Defamation Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis
The less said about that, the better. I remain a fan of that periodical, and as far as such proceedings are concerned we have to move with the times, because defamation law has not tended to move with them sufficiently.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Hon. Members can see how many of their number wish to take part in the debate. As it will end at 5.40 pm, I ask them to be mindful of others when making their contributions.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
In the light of your comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make a short speech, and will confine my remarks to the Government’s amendment to Lords amendment 31.
Let me first pay tribute to the work of Lord Alton, Lord Avebury, the late Lord Newton, and others in the House of Lords for tabling the original amendment. Without their dedication and commitment to ensuring a workable outcome for those with mesothelioma, we would not be where we are today.
I welcome the fact that the Government have listened carefully to the case presented in both Houses for exempting mesothelioma victims from the current proposals. It is not right to force victims of an extraordinary disease—when no fraud is possible and compensation is certain—to shop around for a lawyer during their last few months of life in an attempt to pay the lowest possible success fees as a proportion of a payment that they deserve. Discussion of this issue should never have been a fight about compassion for those with mesothelioma —it is a pretty heartless person who does not show compassion for those who suffer from the disease—but, rather, should have dealt with how best to protect the interests of the people who find themselves victims, and those of their families.
Without the amendment, the practical implications of the law as drafted for victims of mesothelioma would have been hugely damaging. Regardless of what colleagues on either side of the House may think of lawyers and insurance companies, it would ultimately be the victim, who would be going through intense suffering through no fault of their own, who lost out. The amendment rightly exempts mesothelioma from the overall package of reforms in the Bill, but it should be considered the beginning, not the end of the discussion. If ever there was an opportunity to kick-start progress on speeding up compensation payments to victims, it is now.
Like others, I seek assurances that there will be proper parliamentary debate on the commencement order and the report from the Lord Chancellor, and that future legislation will be synchronised with other initiatives that the Department for Work and Pensions is working on. However, more than anything, I urge the Government to conduct the review not with lawyers or insurers in mind, but with the sufferers at the centre, and to come forward with alternative proposals to ensure that they are protected, financially and otherwise, as soon as possible.
I started by thanking the noble Lords for tabling amendment 31 in the first place. It is only right that I finish by saying that I am sure that the late Lord Newton of Braintree, a co-sponsor of Lords amendment 31 who passed away recently from a respiratory disease, would have been pleased, as a former Leader of this House, that the Government have listened, that cross-party consensus has been achieved and that common sense has prevailed.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 1, 2, 6, 9, 24, 100, 104, 168 to 173, 176, 178, 181 to 187, 195, 197, 198, 203, 207, 210, 212, 215, 216, 220, 221, 228, 229, 231, 233 to 240, 243 and 244. If the House agrees to any of these amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
Clause 1
Lord Chancellor’s functions
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 3 and 4, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 5.
Lords amendment 24, and Government motion to disagree.
Mr Djanogly
Lords amendments 1 and 24 impinge on the financial privilege of this House. I ask the House to disagree to them and will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason for doing so. Notwithstanding that, the House now has the opportunity to debate the substance and effect of the amendments, and shortly I will state the Government’s full reasons for rejecting them. Before I start, I remind the House of the statement that I made on Report on 31 October 2011 relating to my declaration of interests. It can be found at column 626 of Hansard, and I confirm today that it remains accurate. I ask the House to agree to the Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 3 and 4, which relate to the director of legal aid casework.
I turn to the Lords amendments. Access to justice is of fundamental importance to our legal system and to this Government, but our legal aid system is by any measure extremely expensive and sometimes prone to aggravating disputes unnecessarily by pushing them into the courtroom. The question for the Government has never been whether to reform it but how, and our approach is one with a principled basis of focusing scarce resources on the most urgent and serious cases while seeking a broader shift to earlier resolution of disputes. We have always been happy to accept amendments that deliver on those principles, so it should come as no surprise that the Bill is much revised. The Government have listened and made significant concessions, and I am grateful to the other place for its concern to improve the Bill.
In another place, Lords amendment 1, tabled by Lord Pannick, was said to identify the aims of the legal aid system in our society. It would place a duty on the Lord Chancellor, reflecting the provision in section 4(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, to secure within the resources made available and in accordance with part 1 of the Bill that individuals have access to legal services that meet their needs effectively. However, clause 1(1) already sets out a clear duty on the Lord Chancellor to ensure that legal aid is made available in accordance with part 1 of the Bill, so the Government are concerned that the amendment replicates what is already in place.
Worse than mere duplication, technical problems with the amendment risk muddying the waters, creating legal uncertainty and undermining the Bill’s clear purpose. Unlike the clear duty in clause 1(1), which relates to legal aid made available under part 1 of the Bill, with legal aid being defined in clause 1(2), Lords amendment 1 would impose a duty in relation to legal services. Despite the purported qualifications in the words in brackets, it can be read as imposing a wider duty on the Lord Chancellor than that intended under the Bill, in that it risks imposing a duty on him to fund legal services beyond the realm of legal aid provision.
We believe that there are potential additional costs attached to the amendment, which would create uncertainty. It runs contrary to the policy intention of creating certainty through the unambiguous description of services in schedule 1 and the clearly defined circumstances in which exceptional funding is available. Both the uncertainty that would be created and the possible costs are undesirable outcomes.
The problem with the amendment is that it conflates the two important but separate principles of access to justice and the provision of publicly funded legal advice. It could be understood in the context of the 1999 Act, which, because it was drafted on an exclusionary basis, specifies what services cannot be funded under civil legal aid but leaves rather vague exactly what the Lord Chancellor is responsible for funding. However, the Bill is carefully drafted on an inclusionary basis, which means that it is explicitly clear about what services can be funded, thereby representing Parliament’s view on services that should be provided under legal aid to meet people’s needs.
Lords amendment 1 risks providing the basis for myriad new legal challenges seeking to widen the scope of the Bill. The central purpose of our legal aid reforms is targeting resources where they really matter, not providing work for lawyers. We cannot accept an amendment that might prompt endless legal dispute and judicial review.
Lords amendments 3 and 4, which were tabled by Lord Pannick, and the Government’s Lords amendment 5 all concern the director of legal aid casework. Lords amendments 3 and 4 are born out of concern that the director’s decisions will be subject to political interference from Ministers. I reassure the House that the Government absolutely agree with Members of the other place that the Lord Chancellor should have absolutely no involvement in a decision about legal aid funding in an individual case. However, we ask the House to reject Lords amendments 3 and 4, because they would have the unwelcome effect of preventing the director from being appointed as a civil servant.
I must remind the House that we are abolishing the Legal Services Commission to improve the administration of legal aid, not to create greater fragmentation of responsibility and accountability.
Clause 4 provides protection to the director by creating, in clause 4(4), a statutory bar on the Lord Chancellor’s involvement in funding decisions by the director in individual cases. The Lord Chancellor may not give directions or guidance to the director about the carrying out of the director’s functions in relation to an individual case. In addition to that protection, the Bill imposes a duty on the Lord Chancellor to publish any guidance and directions that he issues to the director.
Lords amendment 5, which is a Government amendment, goes further by requiring the director to produce an annual report for the preceding financial year on the exercise of their functions during that period. That annual report will be laid before Parliament and published. We consider that further offer of transparency to be an important safeguard.
I am aware that the question of directorial independence was one that exercised the other place considerably. It is because we agree that that is a vital issue that we are happy to put the matter beyond doubt. That is why I am asking the House to agree to the Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendments 3 and 4. That will reinforce the protections already set out in clause 4(4) by requiring the Lord Chancellor to ensure that the director acts independently of the Lord Chancellor when applying directions and guidance given under clause 4(3) in relation to an individual case. That provides additional assurance on the director’s independence without compromising common-sense administrative arrangements designed to improve control and accountability.
Finally, Lords amendment 24 concerns the provision of advice over the telephone, on which I am afraid I cannot agree with many of the sentiments of the other place. The effect of amendment 24 would be to weaken a key measure to modernise the system and bring it up to date. The aim of the telephone gateway is to route access to legal aid, in the first instance, by the phone. That is not only much more efficient, enabling calls to be properly triaged, but simpler to access and generally of higher quality.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 189 to 191.
Lords amendment 192, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Lords amendment 193.
Lords amendments 194 and 196, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendments 217 to 220 and 243.
Lords amendment 168 and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 169 and 240, Government motions to disagree, Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu, and amendment (i) to Government amendment (a).
Lords amendments 170 to 172, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendments 177 to 181, and 206 to 216.
Mr Clarke
Lords amendment 2 impinges on the financial privileges of the House. I ask the House to disagree to the amendment and I will ask the Reasons Committee to ascribe financial privilege as the reason for doing so—and so too with amendments 168, 170 and 171. In addressing the very wide selection that you have just announced, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall begin by looking at the principles that the Government are adopting on the various amendments and the reform as a whole, and at what principles we are inviting the House to adopt.
The scope of legal aid goes to the heart of our attempts to reform and improve the justice system, because targeting funding where it really counts is fundamental, first to the savings the Government are having to try to make in this area as in any other. There is no doubt that the present level of legal aid provision is on any measure unaffordably expensive. I shall not dwell on this issue but it is bound to recur during our debates. Even after our reforms have been carried, if Parliament eventually approves the Bill and it becomes an Act as we intend, we will still have by far the most costly legal aid system in the world. It is almost twice as expensive as that in any other country per head of population. In no other democratic jurisdiction would it be possible to get up and argue seriously that the taxpayer should spend money on the scale that we do on legal representation and advice.
The changes to the scope of legal aid that we are proposing are also part of a broader shift. We are trying to reduce the amount of unnecessarily adversarial litigation. The very broad provision of legal aid has encouraged people to bring their problems before the courts, but sometimes their basic problem is not a legal one and the best way of resolving the dispute or tackling the problem would be not to take a litigious approach. Such an approach imposes costs and does not always resolve problems. Before I move on from the tricky matter of cost let me say that with legal aid the cost is not just to the public purse and our Department. One has to think of the costs imposed on all the other people who are parties to litigation, such as businesses—small and medium-sized enterprises—and the national health service, as this selection includes clinical negligence claims. Everything we agree to do in relation to clinical negligence comes out of the budget that is otherwise available for public services. The growth of the clinical negligence industry is having an impact on national health services at the present time. There is also a cost to individuals, because for an ordinary citizen of ordinary means to be in the appalling situation of being engaged in litigation when the other party has legal aid is not an experience that most people would enjoy. We should bear all that in mind as the background to what we are doing.
Police
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether you are aware of the fact, but one of the lifts on the Committee corridor is not working and that is leading to a long queue of Members seeking to arrive in the Lobby. I wonder whether you would consider extending the time available for this Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I certainly will take that into account before I ask for the doors to be locked. I appreciate that not every Member is as athletic as he is. He was able to sprint his way to the Chamber, but I will make allowances for the less athletic.
Transparency and Consistency of Sentencing
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Following remarks today by the United States Defence Secretary Leon Panetta that US forces in Afghanistan will step back from their lead combat role by the end of 2013, Downing street appears to have announced a similar policy for British troops at its press briefing this morning. Surely that should have been first announced to Parliament. Has Mr Speaker been approached by the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence or even the Prime Minister’s office saying that the Government wish to make a statement to Parliament either today or, at the very latest, on Monday?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Mr Spellar, for forward notice of that point of order. I have not received any information that the Prime Minister or any other Minister intends to make a statement today. Should that change, Members will be notified in the usual way.
Public Bodies Bill [Lords]
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I point out that discreet use of hand-held devices is allowed in the Chamber? If it were not, I would have disallowed it in this instance.
Sir Alan Beith
The Select Committee on Justice has taken extensive evidence on the failings in the coronial system and the need for reform. We felt strongly that there should be a chief coroner and I continued to press that argument with Ministers on many occasions. The Government found alternative ways of trying to achieve the same things, and it would be wrong to suggest that in their use of the powers of the Lord Chief Justice they were not hoping to achieve significant reform.
Clearly there is consensus about reform. Anyone who has seen the experience of families who have had delayed inquests or poor service from coroner’s offices, and who is aware of the completely patchwork system of support for coroners around the country, realises that fundamental reform is required. That can now be achieved through the office of chief coroner, which I felt all along was the sensible way to do it. That involves professional leadership, training and tackling the jurisdictional issues so that, for example, the chief coroner can move inquests to a coroner who is in a position to provide the service when there is too much pressure in another coronial area.
Where there is not consensus is on the appeal issue. I know how strongly the Royal British Legion feels about that and I respect its campaign, but significant legal questions are raised by whether we substitute the decision of one coroner for that of another—that is a quite different process from judicial review. We do not have time to debate that in detail today, but I simply say that there is wide consensus on the need to reform the coroner system. There are many good coroners and many excellent coroner’s offices, but it is a very uneven system. The chief coroner should now be a mechanism for undertaking that reform, but the issue of appeals is one on which there is much more to be argued over and we might be holding out to families the false promise that they will somehow be in a better position than they would be with the present system. It would be wrong of us in this House to do that, so I urge the Minister to get on with the crucial reforms of the system, which the chief coroner can achieve.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Brake
As I stated earlier, the simple change in new clause 12 affects a very large number of people—up to 100,000. As I mentioned in the debate yesterday, it is incumbent on Members who propose alternatives that mean the Government will spend more when they are trying to address a very large deficit to identify where funding for such proposals would come from. I hope we have an opportunity to debate amendment 144 this afternoon, because that would more than adequately cover the expenditure that the amendments would necessitate.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is using the word “you”, but as he knows, that refers to me. Could he please refrain from using that word?
Mr Ward
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Someone once told me that the world is divided into two groups of people. There are those who, when they see somebody walking down the street with a walking stick, believe in kicking the stick away because it will make that person stronger, and there are those who believe that if they kick away the stick, the person will just fall over. We are in grave danger of making some of those who are, by definition, the most vulnerable in our society fall over, and we will still have to be there to pick them up, at even greater cost to the public purse. It does not make sense; we should not do it.
Karl Turner
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you offer some guidance? When time is short and we are keen to debate the important issues in the Bill, is it right for hon. Members to go off the point so widely?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am allowing a little latitude, and I mean a little. I am sure Mr Gummer will wish to get his remarks straight back on to the business before us.
Ben Gummer
I was about to say that in none of that communication did I receive any indication that the hon. Member for Hammersmith disapproved of the previous Government’s termination of competitive tendering for legal services in 2009. On that point he was silent. There was no outrage that the scheme that he is now proposing had been stopped by the previous Government, no sense that he would step down from a position on that point, as he would on the issue of the third terminal. Thus this modern-day Prometheus has been found wanting.
May I ask, therefore, that in their submissions we may have a little more substance from the Opposition on how they might pay for the many amendments that they have tabled on Report, instead of their jumping on every passing bandwagon and every interest group to which they can plead?
Joan Ruddock
There are real differences, I should tell the Minister. If he does not understand indices of deprivation, or the differences between constituencies in this country, I really do not think that he is fit for ministerial office.
Let me end by citing two other types of case, to which I hope that the Minister will listen carefully. I have a constituent whose sister died in Africa. Her young child was brought to Britain with a visitor, and he stayed here because his aunt is the only person who is prepared to take care of him. Lewisham social services want to see that child legally adopted, and the Government are very keen on adoption. However, the child has no legal status in this country. Such cases are complicated when it comes to getting all the paperwork together and arguing the case to the immigration authorities, which have already turned down my constituent’s case once. That is the kind of case that requires legal assistance.
The second case involves a trafficked woman, and it is one of the worst cases that I have ever had. She was trafficked here as a teenager, was raped repeatedly and gave birth to twins. She has never had her immigration status regularised. She cannot conceivably be sent back to Africa now, having been here for 12 years. These are the kinds of case that will be totally denied justice under the Government’s proposals. I appeal to the Minister, on behalf of my constituents and all those who work in advice services in Lewisham and elsewhere, to think again and not just to sit there laughing, as he is at the moment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Exceptionally, to deal with new clauses and amendments not dealt with by Mr Slaughter earlier, I call Jenny Chapman.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I speak in support of amendment 116, which would delete clause 12 from the Bill. It is with regret that I will keep my comments extremely brief. Some of the matters discussed today should really have been discussed on Monday. This regret is most keenly felt because the parents of Jane Clough are in the Gallery and had hoped to see us debate changes to bail.
Clause 12, which would allow the Government, based on either a means test or a an interest of justice test, to choose not to provide an arrested person with an independent legal adviser. The powers that the Government seek to gain were not subject to consultation and have generated significant controversy. It is not just Labour that opposes this clause. Members of all parties oppose it. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) spoke eloquently against it in Committee and again today. Others who have spoken against it include my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), and the hon. Members for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), and the right hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). Some Tory Back Benchers have told us that they, too, oppose it. The Liberal Democrats have signed the amendment, for which we are grateful.
On this issue, however, the Minister appears to be against the clause. He said to the legal action group conference:
“I am pleased to say we have no intention to take legal help away from the police station.”
It appears, however, that the Secretary of State for Justice is embarrassed by that. He tried to blame it on Labour, saying that it was one of our proposals. A few weeks later, after the bemused Labour Front-Bench team checked with the House of Commons Library, the Secretary of State’s spokesman issued the following statement:
“The remark was made in error by the Justice Secretary during the Second Reading debate. The provisions in clause 12(3)(a) and (b) are new and, so far as I know, there have not been similar provisions in any previous Bills that did not pass into legislation.”
What a shambles—but there is more!
In the Public Bill Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) subsequently said:
“My opinion is that as things stand, the practicalities are the greatest stumbling block, and costs could be significant.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2011; c. 437.]
This might well be the first time a Minister has argued against his own legislation while seeking to enact it.
There was a time when people did not have access to a lawyer on arrest. Injustice after injustice propelled Parliament into action. It was, in fact, the previous Conservative Government—one who included the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—who enacted the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which for the first time provided a suspect in police custody with a statutory right to legal advice. A textbook on police law explains:
“By section 58 of PACE, a person arrested and held in police custody is entitled, if he so requests, to consult a solicitor privately at any time.”
I am deeply concerned. In Committee, the Minister—whose conflicts of opinion match his alleged conflicts of interest—changed his mind again. Having said earlier
“I am pleased to say we have no intention to take away legal help from the police station”,
he said in Committee:
“I am not asking the Committee’s permission to implement means-testing. I am asking for permission to introduce flexibility into the Bill, so that at a later stage it could be considered, subject to full consultation.”––[Official Report, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Public Bill Committee, 8 September 2011; c. 436.]
We know what the Government’s consultations are like. There were 5,000 responses to their consultation on legal aid, and they ignored them all.
At present, police station advice is provided free to anyone who is arrested. What takes place in the police station often determines how the case will proceed, and whether or not the police decide to lay charges.
Mr Djanogly
I would dearly have loved to reach the provisions relating to bail, and I think the right hon. Gentleman should ask the official Opposition why we have not done so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Clearly, that was not a point of order, and the Minister has now dealt with the point raised.
Mr Djanogly
I shall now turn to amendments 69, 70 and 71, tabled by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), which address pensions and compensation.
Amendment 69 looks to ensure that Legal Services Commission employees transferring to the civil service are treated fairly. As drafted, the Bill and commitment between the Ministry of Justice and the LSC will achieve that. The Ministry is committed to ensuring that transferring staff are not put in a less favourable position than that of existing civil servants. The Bill protects LSC employees’ terms and conditions at the point of transfer, with the exception of those for pensions and compensation. The Bill also protects employees’ length of service.
When LSC employees transfer to the civil service, they will be enrolled as members of the premium section of the principal civil service pension scheme. The Government Actuary’s Department has determined that that scheme is “broadly comparable” to the existing LSC pension offer. Broad comparability is the standard defined by the Cabinet Office for the pension offer for staff transferred to organisations within the public sector. LSC staff will be able to choose whether to move any entitlement built up in the LSC scheme to the civil service pension scheme, or whether to leave it within the LSC scheme. Those arrangements have been communicated to LSC employees and their representatives. I will write to the hon. Lady on the TUPE point.
New clause 17 was moved by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). Her significant experience in the field became clear, as it also did in Committee. Many Members spoke to the new clause, including the hon. Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) and for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
The new clause is very broad and would widen the scope of legal aid and increase its cost at a time when we are seeking to focus funding on the highest priority cases. It would have the effect of bringing into scope areas which are not covered in schedule 1—and which we intend no longer to fund—by virtue of their interconnected and complex nature. We have undertaken a comprehensive consultation on legal aid with published impact and equality assessments, and we have received almost 5,000 responses. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington pointed out, cases will arise where it will be difficult to separate two or more legal issues in terms of funding. Under the current legal aid scheme, there are provisions in the funding code to cover mixed cases, where the case is partly in and partly out of scope. Those provisions allow funding of the whole case in certain circumstances, and in others they allow funding for aspects of the case. I am pleased to confirm to my right hon. Friend that paragraph 39 of schedule 1 ensures similar appropriate provision in the new scheme. We consider that that approach provides a more proportionate means of dealing with interconnected matters than the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Makerfield.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before we embark on the next debate, may I draw attention to Mr Speaker’s request, made earlier this afternoon, for brevity from the Front Benchers and Back Benchers in these debates so that all the important matters before the House for decision today can be properly considered?
New Clause 27
Reasonable force for the purposes of self-defence etc
‘(1) Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (reasonable force for the purposes of self-defence etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) after paragraph (a) omit “and” and insert—
“(aa) the common law defence of defence of property; and”.
(3) After subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3), a possibility that D could have retreated is to be considered (so far as relevant) as a factor to be taken into account, rather than as giving rise to a duty to retreat.”
(4) In subsection (8) for “Subsection (7) is” substitute “Subsections (6A) and (7) are”.
(5) In subsection (10)(a) after sub-paragraph (i) omit “or” and insert—
(ia) the purpose of defence of property under the common law, or”.’.—(Mr Blunt.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 136 and 141.
Mr Blunt
I shall certainly be following Mr Speaker’s direction, and I hope that we will dispose of this matter in as short an order as we disposed of removing the limit on magistrates’ fines.
The question of how far one can go to defend oneself crops up again and again in the letters Members of Parliament receive from their constituents, and of course it is always a controversial issue in the press and the media. It usually arises because a hard-working, law-abiding home owner or shopkeeper has been forced to defend themselves against an intruder and has ended up being arrested for it. Being confronted by an assailant in one’s home, on the street or anywhere else can be a terrifying prospect. It is essential that the law in this area is clear, so that people who use reasonable force to defend themselves or to protect their properties can be confident that the law is on their side.
There will always be occasions when the police need to make an arrest to enable a prompt and effective investigation, especially if they turn up at an address and somebody is dead. We are working with the Home Office on new guidance for the police to ensure that arrests are made only where necessary, but these provisions should give people greater certainty that the law itself is on their side and they will not be prosecuted or convicted if they have only used reasonable force.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a) to new clause 26, line 7, at end insert—
‘(2A) The offence is not committed where the building has been empty for six months or more and where there are no significant steps being taken to refurbish, let or sell the building at the time of the trespass.’.
Amendment (c) to new clause 26, line 22 leave out subsection (7) and insert—
‘(7) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) no offence is committed if the person initially entered the building as a trespasser before the commencement of this section.’.
Government amendment 140
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. As Members can see, a considerable number still wish to participate in the debate. As we want to listen to the Minister and the knife falls at 10 o’clock, I call for brevity and short speeches.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
I commend the Minister for listening to our concerns and introducing these proposals. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), as we have been pressing the Government for action for some time. I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy on this issue.
Labour Members commented that they did not see a need for this Bill, as they thought that there was some parallel Bill. I have to say, having listened to some Labour Members, that they seem to be living in a parallel universe. If there is not a squatting issue, why is it that three houses in my constituency were squatted in one week?
My concern is about the residential squatters and the homes they squat, which are often not derelict or abandoned properties. Those properties can be dealt with. Councils such as my own London borough of Barnet routinely issue improvement notices. If landlords do not bring the properties up to standard or back into use, they use the threat of a compulsory purchase order to bring the landlords back into line. On every occasion I have seen that used, the property has been refurbished and brought back into use. There are methods of dealing with abandoned and derelict properties without giving a charter for squatters.
The issue of residential squatters is not just one about mansions or large houses lying empty for year after year. The houses to which I refer in my constituency have been refurbished between purchase and occupation. These are houses that are going through probate or whose owners are on extended holidays. When the owners come home, they find their property occupied by somebody else, who is not necessarily homeless. As we have seen in the papers recently, it is often organised gangs that occupy family properties that are clearly occupied, clearly in use and clearly not abandoned.
I listened to what Labour Members said about squatting already being a criminal offence and the police having powers to deal with it. If so, why is it on every occasion in my constituency that the police have stood by and said, “Sorry, guv, but it is nothing to do with us; it is a civil matter”? The current law is defective; the current law needs clarifying; and these proposals do that.
I was intrigued to hear the argument that homelessness is some excuse for squatting. Is it okay for people to say, “I don’t have a house, so I’ll have yours. Thank you very much.”? I am not sure whether that is what Labour Members are genuinely saying.
We heard the argument that pennilessness is an argument for squatting. Is it also an argument for mugging? If I am penniless and go out and mug somebody, is that all right? Is that what Labour Members are really saying?
I have read the amendments, and I understand the problems of those who have been in shelters for the homeless or domestic violence refuges or have received mental health support. However, I also know that many people in need of mental health support squat not because they are not being given that support, but in order to evade the very support they need. If we can deal with squatting, those with mental health problems will have a better chance of benefiting from the intervention that they both need and deserve.
Hard-pressed taxpayers and home owners who have worked hard, have bought their houses and pay their mortgages are demanding change and protection. I support the new clause because it will provide the very necessary protections that those people require.
Jeremy Corbyn
Like other speakers, I shall be as brief as possible, because a good many Members clearly want to say something about this issue. I commend the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the way in which he presented them, and the background information he provided.
New clause 26 first saw the light of day only a few days ago. This is effectively a Second Reading debate, but it provides the only chance that the House will have to discuss a major change in legislation that will result in criminalisation. I predict that in years to come, Government and, indeed, Opposition Members will complain that a person has been criminalised because they were homeless—that a person who occupied someone else’s house was put in prison for a year, which would cost the rest of the community about £50,000.
This country has a long and chequered history when it comes to squatting. It goes back to the Forcible Entry Act 1381, which became law during the Black Death. The issue has arisen time and again during periods of great stress: it arose at the end of the Napoleonic wars, at the end of the first world war and at the end of the second world war, when there was widespread squatting because of a terrible shortage of housing.
The Criminal Law Act 1977, which I mentioned in an intervention earlier, was introduced after a great deal of consultation by the then Labour Government. There was a fair amount of opposition to the legislation, which distinguished specifically between the act of taking someone’s house when that person was occupying it and the act of occupying a property that was being kept empty. The property might be empty as a result of the inefficiency of a local authority or housing association—or, in some cases, a charitable landlord—but more often it would be kept empty deliberately while a property speculator waited for its value to rise before seeking to possess it and sell it to someone else; and, at the same time, a large number of people were homeless on our streets.
Crisis and other charities have produced interesting statistics and arguments. It has been claimed that 40% of homeless people in the country have squatted at some point, and that because the housing crisis means that there will be more people on the housing waiting lists and more without access to houses, there is likely to be more squatting.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) that it is very easy to stand up in the House and say that no one should ever occupy any empty property, but it is another matter for someone who is homeless, has applied for local authority housing but is deemed not to be vulnerable as a single person, and is therefore not eligible to be nominated for a council or housing authority property. Those who try to rent a property in the private sector anywhere in London will find that renting a one-bedroom flat costs a minimum of £150 to £200 a week, renting a two-bedroom flat costs £250, and renting a house costs between £400 and £500. When the very same Government who are lecturing someone about occupying a property that has been deliberately left vacant are preventing that person from obtaining housing benefit to pay such rents, what can the person do? It is all very well for us to lecture, but what can that person actually do?
I believe that the existing law can deal with most of the concerns that have been expressed. There are some cases in which people have behaved disgracefully and driven others out of their homes when they should not have done so, but the 1977 Act is designed to deal with such cases. They can be dealt with through selective, specific and well-thought-out legislation, rather than through the approach that is being adopted in the House this evening.
We shall press amendment (a), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, to a Division. It covers only residential property that “has been empty for six months or more”. Parliament has a responsibility to recognise that there are 700,000 empty properties across the country and a very large number of people who are either homeless and sleeping on the street, sofa-surfing before they run out of friends entirely, sleeping in cars, or just trying to get somebody to put them up for a night before they move on. I assume all Members have met such people in their advice surgeries. What do we say to them? Do we say, “It’s your problem; you go and solve it,” or are we a society that tries to help everyone and make sure everyone gets somewhere to live and has a secure roof over their head?
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
I beg to move amendment 10, page 99, line 11, leave out from ‘where’ to first ‘for’ in line 13 and insert ‘—
(a) the services are provided to the individual, or
(b) the individual has died and the services are provided—
(i) to the individual’s personal representative, or
(ii) ’.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment 11.
Amendment 91, page 103, line 3, after ‘family’, insert ‘or other intimate’.
Amendment 93, page 103, line 4, at end insert
‘or where an allegation is made that B has been abused by A or is at risk of being abused by A’.
Amendment 23, page 103, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert—
‘“abuse” means any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.’.
Amendment 92, page 103, line 35, leave out ‘physical or mental abuse’ and insert
‘any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (whether physical, mental, financial or emotional)’.
Amendment 74, page 104, line 23, at end insert—
‘(10) For the purposes of this paragraph, evidence that A has been abused by B or is at risk of being abused by B may consist of one or more of the following (without limitation)—
(a) a relevant court conviction or police caution;
(b) a relevant court order (including without notice, ex parte, interim or final orders) including a non-molestation order, occupation order, forced marriage protection order or other protective injunction;
(c) evidence of relevant criminal proceedings for an offence concerning domestic violence or a police report confirming attendance at an incident resulting from domestic violence;
(d) evidence that a victim has been referred to a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (as a high-risk victim of domestic violence) and a plan has been put in place to protect that victim from violence by the other party;
(e) a finding of fact in the family courts of domestic violence by the other party giving rise to the risk of harm to the victim;
(f) a medical report from a doctor at a UK hospital confirming that the applicant has injuries consistent with being a victim of domestic violence, such injuries not being limited to physical injuries;
(g) a letter from a General Medical Council registered general practitioner confirming that he or she has examined the applicant and is satisfied that the applicant had injuries consistent with those of a victim of domestic violence;
(h) an undertaking given to a court that the perpetrator of the abuse will not approach the applicant who is the victim of the abuse;
(i) a letter from a social services department confirming its involvement in connection with domestic violence;
(j) a letter of support or a report from a domestic violence support organisation; or
(k) other well-founded documentary evidence of abuse (such as from a counsellor, midwife, school or witnesses).
(11) For the avoidance of doubt, no time limit shall operate in relation to any evidence supporting an application for civil legal services under paragraph 10.’.
Amendment 94, page 104, line 25, leave out ‘(“A”)’.
Amendment 95, page 104, line 27, leave out ‘other than A’.
Amendment 96, page 104, line 39, at end insert—
‘(1A) Civil legal services provided to an adult in relation to proceedings for financial relief in respect of a child who is the subject of an order or procedure mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).’.
Amendment 97, page 104, line 39, at end insert—
‘(1B) Civil legal services provided in relation to proceedings in which the court is considering giving a direction under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 (direction to authority, where care or supervision order may be appropriate, to investigate child’s circumstances).’.
Amendment 98, page 104, line 39, at end insert—
‘(1C) Civil legal services provided in relation to proceedings arising out of a family relationship involving a child in respect of whom a court has given a direction under section 37 of the Children Act 1989 (direction to authority, where care or supervision order may be appropriate, to investigate child’s circumstances); and “family relationship” has the same meaning for the purposes of this sub-paragraph as it has for the purposes of paragraph 10.’.
Amendment 99, page 105, line 42, leave out ‘to a child’.
Amendment 100, page 105, line 43, leave out first ‘the’ and insert ‘a’.
Amendment 101, page 106, line 1 , leave out first ‘the’ and insert ‘a’.
Amendment 102, page 106, line 3 , leave out first ‘the’ and insert ‘a’.
Amendment 83, page 108, line 44 , leave out sub-paragraphs (5), (6) and (7).
Government amendments 55 to 59.
Amendment 113, page 112, line 5 , at end insert—
‘Immigration: victims of domestic violence and indefinite leave to remain
24A (1) Civil legal services provided to an individual (“I”) in relation to an application by the individual for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom or a claim by the individual to a right to reside in the United Kingdom, on the grounds that—
(a) I was given leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period as the partner of another individual present and settled in the United Kingdom, or had the right to reside in the United Kingdom as the partner of another individual, and
(b) I’s relationship with the other individual broke down permanently as a result of the abuse of I by an associated person.
General exclusions
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to the exclusions in Parts 2 and 3 of this Schedule.
Specific exclusions
(3) The services described in sub-paragraph (1) do not include attendance at an interview conducted on behalf of the Secretary of State with a view to reaching a decision on an application.
Definitions
(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, one individual is a partner of another if—
(a) they are married to each other,
(b) they are civil partners of each other, or
(c) they are cohabitants.
(5) In this paragraph—
“abuse” means any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality.
“associated person”, in relation to an individual, means a person who is associated with the individual within the meaning of section 62 of the Family Law Act 1996;
“cohabitant” has the same meaning as in Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 (see section 62 of that Act);
“indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom” means leave to remain in the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act 1971 which is not limited as to duration;
“present and settled in the United Kingdom” has the same meaning as in the rules made under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971;
“right to reside” means a right of residence established under Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and the Council 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC.’.
Government amendments 60 and 61.
Amendment 145, page 112, line 11, at end insert—
‘(1A) Civil legal services provided to an individual for a matter arising out of any rule laid down under section 1(4) of the Immigration Act 1971 making provision for family members to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as the family member of a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection.’.
Government amendments 62, 13, 14, 63, and 15 to 18.
Amendment 103, page 7, line 35, at end insert—
‘(7) But the Director must determine that an individual qualifies for civil legal services where the services relate to a matter falling within paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 and—
(a) the individual has been admitted to a refuge for persons suffering from domestic abuse;
(b) the individual has obtained medical or other professional services relating to the consequences of domestic abuse, or
(c) an assessment for the purpose of possible mediation of a family dispute has concluded that the parties need not engage in mediation as a result of domestic abuse,
and in this subsection “domestic abuse” means abuse of the kind to which paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 relates’.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Burley
The hon. Lady speaks for her part of Staffordshire and I speak for mine. I can tell her that people in my constituency do not feel that they have ample opportunity to influence the policing priorities in their area, they do not know what the police authority is, they do not know how to contact it and they do not know how to get involved in all these bureaucratic panels and committees that the hon. Member for Bradford East rattled off.
The Opposition’s latest form of direct accountability is not a million miles from what we are proposing—directly elected chairs of authorities. That is the Labour party’s proposal. It was an idea proposed in an amendment by the shadow Minister in Committee. I was on the Committee and remember him pushing it to a vote. In my view, that would be the worst of all worlds, because we would have an individual with a mandate but unable to deliver it because he could be outvoted routinely by a committee of appointees. This model would cost more and not produce the single focus of a police and crime commissioner.
Many Labour Members have made the point today about the cost of delaying the elections. I think that we should start by reflecting on some wise words:
“We’ve got to go further in demonstrating value for money and delivering efficiency. We are investing a lot of money in public services, it’s got to deliver results”.
That was the now shadow Home Secretary in an interview with The Daily Telegraph in January 2008, when she was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I could not agree with her more. In fact, I also agree fully with the next quote from the interview:
“Margaret Thatcher did talk about, you know, the housewife adding up the sums. Every family recognises the need to make sure that you can manage each month.”
Quite right too! I am glad that she and I agree with Lady Thatcher.
As so often with Labour, however, when it comes to public spending, it is a case of, “Do as I say, not as I do.” Its NHS national IT programme had a budget of £2.3 billion, but has now cost £12.6 billion—an overspend of 450%. Its pensions transformation programme at the Department for Work and Pensions had a budget of £429 million, but the current cost is £598 million—an overspend of 39%. Its A46 improvement programme had a budget of £157 million, but the current cost is £220 million—a 40% overspend. But worst of all was the cost of the millennium dome. It cost £789 million to build and £28 million a year to maintain.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I think that we might be straying a little wide of the mark.
Mr Burley
I thank you for your direction, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall focus my remarks. In April 2002, the National Audit Office showed that £28.4 million was spent on the dome’s maintenance in the year after it was closed. For just one year of maintaining the dome, we could elect someone who represents our views; for one year of maintaining the dome, we could let local people have a say over how their area is policed; and for one year of the dome, we could replace bureaucratic accountability to Whitehall with local accountability to the people. We will therefore take no lectures from Labour on how to spend £28 million. It is far better to spend it on reconnecting the public to the police than on Tony Blair’s Teflon-coated, flattened mushroom.
The Opposition object to delaying the election to November 2012. I am glad that it has been delayed to 15 November, not 5 November. Having a one-off election at the beginning of the cycle of elections for PCCs is a good idea because it will remove the charge of making them political. There will be no other elections on that day, so the first time that the PCCs are elected, no one will be able to claim that they were motivated to vote in a council vote or in a party political way. I support the delay on the grounds that it will make the first elections of these important PCCs non-political in the public’s eyes. Afterwards, they will revert to the same date as the council elections, thereby saving £50 million over four years.
In conclusion, policing is a monopoly service. The people cannot choose their force. This public service has to answer to someone, and we think that local people should have the power to do something about the problems that blight their towns and city centres. We are determined to rebuild the link between the people and the police forces that serve them, which is why these reforms are right for the people, right for the police and right for the times.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 7 to 42.
Lords amendment 43, Government motion to disagree and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendments 44 to 52, 54, 55, 58 and 60 to 79.
Lords amendment 80 and amendment (a).
Lords amendments 81 to 97.
Lords amendment 98, motion to disagree and amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.
Lords amendments 99 to 162.
Lords amendment 163 and Government amendment (a).
Lords amendments 164 to 168.