Act 1984.

(4) Subject to the regulations under section 64 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 complaints against holders of certificates shall be considered by a designated judge and may include both complaints regarding compliance with the terms of certification as well as the exercise of legal powers under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Further to which—

(a) the designated judge may, on consideration of a complaint, exercise powers under section 64 to suspend or cancel a holder’s certificate; and

(b) the designated judge shall publish an annual report.

(5) The Lord Chancellor shall periodically review data concerning complaints against holders of certificates, update guidance where evidence of bad practice arises and respond to any recommendations set out in a report under subsection 2 within six months.’.

Government new clause 5—Supreme Court chief executive, officers and staff.

Government new clause 6—Making and use of recordings of Supreme Court proceedings.

Government amendments 60, 77 to 80, 82 and 83.

[The Solicitor-General]

I shall start by speaking to the Government amendments, but I should also like to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), if he arrives. I shall start with amendments 22, 57 and 58.

As hon. Members will be aware, the Government are making a number of changes to the judicial appointments process, including to the selection process for the Lord Chief Justice and the heads of division. As part of the changes, the details of the selection process that are currently in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 will move into secondary legislation. There are many reasons for doing that, and many improvements are being made. There is an urgency to this, however, because the Lord Chief Justice is about to retire and we hope that it will be possible to deal with the new appointment and any consequential appointment of a head of division under the new system rather than the old. The amendments aim to achieve that by briefly inserting the new selection process into the 2005 Act, so that it applies to the appointment of Lord Judge’s successor. I must stress that it will be a transitory measure and will cease to have effect after the appointment of the next Lord Chief Justice and any consequent head of division. It is then intended that the secondary legislation will follow.

Amendments 25 to 55 deal with the technical aspects of the change to the Lord Chancellor’s role in the judicial appointments process, including the transfer to the Lord Chief Justice or the Senior President of Tribunals, as appropriate, of the power to decide upon selections made by the Judicial Appointments Commission for certain judicial offices below the High Court. The Government intend to retain the Lord Chancellor’s role in all other aspects of these appointments, particularly terms and conditions for fixed-term judicial appointments where a fee is paid. However, the Bill currently transfers the power to renew, or to refuse to renew, fixed-term judicial appointments to the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals. Amendments 25 to 55 therefore amend schedule 13 so that that power is retained with the Lord Chancellor. They ensure that, in exercising that role, the Lord Chancellor must, as now, if deciding not to renew a fixed-term appointment, comply with any requirement to secure the consent of the Lord Chief Justice or Senior President of Tribunals.

Amendments 23 and 24 also deal with the selection process for judicial appointments and the move from primary to secondary legislation. As part of these changes, the original idea was to move the requirement for there to be on the commission a commissioner with special knowledge of Wales into secondary legislation, but on further consideration, the Government decided that it was important to retain an appropriate level of input by a lay member of the commission with a special knowledge of Wales and that that requirement should remain in primary legislation. The amendments therefore reinstate the requirement in the 2005 Act that those selecting persons for appointment as commissioners should ensure, as far as practicable, that there is at least one lay commissioner with special knowledge of Wales.

Amendment 59 relates to the judicial deployment provisions in schedule 14. The objective is to give the Lord Chief Justice more flexibility in deploying judges to different courts and tribunals. That supports an important objective for the Government because it means that judges can be used efficiently. Individual judges will also benefit, if they have a wider breadth of experience and can develop their judicial careers as a result. The policy was brought forward in partnership with the judiciary and the aim has always been to move forward collectively in the delivery of our shared aims and objectives. After further consultation with the judiciary and further thought, it has been decided that the particular skills and experience needed in the Crown court mean that it should be removed from the flexible deployment provisions. Those matters should be dealt with by Crown court judges, as happens now.

Amendments 10 to 21 are technical and minor amendments dealing with the single family court provisions. I can be brief, because there is only one point of substance. At the moment, magistrates courts can vary maintenance orders registered with them, but because in future the family courts will be able to issue those orders, it is necessary to provide that magistrates will no longer have that variation power, which will lie with the family courts—a victory for the Committee, the other place and, of course, the Government.

New clause 5 relates to the appointment of the chief executive of the UK Supreme Court. I am confident it will be welcomed. A new clause along similar lines was tabled in the other place and again here in Committee. The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice said at the time that we were going to discuss the matter with the powers that be. The appointments process for the chief executive of the UK Supreme Court has been discussed with the president of the Court, and I am pleased to report that those discussions have been successfully concluded, and the Government have therefore tabled the new clause with the Court’s agreement. Thus the president of the UK Supreme Court, not the Lord Chancellor, is responsible for the appointment of the chief executive. It is no longer necessary for the chief executive to agree the staffing structure with the Lord Chancellor, and the provision also clarifies that the Court’s officers and staff will be civil servants—something that needed to be done.

New clause 6 deals with broadcasting in the Supreme Court. To clarify matters, clause 28 expressly disapplies section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which prohibits sound recordings in court, to facilitate court broadcasting below the UK Supreme Court. It looks odd not to confirm at the same time that the Supreme Court is able to be exempt, so new clause 6 achieves that. Let me be clear that this is about clarifying the matter; there is no question that this has caused any problem in the past.

Amendments 60, 77, 78 and 82 make consequential amendments. I now reach the point where I can say that I am looking forward to hearing the right hon. Member for Blackburn and other colleagues presenting their new clauses and amendments.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I beg to move amendment 56, in schedule 1, page 16, line 31, leave out ‘(6)’ and insert ‘(5)’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 57

Amendment 75, page 17, line 38, leave out from ‘ISC’ to end of line 43.

Amendment 73, page 18, line 34, leave out from ‘private’ to end of line 3 on page 19 and insert ‘from a person subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989.

‘(2) The ISC may only publish or disclose the information—

(a) by way of a report under section 3,

(b) if the ISC and the Prime Minister are satisfied that publication or disclosure would not be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service, the Government Communications Headquarters or any person carrying out activities falling within section 2(2), or

(c) if publication or disclosure is necessary for the ISC to comply with any enactment or rule of law.’.

Government amendments 59 and 60

Amendment 76, page 19, leave out from line 4 to end of line 7 and add—

‘Protection for proceedings of the ISC

6 No part of the proceedings of the ISC, including evidence given to the ISC may be used in any civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings, except in the case of evidence given in bad faith.’.

Government amendments 61, 62 and 55

Amendment 71, in clause 2, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

‘(4A) Subsections (3) and (4) do not apply where a plausible claim has been made by or on behalf of an individual to the ISC that the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or the Government Communications Headquarters has disseminated any information to any recipient concerning any person that appears to be—

(a) materially false; and

(b) harmful to the person defamed.

(4B) In any case where subsection (4A) applies, the ISC shall fully and expeditiously investigate the claim and, where the claim appears to be well founded, shall ensure that the misinformation is expeditiously corrected.’.

Amendment 74, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

‘(4A) The ISC shall consider the proposed appointment of the following, including by questioning the prospective appointee at a meeting of the ISC—

(a) the Head of the Security Service;

(b) the Head of the Secret Intelligence Service;

(c) the Head of the Government Communications Headquarters; and

(d) such other persons as the Prime Minister may direct.

(4B) The ISC may consider the appropriateness of holding hearings considering each prospective appointee’s proposed appointment in public.’.

Government amendments 63 and 64.

[James Brokenshire]

After that interesting debate about the basis for the important reforms that are taking place to strengthen the scrutiny, and perhaps some of the principles behind measures in the Bill relating to the parliamentary ISC, we will now consider a number of amendments that touch on procedural matters relating to the functions and operation of the ISC. I apologise to the House in advance that I will touch on a range of different points. I know that a number of other amendments have been grouped for this debate, so I will touch briefly on those and then reflect on points made in the debate. If time allows, I hope to respond to any further points that may arise.

Amendments 56 and 57 were originally tabled on Report in the other place and Lord Taylor highlighted that one possible consequence of the change in the Bill to refer to the Intelligence and Security Committee “of Parliament” could be that the ISC would have the power to take evidence on oath. However, further analysis concluded that the consequence of changing the ISC to a statutory Committee of Parliament would be that the ISC may, in future, take evidence on oath. Our view was that, when taken together, the Parliamentary Witnesses Oaths Act 1871, which concerns the power of Committees of the House of Commons to administer oaths, and its Lords equivalent, the Parliamentary Witnesses Act 1858, would give the ISC the authority to administer oaths.

However, the House services raised a concern with the Government about that provision and disagreed with our analysis that the change to “of Parliament” would give the ISC the authority to take evidence on oath. They believe that the Bill should contain an express power for the ISC to take such evidence. Following further discussions in response to that point, and with the intent of putting this issue beyond doubt, we have decided to address the concern of the parliamentary authorities by tabling amendment 57, which puts the ISC’s power to take evidence on oath beyond doubt.

The amendment makes it unnecessary to specify in the Bill who has the power to administer oaths on behalf of the ISC, as there is no longer any need to displace the provision in the relevant statutory authorities. Amendment 56 makes procedure in relation to the ISC hearing evidence on oath a matter for the ISC to determine, pursuant to paragraph 2(1) of schedule 1.

An amendment was agreed in Committee that places restrictions on the ISC’s ability to publish material that it receives in connection with the exercise of its functions, other than through its reports. We had a useful debate in Committee, which highlighted some of the issues and challenges and recognised the need for safeguards to ensure that sensitive material was not inadvertently disclosed, as well as the need for the ISC to be able to fulfil its duties.

The amendment addresses a consequence of the ISC being a statutory Committee of Parliament. In that context, the ISC will have a general power to publish information, which will sit alongside its express power to publish reports to Parliament. Absent the restriction, which is now contained in paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the Bill, under that general power the ISC would have been able to publish evidence it has received other than through its reports to Parliament. Following concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), I was able to provide assurance that it was not the Government’s intention that the amendment would inhibit or limit some of the existing practices of the ISC, and made a commitment to look at the language to see whether there was any way of giving further assurance. I have considered that matter and, as a consequence, we have tabled amendment 60.

Amendment 60 would provide a further gateway allowing publication or disclosure where the Prime Minister and the ISC agree that this would not cause prejudice to the functions of the agencies or other Government security and intelligence bodies. This is the same criterion that is used in clause 3(4) of the Bill which allows the Prime Minister, after consultation with the ISC, to require that the ISC must exclude a matter from any report to Parliament.

The consequence of amendment 60 would therefore be that the ISC would be able to publish informally—for example, in an open letter—any information which, ultimately, it would be permitted to include in its reports to Parliament. As I have said, the criteria are exactly the same. I recognise the concern to ensure that the existing arrangements for the ISC and the steps that it takes are maintained, and that is in part reflected in amendment 73, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) with the support—I believe—of the existing members of the ISC. While I am sympathetic to the intentions, and have had several discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend to work out some suitable language to address the issues, our view of amendment 73 is that it would have some unintended consequences. In its current form, the amendment would widen the net in a way that I suspect the ISC had not anticipated.

I shall return to the principle after I have gone through some of the technical issues that have been identified. The amendment refers to information received by the ISC

“from a person subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989.”

While I appreciate the intention behind the amendment, that phrase suggests that the prohibition should apply to any person inside or outside Government who had ever known, or been in a position to know, any classified information. Unfortunately, the effect of the amendment would be slightly different. The Official Secrets Act 1989 contains prohibitions of general application, most notably in section 5, and it extends to the whole UK. It even apparently covers some acts done outside the UK by British citizens or Crown servants. It would therefore cover information beyond the purview and structure anticipated. It would cover all information supplied by a person who has, at any time, been in a position to have access to classified information. Information supplied to the ISC by such a person will be covered by the prohibition whether or not it is in fact classified information, and whether or not it even came to that person in connection with the role in which they had or could have had access to classified information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. There are four Members trying to catch my eye on this set of amendments and the knife falls at 4 o’clock, so I ask Members to be conscious of the time that they take to make their case in order to allow the Minister to respond.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I shall be brief. On amendment 73, in the light of the undertaking given by the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) that the publication issues will be addressed in the memorandum of understanding, I am say on behalf of colleagues that we do not propose to press that amendment.

On the question of taking evidence on oath, I think I speak for colleagues on the Committee in saying that we are entirely happy with what the Government propose. On the use of the word “voluntary”, I can only re-emphasise what has been said by many other colleagues. The Minister endeavoured to explain to the House why this applies only to that part of our duties that relate to operational matters. All I can say to him and to the Government is that we will be spending an awful lot of our time trying to fend off critics who, wilfully or otherwise, choose to interpret the presence of the word “voluntarily” on the face of the Bill as implying that we do not have the ability to force the agencies to comply with our requests, when in most cases we do. There must be a simpler and less emotive term that can be used to express the same purpose, without leaving us open to such unjustified criticism.

On the question of privilege, I am still concerned, as are the Opposition, that sufficient measures have not been taken to empower the Committee and protect the Committee to anything like the same extent. For example, when the Committee discusses people’s possible involvement in serious criminal activity, could we end up in a situation in which some of our proceedings that involve statements —not from witnesses, but from Committee members—that in the ordinary course of events might be regarded as defamatory may result in court proceedings being taken against members in a way that would not be possible with members of a Select Committee in analogous circumstances? If we could end up in such a situation, the Government need to consider that problem very seriously indeed and do something about it at a later stage. I hope that the Minister will refer to that in his closing remarks.

On the question of pre-appointment hearings, I do not believe that the Committee has taken a corporate view as such, but one point must be made, and made strongly: this would add to the work load of the Committee’s staff. The Committee, as has been made crystal clear today, is already grotesquely understaffed by comparison with comparable committees and organisations in this country and in Europe. Therefore, were we to take on that further burden, we would definitely need better proposals for resourcing it than those that are currently ready.

The Opposition are quite right to resist amendment 71, because individual complaints against the agencies, such as that involving Binyam Mohamed, are not the responsibility of the ISC; they fall within the statutory remit of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. That is the correct body to deal with such matters.

Finally, on the question of the Osmotherly rules, I am glad that the matter will be dealt with one way or another. We would prefer it to be set out in the Bill, but otherwise in the memorandum of understanding, because the ISC frequently needs access to the papers of a previous Administration, for example, or has to deal with matters that are sub judice, and we cannot row backwards from that situation. Subject to those comments, we are very pleased with the progress the Bill has made thus far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The debate will finish no later than 5 o’clock, so can all Members please show time restraint in order to allow everyone who wishes to speak to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I think there are still three Members standing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I agree. That is now firmly on the record.

As a result of the Joint Committee’s work in the Lords, we saw the switch from “must” to “may”, which gave judicial discretion. That was one of the key changes made to the Bill. As a result of our efforts in the Commons, that led to full equality of arms and the reporting and review process, which the Minister agreed to take away and then came up with. It is definitely moving in the right direction, but there is further to go. I have mentioned the clarity on the subject of habeas corpus, but there is still the issue of a renewal process, be it annual renewal or five-yearly renewal, to give the House the chance to say, “Is it doing just what its proponents want it to do, or is it going further, as many of us feared it would?”

There have been several votes on the principle of the Bill, including one in the House of Lords, when my colleagues were joined by a total of two Labour peers and one teller and five others, and lost quite convincingly. It is a shame that amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), was not taken on Monday, because it would have given the House the chance to have that vote. I pressed the same principle in Committee. I hope that the Lords will now step up and do more on this. Part 1 is a good step forward; part 2 is not. I hope that in the process of ping-pong we will be able to make further progress, because sadly it seems that it will pass through this House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There are still two Members left to speak. I call Jeremy Corbyn.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think you are asking me to be very brief.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am suggesting that you split the time limit.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Oh, you are asking me to do maths as well. I will be extremely brief.

I have no quarrel with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) in respect of his sincerity, honesty or support for human rights or how he put his case today. I disagree with his final point, but I have no quarrel with the judgment he reached or why he reached it, because I have observed him and his general approach to human rights in the House for a long time. When I say that I do not agree with him, it is not out of anger; it is out of sorrow. I am sure that in the next five minutes he will change his mind and take a different approach, or perhaps he will not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) put it well when he said that the House has to make decisions on important issues of human rights, liberty, the rule of law and the role of Parliament. Successively over the past 30 years, and even before that, we have enshrined in law on many occasions various forms of secrecy, denials of justice and denials of evidence, and people have been wrongly prosecuted as a result. There is a litany of miscarriages of justice that many Members of this House have been involved in over many years, most of which have centred on withholding evidence, secrecy or, in some cases, confessional evidence.

Since 2001, there has been a significant game change. Draconian anti-terror laws have been introduced in this country and many others. As a result, the most grotesque miscarriages of justice have taken place, including Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition. All the legislation has been enshrined on the basis that we have to protect the security services and prevent what they do from seeing the light of day.

As I understand it, the Government’s position is that they cannot defend cases where there has been British involvement with other security services in the abuse of human rights when the individuals involved seek restitution in the British courts because it would mean identifying where their evidence came from. They have therefore paid out millions of pounds. Instead of admitting that we have been a party to human rights abuses, we are passing legislation to bring a new process into law.

I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), when he said that the Bill is not as bad as when it started its journey. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, has done a lot of good work to improve the Bill, as he has for many other pieces of legislation.

However, I feel that the Bill sends out the wrong message. We should have had a debate and a vote on the removal of part 2 on Monday. It is regrettable that we did not. I am opposed to the Bill because I do not like the secrecy or the protection of those who commit human rights abuses, whether they be in the pay of this state, another state or somebody else. The use of open courts and criminal law where appropriate is far more satisfactory. I therefore register my dissent against the Bill.

Violence against Women and Girls

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), and I congratulate the Members who secured this debate, in particular the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who opened it so eloquently.

The One Billion Rising campaign reminds us that one in three women will be raped or beaten in their lifetime. Today’s debate gives us an opportunity to commend the women and men who in so many different ways are refusing to accept the status quo and are working either to support the victims of sexual violence or to change laws, attitudes, customs and institutions that perpetuate abuses of power here at home and internationally.

On a day when so many people around the world are celebrating loving relationships, it is important to highlight the extent to which violence against women and girls blights our individual and collective lives and to acknowledge the systemic nature of violence against women. It affects all of us, directly or indirectly, whatever our age, nationality and religion. I am sure all of us will have experienced gender-based violence or will know a friend, sister, mother, aunt or work colleague who has experienced it.

It is also important not to be overwhelmed by the dimensions of the problem and the scale of the challenge of ending the culture of violence. Some 20 or 30 years ago domestic abuse was seen as a private family matter. Too often criminal violence in the home was not pursued as it ought to have been. It was a taboo subject. Breaking the silence around abuse has been an important milestone on the road to taking the issue seriously and tackling it. It is a multifaceted problem, but I believe it is underpinned by inequality between women and men, and is perpetuated through unacceptable abuses of power. One reason why it is so difficult to address is that it challenges deeply held attitudes and beliefs, understandings of justice and ingrained cultural perspectives—yet it is neither inevitable nor intractable.

As legislators, we have a special responsibility to tackle the grave and serious human rights abuses happening in our own community. We also need to recognise that we are not impotent to deliver meaningful progress. Today’s motion has focused largely on prevention within the formal education system. Obviously, education is a devolved issue in Scotland, and the structure of the curriculum does not mirror the situation in other parts of the UK. Nevertheless, I wish colleagues well in their efforts to improve the curriculum in England and Wales, and I hope there will be reciprocal learning on how the respective education systems can rise to the challenge, especially given the alarming attitudes to sexual violence recorded among young people, to which Members have alluded. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) talked about the normalisation of violence, so I do not see how anything could be more of a priority for us.

One example recently brought to my attention in the Scottish context was a pilot scheme initiated by the Dundee violence against women partnership, which was an attempt to embed preventive measures in the curriculum for excellence in nursery, primary and secondary school settings. Working with a range of partners and using a rights-based approach, it tries to embed the idea that children and young people have rights and that their dignity is important. The project workers commented on how relatively easy it had been to integrate preventive measures across the curriculum. They used a thematic approach so that the issues could be addressed in an English class or a statistics class—not just in the timetabled slot for health, well-being or relationships education.

Another key part of addressing sexual violence is ensuring that perpetrators are held more accountable for their actions within the criminal justice system. Changing attitudes and beliefs will not be enough on its own if people cannot realise their rights. I do not think it would be controversial to say that the historical track record has not been good in domestic terms.

Again, I would like to share some perspectives from the Scottish context, which I am sure will resonate with hon. Members from other parts of the UK. I pay tribute to the Scottish Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland for its campaigning and advocacy to raise awareness and improve our legislative framework. Only one in four rape cases reported to the police in Scotland results in a prosecution; three out of four people who seek access to justice are still denied it. We know that huge numbers—perhaps a majority—of people who have been raped do not report it to the police. In that respect, confidence in the system remains far too low. Conviction rates have historically been woeful; they are improving, albeit from an abysmal starting point. It is easy to understand why many people who have experienced serious sexual assault are reluctant to put themselves through further trauma at a time when they might feel exceptionally vulnerable. Given the fairly low prospect of securing a conviction, it takes immense courage for women to come forward.

Our criminal justice system has failed and continues to fail far too many victims of rape and sexual assault. Many of us have been deeply saddened by the dreadful revelations about the suicide of Frances Andrade. Back in 2002, an equally tragic death took place in Scotland when 17-year-old Lindsay Anderson took her own life shortly after giving evidence at the trial of a person subsequently convicted of raping her. What was particularly appalling was that in court Lindsay had to hold up the underwear she had been wearing at the time of the attack. It was sickening and, frankly, it still leaves me speechless. In spite of real efforts to move away from using women’s character and sexual history in court, people subjected to sexual violence are still traumatised by the process, which can compound the very real harm done by the original offence.

I do not have much time left. Before concluding, I echo the points made earlier about the way in which women are portrayed in popular culture and about the misogyny often expressed in social media. We do not have any room for complacency. Prevention and accountability must go hand in hand. Together, we really can make progress and end—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Shuker]

I will give way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am terribly sorry, but you have taken two interventions already.

[Gavin Shuker]

I thought that was the case.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It was. I call Diana Johnson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I have just said that good teaching in schools is essential. I am not sure the route the right hon. Lady sets out is a valid one. I will take no lectures from her on the urgency of the task. She was in government for 13 years. She is now complaining about failing to legislate in the wash-up at the tail-end of 13 years of Labour government. If she meant what she said, she would have done something about it. I am afraid that her strictures are rather hollow.

This has been a very good debate. I think I am being glared at by Mr Deputy Speaker, and am being urged to bring it to a close. I am sorry that I have not been able to reference everyone who has spoken in this excellent debate. I think it will be followed by an equally excellent debate, with which Mr Deputy Speaker is keen to proceed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

For no more than two minutes, Fiona Mactaggart will sum up.

Police

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The winding-up speeches will begin at 4.6 pm. Five Members are trying to catch my eye. May I ask them to show time restraint in the speeches that they are about to deliver? Meanwhile, I may well introduce a time limit in order to protect Back Benchers and ensure that they are all able to speak—following the speech from Mr Keith Vaz.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Four Members wish to speak and I want to confirm that my maths is better than that of Keith Vaz. If all Members speak for a little less than 15 minutes, everyone will get equal time and I will not need to impose a time limit.