Domestic Violence Victims: Cross-Examination

Debate between Oliver Heald and Helen Goodman

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

My hon. Friend has highlighted an important case, as well as the work done by Women’s Aid. He is right to say that that issue needs to be tackled urgently.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The need for training of the judiciary goes beyond the family courts. A constituent came to see me because her ex-partner had taken a case about the management of family property to the civil court, and the judge had said it was irrelevant that he had been imprisoned for raping her daughter. That cannot be right. Judges need to be trained as well.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

It would not, of course, have been a family justice case; it would have been a civil case. I agree with the hon. Lady that that is an important consideration, and I will look into it.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Oliver Heald and Helen Goodman

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

We have had a short but lively debate, and I would like to put it on record that no Government Member said that the BBC was not a fantastic institution, or anything of that sort. Our debate was not about the licence fee, although the charter review is coming up, and that will have a process of its own; it was about enforcement.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen)—I pay tribute to the way he put his case—made the point that there are many poor and vulnerable people who struggle with the licence fee, and they can be criminalised and even sent to prison for failure to pay it. He clearly felt concerned about them, and made his case in that way. It was not developed as some kind of veiled attack on the BBC. I think it right to look at decriminalisation. Even the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) seemed to accept that at one point, and he even seemed to accept that it would be right to have a review of the sort proposed by the Government. Again, I do not see much cross-party disagreement there.

Clearly, the Government will not take up the invitation of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and say what the outcome of the review and the penalties will be—something I thought she said. She asks why the Government are unwilling to set the penalties now; the answer is that we have not yet had the review. Whether one particular body will have the duty of setting the variable fees is another issue for the review; we want a proper review that will look into all aspects of the issue. As to what analysis has been done of the potential impacts—positive and negative—of switching to a civil rather than a criminal enforcement, or of having the option of both, we are having a review precisely to determine that. The whole point is that we do not want to prejudge the review.

[Helen Goodman]

My question was not why the Government will not decide the penalties at this juncture—I completely accept what the Solicitor-General said about that—but why the Government were offloading the task of setting the penalties on to another body.

[The Solicitor-General]

There will clearly need to be a mechanism to effect the change; someone will have to decide what the variable penalties should be, and I shall come on to that in a moment. I do not think it right, however, to prejudge who or which body should do the setting. The hon. Lady suggested one particular body, but we are happy to let the review look into these issues and come up with its thoughts on what sort of regime should or should not be approved.

The amendments are designed to achieve two objectives. Under amendment 62,

“The Secretary of State must lay the terms of reference of a review”

of the TV licensing enforcement regime

“before each House of Parliament.”

Those would be key papers for the review, and there would be others. What normally happens, and what we propose, is that those papers are deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. It would be unusual to lay them before the House. That would be the normal and best way forward, and it would achieve the same effect as the amendment—that is, it would ensure that the House of Commons was fully aware of the details.

Amendment 63 looks to ensure that the power to decriminalise the failure to have a TV licence via secondary legislation, either by replacing the criminal regime with a civil regime, or by enabling the imposition of civil penalties for such offences, would not be exercised until after the conclusion of the charter process. As previously mentioned, this power would need to be exercised in the light of the review’s findings, and considering the full impacts, costs and benefits to licence payers, to the court system—where, as the hon. Lady said, changes are being made—and to businesses of any changes to the enforcement regime. That would be considered in the context of the charter review.

At this stage, it would be premature to put restrictions on the timing of when the power may be exercised, given that the charter review has not yet started, and the Government have not set out the detail of the process and the timing. The Government therefore resist the amendments on the following grounds. First, the key papers will be deposited in the Library in the normal way and, secondly, we do not want to restrict what should or could happen, in terms of decriminalisation, by aligning the legislation with the timing of the charter review, although the legislation would be in the context of the review.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made the point that we are living in a changing world. That is true, both as regards the courts and how they go about enforcing, and about the media and broadcasting world. It is also true in respect of how we look at enforcement. Given that so many public services have civil enforcement and that it can be effective, it is certainly right, I think, at this point to have a review, and to try to move away from the aggressive approach that my hon. Friend mentioned. The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), and I have encountered the issue in my constituency postbag and at surgeries. Elderly people who feel that they have paid their licence fee—they often have—can be threatened with bills, letters about going to court and so forth, yet it is often the TV licensing authorities that have made the mistakes. A civil approach, where at least the threat of court is not frightening elderly, vulnerable and poor people, might be a better way forward. It is certainly something worth reviewing. On the issue of excellence and free markets, it is right that both can deliver.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor-General]

It is certainly not the intention to do anything that does not take into account the full context—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but there is a full context to the charter review. It is difficult when the process has not been set out and nobody is aware of the full details, so one needs to be wary of tying one’s hands too much. All I am saying is that some commitments have been made about the time scale for the review; that is in the legislation. We know when the charter review will take place, and we know that nothing will happen until the review has been completed, taking into account all the various points I have made. That should satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned variable fees; they are provided for in the Government amendments, which also deal with the question of extent and the Crown dependencies. I commend Government amendments 14 and 15 and 20 and 22, and urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Helen Goodman]

I did not find the Solicitor-General’s arguments very convincing. He seems to want to retain the freedom to fiddle around with the way in which the licence fee operates before we have seen the results of the royal charter review. None the less, I do not wish to press either amendment 62 or amendment 63 to a vote, although I suspect that amendment 62 may be re-examined in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 55

TV licensing: alternatives to criminal sanctions

Amendments made: 14, page 40, line 24, after “be” insert “—

(a) ”

This amendment is a drafting amendment related to amendment 15.

Amendment 15, page 40, line 25, at end insert

“, or

(b) such amount, not exceeding a maximum amount specified in the regulations, as may be determined by a body so specified.”—(The Solicitor-General)

In the event of the Secretary of State deciding to make regulations replacing the TV licensing offences with a civil penalty regime, this amendment would allow the regulations to provide for the amount of the penalty to be determined by a body specified in the regulations, subject to a maximum amount specified in the regulations.

New Clause 3

Limit on indemnity required under Outer Space Act 1986

‘(1) The Outer Space Act 1986 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 3 (prohibition of unlicensed activities), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) An order under subsection (3) may—

(a) provide that section 10(1) does not apply to a person to the extent that the person is carrying on activities that do not require a licence by virtue of the order;

(b) specify the maximum amount of a person’s liability under section 10(1) so far as the liability relates to the carrying on of activities that do not require a licence by virtue of the order.”

(3) In section 5 (terms of licence), after subsection (2) insert—

“(3) A licence must specify the maximum amount of the licensee’s liability to indemnify Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom under section 10 in respect of activities authorised by the licence.”

(4) In section 10 (obligation to indemnify government against claims), after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Subsection (1) is subject to—

(a) any limit on the amount of a person’s liability that is specified in a licence, and

(b) any order made under section 3(3).”

(5) The Secretary of State may vary any licence under section 4 of the 1986 Act that is held at the time when this section comes into force so as to specify the maximum amount of the licencee’s liability under section 10 of that Act.

(6) A variation under subsection (5) is to be made by giving notice in writing to the licensee.

(7) The power under section 15(6) of the 1986 Act may be exercised so as to extend to any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any British overseas territory any provision made by this section (subject to any specified exceptions or modifications).” —(Oliver Heald.)

Section 10 of the Outer Space Act 1986 requires people carrying out certain space activities to indemnify the UK government against claims arising out of the activities. The new clause makes provision for limiting the amount of the liability under the indemnity.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Solicitor-General]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Oliver Heald and Helen Goodman

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes an important point. The Director of Public Prosecutions has led the training of specialist CPS rape prosecutors, 800 of whom have now been trained, and they have done a wide range of units to ensure that they are fully aware of all the ways that it is necessary to prosecute such cases.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Some of the victims are children, and one reason why conviction rates are low is the way in which they are treated during the trial process. It is disgusting that small girls are further abused by grown men, being taunted for hours on end as liars. What will the Solicitor-General do about it?

Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill

Debate between Oliver Heald and Helen Goodman

Friday 9th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

[Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the procedure for Scottish Bills, as set out in Standing Order 97, requires the Speaker to issue a certificate stating that a measure is predominantly Scottish, after which it can go to the Grand Committee. It would be possible to do the same for England. Surely it would be worth printing a complex Bill in draft—so that it can be published and people can look at it—because, if there were territorial issues on the margins, it would provide an opportunity to consider them fully before the Speaker issued his certificate. Is the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) not a valuable addition to how we have dealt with such matter traditionally?

[Helen Goodman]

As the hon. Gentleman says, arrangements are in place for legislation that takes effect predominantly in Scotland. However, the Government seem to be rushing legislation through so fast that it is quite possible that the Speaker and his offices might not have time to take all these complex matters into account. That is a problem with the way this Government are ramming through legislation on the NHS and, if I might say so, this Legal Aid—

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

One of the problems with looking at draft legislation rather than legislation in its final form is that it is not possible at that stage to say what the financial implications across the United Kingdom might be. The Government would be forced not simply to identify the territorial extent of a Bill, as they do currently, but to look at the differential impact of clauses that apply across the United Kingdom. For example, some legislation could be applicable throughout the UK but have a greater effect in some places than in others. Let us take social security as an example. If unemployment is higher in Wales than in England and changes are made to the rate of jobseeker’s allowance, the impact in Wales will obviously be different from the impact in England. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Lady intends.

[Oliver Heald]

But social security is a UK-wide competence. It is nothing to do with just England, Wales or Scotland; it applies all over the country.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman makes my exact point, but unfortunately that is not the way the Bill is drafted. That is one of its faults.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I do not wish to delay the House any further on these technical amendments. I think I have made my point perfectly clear. I do not intend to push the amendments to a vote, but I hope that I have demonstrated a small number of the problems with this Bill.

[Oliver Heald]

Let me start by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) has done the House a service by introducing the Bill. It is a modest measure, but it provides something useful for the House, if the commission proposed by the Minister, which I also welcome, decides that we need a procedure for England similar to Standing Order No. 97, which sets out the Scottish procedure. That Standing Order says that when a piece of legislation is first printed, the Speaker can issue a certificate saying that it is a Scottish Bill. In those circumstances it is dealt with by the Scottish Grand Committee, which means that Scottish Members decide what happens in Scotland. I personally have always felt, as has my party, that England should have a similar opportunity, and the details of how that might be achieved have been discussed and argued over for many years.

What my hon. Friend is suggesting will help in the difficult process of deciding whether a Bill is predominantly Scottish or, in this case, English. The difficulty that the Speaker has always had to contend with is that, under Standing Order No. 97(1)(a), he can provide a certificate, and that

“it shall not be withheld by reason only that the bill...makes minor consequential amendments of enactments which extend to England and Wales”.

So it is possible for a Bill that is predominantly about Scotland but has some implications for England and Wales to be dealt with under the Scottish procedure. My hon. Friend is proposing that draft legislation would contain a certificate from the Secretary of State explaining the territorial extent of its legal and financial effects on the various parts of the UK. That would be useful in cases that were on the margin.

[Helen Goodman]

But can the hon. Gentleman not see that the territorial extent is already in a Bill, and that the financial implications are set out in the impact assessment that is published alongside it?

[Oliver Heald]

The mistake in the hon. Lady’s amendments is that they would not give the Speaker any opportunity to present his certificate. She is proposing that the Secretary of State’s explanation would be provided when the legislation was presented, rather than when it was first printed, which would give the Speaker no time to do his work. These are therefore wrecking amendments.

[Helen Goodman]

The issue is the speed with which this Government are putting through legislation, and their failure to leave adequate time between First and Second Readings, and between Second Reading and the Committee stage. If they were to give Bills adequate time, that would give the Speaker the time for which the hon. Gentleman calls.

[Oliver Heald]

I completely disagree. The hon. Lady would give the Speaker no time at all. Under Standing Order No. 97, the Speaker has the time between the Bill first being printed and its presentation in which to decide whether or not to provide his certificate. Her proposals would provide no such time. The Bill would simply be presented; the helpful information from the Secretary of State would not be given to the Speaker before that point.

Jobs and the Unemployed

Debate between Oliver Heald and Helen Goodman

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) on making a most amusing maiden speech. As far as I could tell, its gist was that Mid Norfolk was really big in the middle of the 18th century. I looked at “Dod’s” to find out a little more about him, and one of his recreations is hill walking, which is a shame: he will not get many opportunities to do that in Mid Norfolk.

I am proud to have belonged to a Government who decided to support young people through the recession, to have confidence in them, to invest in them and to back them. We knew that unemployment was not a price worth paying. We knew from our experience of the 1980s and 1990s what a scarring effect unemployment has and how the young are worst affected. However, it seems that this Government have learned nothing. Not only are they introducing huge cuts to public expenditure, with massive knock-on effects on private sector jobs, but they are freezing recruitment to the public sector, cutting the number of university places and now abolishing the future jobs fund.

The Tories and the Liberals said in the run-up to the general election that they were backing the future jobs fund and that they would continue with it, so I am sure that many voters will be extremely disappointed by the decision to abolish it. It is notable that not one Liberal Democrat has spoken in the debate. I assume that they are getting rather weary of their role as fig leaf to the Government. I am glad to see the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) in his place at last, but it is significant that the Liberal Democrats have been unable to face defending the amendment that the Government have tabled.

The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) began without any acknowledgement of the fact that we faced the largest global recession since the second world war. He went on to talk about the proposals for the new Work programme, but there remain a huge number of practical questions, which he was completely unable to answer. What will happen in the gap between the time when no more people can be taken on by the future jobs fund and the time when the new scheme is introduced? What will happen to those people whose skills atrophy if they are unemployed? We are talking not just about people’s technical skills, but about their social skills, which are important if people are to maintain their morale and get another job.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) spoke about the importance of the private sector retaining its confidence and about the work that the future jobs fund has done in Wakefield, by creating 700 places for young people. She spoke about environmental projects, green businesses, young people learning to make honey and the skills that they were gaining. She pointed out the importance of apprenticeships. The Government keep telling us about the number of apprenticeships that they are creating, while conveniently forgetting that we trebled the number of apprenticeships in the past 13 years. My hon. Friend asked how the national contracts would work and how the providers would bear the risks. They are good questions, and more questions that the Minister was completely incapable of answering.

The hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr Heald) spoke about the problem of worklessness, the need for greater private sector employment and the importance of technological skills. He did not seem to be able to take into account the fact that the number of people on inactive benefits has fallen by 350,000 in the past 12 years. He did not seem to be aware of the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast shows that private sector employment will be lower in each of the next five years than was forecast before the Chancellor’s Budget.

The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the importance of education and technology. I hope sincerely that he has a word with the Secretary of State for Education—he will have an opportunity to do so shortly—about the dire mistake that has been made in the cuts to the Building Schools for the Future programme that were announced earlier this week.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) spoke about the importance of the construction industry. He has a great deal of experience of that, and he talked about how it was a driver for the economy.

[Mr Heald]

rose—

[Helen Goodman]

I am sorry, but I have to respond to 22 Members and I do not have much time.

The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) spoke about the importance of infrastructure and education spending, and about the great returns that there are from that. I hope that she will have a conversation with her right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and press on him the need to maintain spending on some of those.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) spoke about the issues in her constituency. She reminded the House that during the general election the Prime Minister said that he wanted to see cuts in the north. She was absolutely right. It was quite clear that if someone voted Cameron they would get cuts, and if someone voted Clegg they would get Cameron. She pointed out that a third of the workers in the north-east worked in the public sector, and that its efficiency can be improved by having more workers in low-cost areas.

The hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) spoke about the problem of NEETs and what needed to be done to increase apprenticeships. She spoke about a public-private partnership, which was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who pointed out that if spending in local authorities is maintained, it might be possible to continue with that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) gave a passionate speech about the importance of human dignity in considering all these issues. He also asked a number of questions, to which it would be interesting to hear the answers when the Minister replies—in particular, how many placements has the Minister succeeded in getting for the apprenticeships that Government Members keep trumpeting? My right hon. Friend also spoke about the connection between young people being able to work and the importance of keeping down antisocial behaviour and crime. He pointed to the huge gap between the reality and the Government’s rhetoric. We heard it even today in Prime Minister’s questions, when the Prime Minister said, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), that he wanted a long-term strategy to engage young people. If he wants that, why is he abolishing the future jobs fund?

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) spoke extremely interestingly about the importance of moving to a low-carbon green economy, and he talked about how that should be done, but he left out one key thing, which is that one of the major barriers is a skills shortage. The future jobs fund had a green strand. Will he please press Ministers to have a green strand in their work?

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) spoke with huge passion about his constituency and the role of the RDA in the west midlands. I can recall being in Birmingham and finding out about the partnerships that the DWP had with the RDA to build employment in that region. I hope that the Minister will be able to inform the House of what she said about the loss of that partner when her colleagues in the Department of Communities and Local Government came up with the proposal to abolish the RDA.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) spoke about the importance of the private sector and the need to see SMEs grow, and I think that the House would agree with that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) spoke about the need for new jobs in former mining areas. He spoke about the 50th anniversary of the Six Bells tragedy and the huge impact that mining still has on many communities. Hon. Members can come to the miners’ gala in Durham on Saturday, where they can enjoy the culture that flowed from the mining communities.

The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton)—she does not seem to be in her place now— spoke about the importance of work and the Marmot report. I hope that Ministers listened to her and will appreciate the severe consequences for people’s health and mental health of soaring unemployment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) made a passionate speech about how the Tories treated his constituency in the 1980s and pointed out the great significance of Train to Gain, which is the programme being cut to finance the much trumpeted apprenticeships. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) took us back to the 1960s and talked about what she perceived to be the waste in the contracting process. I hope that such waste will be reduced and less money will be spent on contractors in the new scheme that the Government will introduce. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South made a wide-ranging speech displaying a great understanding of the constituency she represents. She also spoke about the good work being done by Jobcentre Plus and the threat to the jobs of its staff. She mentioned how foolish that is at a time when these workers are most needed.

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) said that business needs to be freed up. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) spoke about the imbalance between the number of jobs and the number of vacancies, and pointed to the scale of the problems we face. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) made a myth-busting speech pointing out, in particular, that tax credits go to those in work, and help people to finance child care and take jobs. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) spoke about the regional development agencies and revealed, I am sorry to say, the complete ignorance of the Conservative party about some of the regions in the north and the significance of the RDAs, and its really foolish decision to take the same approach to the south of the country as to the north.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) made a passionate speech and pointed out that the question of unemployment is not a theoretical one, but about real people and real lives. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) began her speech with a story about a 16-year-old having a baby and her concerns about it. I wonder whether she has addressed with her hon. Friends the fact that the programmes to reduce teenage pregnancy are being cut. She then talked about her vision and spoke about what she wanted to see—it sounded rather as if she wanted a version of the youth guarantee, albeit a rather bureaucratic version. I point out to her that her hon. Friends have just abolished it. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) also spoke about the great importance of a sensible approach to tackling this problem.

What the Government have done is totally unjust. They are pulling away support precisely at the time of maximum need. Today, we have had a statement from the OECD stating that this is the moment in the recession when it is most important to have properly funded support. That is in addition to statements from local authorities, young people and the voluntary sector. We are seeing the wanton destruction of people’s lives. These are not numbers. The abolition of the youth guarantee and the future jobs fund demonstrates how little the Government care. They do not care about the young man and his partner who want to do their best for their new baby; they do not care about the mother anxious about what is going to happen to her children when they leave school; and they do not even care about the ex-soldier who wants some hope in his life. All those people currently benefit from the future jobs fund. This is why I urge all hon. Members to vote for the motion tonight and to reject the Government’s amendment.