Points of Order

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to mention that I served on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe with Paul Flynn, and he was highly respected in that body by people from all the countries represented in it—he was a very active member of it. He also teased me in his book, and we used to laugh about that quite a bit. He was a very nice man and a very effective parliamentarian, and I just wanted to put that on the record. Obviously, our thoughts are with his family at this difficult time.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you very much indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

In the field of justice, we have been lucky to enjoy very good civil, mutual judicial co-operation across Europe. In the event of a no-deal Brexit, are there plans in place, and are there the civil servants, for example, to rejoin The Hague conventions in place of the regulations in Europe and so on, to ensure that we have a smooth legal transition?

[Mr Speaker]

There is something wrong with the microphone. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot be fully heard, and that is unsatisfactory, but I am sure it will be put right.

Points of Order

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to you for looking at the evidence—I think they call it VAR in football—but when you come back, would it be possible for the House authorities to have contacted the office of the Leader of the Opposition to make sure that he is present to hear your ruling?

[Mr Speaker]

Let us wait to see. If I have a ruling, it would be a great courtesy if the Leader of the Opposition were here, and I very much hope that he will be. I note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us hear from the neighbour. I call Sir Oliver Heald.

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

Would my hon. Friend be prepared to highlight to the review team just how dreadful it is for somebody to have to travel day after day, for an hour and a half in each direction, to London for radiotherapy when they are already ill? I hope it might be possible for some action to be taken to resolve this issue in our area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

And doubtless with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald).

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

I am very grateful to the Minister for that kind offer. I just make the point that there is a gap in the law. There are legal difficulties with prosecuting under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, because of the drafting of section 4. Prosecuting for criminal damage means that the value of the animal determines the sentence. However, a police dog like Finn, who was eight years old, is not worth much money—he is of course invaluable to PC Dave Wardell and the country’s police enforcement efforts, but he is not worth a lot of money. I am therefore grateful that the Minister will to talk to us about this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

Perhaps we could have an Adjournment debate about Finn, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not already procured such.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I have already done that, Mr Speaker, and I have a ten-minute rule Bill as well.

[Mr Speaker]

Very well done. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is obviously ahead of events. I was enjoying the family history he was educating us on just now.

Acute and Community Health

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Thursday 8th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the House that there is another ministerial statement to follow, and that although the debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment is not now intended to take place, no fewer than 19 Members wish to take part in the debate on community banking, so there is a premium on brevity. These important matters having been preliminarily aired, I now appeal to colleagues to ask single-sentence, pithy questions, without a great preamble, then we will progress towards other matters. I now call Sir Oliver Heald.

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

My hon. Friend will be aware, and indeed has said, how bad the situation was at Liverpool prison, where the trust had no understanding of what was required of it in its role as health provider. That put healthcare staff in a very difficult position. Does he feel that there is a need for better liaison between health and justice in relation to prison health facilities? Is the CQC really in a position to inspect them, or should there be joint inspections by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons and the chief inspector of hospitals?

Grenfell Rehousing

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to accommodate the level of interest in this extremely serious matter, about which there will, I suspect, be many statements in the weeks to come, but I must advise the House that both subsequent debates are well subscribed, especially the debate on Israel and Palestine, which is very heavily subscribed. I must leave time for that, so what is now required in each case is a short, preferably single-sentence question.

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

My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that a number of families had not yet engaged with regard to rehousing. The community in Latimer Road and the Westway have been marvellous in putting their arms round those families, but can he confirm that, even if there is a delay before those families engage, they will still be given the same priority and rights to rehousing that he has mentioned?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I do agree. We are making progress. We have equipped our criminal courts to work digitally, reducing reliance on paper bundles, and we are doing the same in the civil courts. So far we have saved, in one year, an enormous pile of paper. Devotees of these questions will know that I measure this by the height of the Shard, and we have now saved 4.3 Shard-loads of paper.

[Mr Speaker]

Well done!

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Heald]

No, I deny that I am the only member—we have quite a few.

The Government have announced the timetable for the review, which has been welcomed. It was odd that Simon Hughes called for a review when he was the Minister, but it was a Liberal Democrat press release, and we all know about those.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister’s presidential duties are evidently not very onerous.

Points of Order

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will allow the Minister to respond to that point of order now.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Has it not always been the case that if a Member writes, on Conservative party notepaper, a political message to anyone, that is in order, and that it is only a problem if someone represents themselves as an MP for a particular constituency using our stationery?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

A few years ago, I was shunted up the backside—my car was, I mean. Although I was perfectly well, I received a phone call from someone who asked me whether I had whiplash. I said, “No, I do not have whiplash.” The person said, “Oh, go on! Say that you do have whiplash.” I did not do that, because I am an honourable person. My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to reduce the number of bogus claims.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so accident-prone. I remember serving on a Bill Committee with him many years ago, and receiving the distressing news that he had been bitten in a sensitive place in the course of an excursion overseas. He really does seem to suffer a disproportionate share of ill fate.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

In those circumstances, my hon. Friend showed the strength of character that I would have expected of him. It was, of course, shocking to hear from colleagues, during our Westminster Hall debate, of the experiences that they and their constituents had had of this dreadful cold calling. People are being begged to start proceedings when they have not had an injury.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

Since 2013, legal aid funding has not been available in England and Wales for many immigration cases, including family reunion cases. Unaccompanied or separated children making applications to stay in the UK have to do so on their own, without legal assistance. Given Amnesty’s findings, will the Minister follow the example of the Scottish Government and provide legal advice and assistance to vulnerable individuals such as those children, who have to navigate a very complex immigration system?

[Mr Speaker]

Justice questions would be a lot shorter if we did not have quite so many lawyers. They are very clever and eloquent, but they do take up a lot of the time.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am not going to make my declaration about that now, Mr Speaker. This is a complex issue. There is a role for the local authorities to play, and there is some legal aid available, but I am in correspondence with Amnesty and am looking into the matter in detail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I do agree. We have the best legal system in the world, but we also need to have the most modern one. Getting as many things out of court that do not need to be there, applying the full force of judge and courtroom for the most difficult and complex issues, stripping away unnecessary hearings, redundant paper forms and duplication are all important. I can report that, while two hearings ago, there was a saving of a Shard-load of paper as a result of these reports, that has now gone up to three Shard-loads, so we have saved a pile of paper as high as the Burj Khalifa, the largest building in the world.

[Mr Speaker]

What a well-informed fellow the right hon. and learned Gentleman is.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

The new chairman of the Bar Council, Andrew Langdon QC, has warned people not to rely too heavily on the delivery of justice online. Yesterday the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, complained that facilities in his courts were a disgrace,

“prone to the link”

—the video link—

“failing and with desperately poor sound and picture quality”.

His own court, Court 33, has no such facilities and no video links. Does the Minister understand that some cases are not suitable for video links, and is he prepared to properly resource the ones that are?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Heald]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point about an extremely concerning incident. I have been briefed already, but I have asked for a further report from Her Majesty’s Courts Service on exactly what happened and what measures are necessary to ensure that such an incident does not happen again.

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s have a Berry.

Domestic Violence Victims: Cross-Examination

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

This issue has been wreaking untold devastation on victims of domestic violence. I have now spoken to numerous survivors of abuse whose accounts of torment under cross-examination in the family court—often by convicted rapists—are devastating to hear, but impossible for most of us even to imagine.

I have spoken to a woman who was cross-examined by the man who was in jail for numerous counts of rape and abuse that had left her unconscious and hospitalised. As a result of the family court process, this extremely vulnerable woman needed weeks of medication and months of counselling to recover. She has now suffered such an ordeal three times. I have spoken to the sister of a woman who was abused so grievously that the abuse resulted in her death. The convicted murderer then sued for custody of their child from the prison where he was serving a life sentence for murder. He directly cross-examined the sister of the woman he murdered, even having the grotesque nerve to ask, “What makes you think you can be a parent to my child?” Abuse is being continued and perpetuated right under the noses of judges and the police, the very institutions that should be protecting the vulnerable with every sinew of state power.

On 15 September 2016, in response to speeches by Members on both sides of the House in a Back-Bench debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), said that this is a

“scourge, which blights our society.”—[Official Report, 15 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 1119.]

Yet he made no commitment to review or to change policy. Sadly, it took the excellent coverage in The Guardian during the Christmas break for such a commitment to emerge from the Ministry of Justice.

The source was anonymous, so will the Minister provide clarity in these areas? Lord Justice Munby, the president of the family division, supports measures to outlaw the cross-examination of victims by perpetrators, and he has said that this will require primary legislation. Does the Minister agree with that assessment, and if so, will he make the drafting and introduction of any such legislation a priority? The anonymous source told The Guardian that this was a matter of urgency for the Secretary of State. Will the Minister tell the House when she started the review, and more importantly, precisely when it will be completed? Victims of abuse need to have precision and clarity at this moment of great importance for them. Speed is of the essence, but so is consultation—we need to get this right—so will the Minister tell us what process is in place to enable victims, campaigners and support organisations to feed in their essential experiences and views so that the review is at all times carried out with, not done to, survivors of domestic abuse?

Finally, as I told the House back in September, it is a source of shame to me personally that I got to the age I am today without being aware that such barbarism is being practised within our own legal system. In addition to my lack of inquisitiveness, which I regret profoundly, the secrecy imposed by law on the family court process allowed this to continue without journalistic oversight. Will the Minister consider longer term assessment of the wider operational activity in the family court system? Such assessment should look, in a considered and detailed way, at the overall operation of family courts with a view to ensuring, where appropriate, greater transparency and oversight of the family court process is introduced.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we proceed, let me just say this. The hon. Gentleman has raised an extremely serious matter on the back of very considerable knowledge and research, and he has aired it in this House with great sensitivity. I did not wish to interrupt him—not least for that obvious reason—but perhaps I can announce to the House a new year’s resolution: from now on we must, without fail, stick to the established time limits for urgent questions. The hon. Gentleman was notified of the two-minute limit and he took over three minutes. That is the first point. A lot of more experienced Members will be well aware of my second point, but perhaps I can just underline it. The briefest preamble of description is fine, but an urgent question is supposed to be just that: neither a speech nor a contribution to debate, but a series of questions. I know the hon. Gentleman well and he will not, I am sure, take offence. He has raised very important matters. In future, however, doing so must be done in accordance with the proper form and time.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I agree with many of the hon. Gentleman’s points. Judges have always had wide discretion on family proceedings to try to get to the truth of matters, and to protect the interests of the family and so on. Judges have discretion to ask the questions themselves to try to avoid situations arising that are against the interests of justice. In recent years, judges have become more concerned—as the hon. Gentleman has—about situations where abuse is being perpetrated through the proceedings. That is why Sir James Munby has spoken out, why I have made the comments I have made today, and why the Department is treating this as something that should be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

Is it necessary to change the law? The answer is yes it is. Primary legislation would be necessary to ban cross-examination. I also think there are related ancillary matters that would require primary legislation. Clauses, therefore, are required. Is work being done? Yes, work is being done at a great pace to ensure that all these matters are dealt with in a comprehensive and effective way—the urgency is there. I became the Minister responsible for these matters in October, and I have chaired the Family Justice Board, which has become very concerned about this issue over that period. The Lord Chancellor shares that concern, which is why we are moving at speed to try to tackle it.

The extent to which consultation is necessary is something I will consider in the light of the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and perhaps discuss with him privately if he wishes. My feeling is that what is required is pretty straightforward: a ban, and then the necessary ancillary measures to allow cross-examination without the perpetrator doing it. I would question, therefore, the extent to which a wide consultation is needed, but I will discuss that with him.

On transparency in the courts, journalists are now able to attend court and report the proceedings, although there are obvious restrictions to protect children and so on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Splendid! The hon. and learned Lady elided into a question just in time.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for that and for her news from Scotland. On legal aid in England and Wales, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) deliberately decided to concentrate the effort on cases involving people’s life, liberty, home or, as in this case, domestic abuse. Given that it was a period of austerity and decisions had to be made, I believe he got that judgment right. On the criteria for legal aid and the evidence that needs to be provided, it is not as though the Government have said, “This is set in stone”; where criticisms have been made, we have changed the rules to tackle those criticisms. My overall point is that the Government are responding when we should be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)]

The coalition Government promised to review parts 1 and 2 of the Act and we remain committed to undertaking that review.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Minister for that reply, but I think he may want to take question 15 with question 4.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I would be very happy to do that, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

It is very good of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister to be willing to do what he asked me for permission to do; that is extraordinarily gracious of him.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)]

We will set out our proposals for a Bill of Rights in due course. We will consult fully on our proposals.

[Mr Speaker]

This question is to be taken with No. 7. There is something missing from the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s briefing today.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am so sorry, Mr Speaker. Perhaps with your leave I could also answer question 7 in the same way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I warmly welcome my hon. and learned Friend to his new role and thank him for that brief reply. Although court provision might be regarded as adequate now, it is important that it continues to be adequate in the future. I ask the new Lord Chancellor and ministerial team to look again at the proposals for north Manchester and, in particular, at the consequential effects on the police budget, given that the police will be faced with longer journey times when they attend court.

[Mr Speaker]

We might be faced with longer questions as well, but we are immensely indebted to the hon. Gentleman nevertheless.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

May I start by paying tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done and the proposals he has made for his local courts? He will know, as a lawyer, that we are investing a huge amount of money—a good £1 billion—to transform our courts and tribunals. Modern technology improves efficiency and means that fewer people need to attend court in person. Excellent facilities are available to the people of Bury and Manchester, which have some of the best courts in the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Effective court administration is a very different matter from retaining inefficient and costly court buildings. The question is whether the closures are going hand in hand with investment, efficiency and the best use of technologies in the surrounding courts—not least in Bury, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I was not psychic; I now realise what the hon. Gentleman was driving at earlier. I am glad that he was persistent. Persistence pays.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

My hon. Friend is right. We need a programme of transformation that maintains the very high quality of our legal system—I am sure Members would agree that it is one of the best in the world—but we want to make it the most modern as well, and that is what we are doing. We are investing £1 billion, we have saved a Shard-load of paper, as I mentioned earlier, and we are going to do a lot more, so that our courts can benefit from the digital revolution that every other part of society is already benefiting from.

Junior Doctors Contracts

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I say, on behalf of Members on both sides of the House, how good it is to see the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) back in her seat and, I hope, now in very good health?

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

Many Members are as concerned as the Secretary of State is about the prospect of emergency care not being provided. Does he agree that junior doctors seem to have concerns about the rota and shift patterns, particularly where they are married to another doctor? Is he able to give any assurance that this issue will be looked at carefully as things are rolled out and that the NHS will help couples in that situation by making sure the rotas are more reasonable?

Child Poverty

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There has been a very considerable cacophony in the Chamber. I can advise the House that at least three dozen colleagues are seeking to catch my eye on this important matter. I want to try to accommodate the level of interest, but we have business questions to follow and then a statement by the Secretary of State for Transport, before we embark on a significantly subscribed debate following the Anderson report, so there is a premium on brevity from both Back and Front Benchers. I hope that we will be given a tutorial in that by Sir Oliver Heald.

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

I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the best figures in his and my time in the House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sad to see Labour concentrating on statistics and benefits when the central insight that the Government have had, which is working, is that this is all about work, education and tackling barriers to employment?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Sir Oliver Heald.

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

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be aware that Hertfordshire is a prosperous and successful county. However, it had reached the point at which growth was being compromised because the A1M was not being widened between Stevenage and Welwyn. That work has now been announced but, for the future, are the Government satisfied that they are planning such infrastructure projects far enough ahead to enable us to maintain the kind of strong economic growth that we have at the moment as a result of the long-term economic plan?

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, the hon. Lady is welcome to take guidance from me, and it is this: the hon. Lady’s responsibility is to speak to the motion on the Order Paper rather than to any particular speech that might be made, so while I understand that this is an unusual state of affairs, the responsibility is to speak to the motion. The hon. Lady knows what the purport of the motion is, so she should not unduly trouble herself by trying to anticipate what the Minister might say if he were here—because he can’t, because he isn’t.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday we heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about a change to stamp duty land tax on residential property transactions, and I notice that the information he gave yesterday is set out at step 2 of the motion before the House. Would it therefore be in order for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), in making her speech and her remarks, to go through those points which are already clearly on the record and are contained in the motion?

[Mr Speaker]

It would be. It would be perfectly orderly, and it is good of the hon. and learned Gentleman to offer to help, but I think we can get by without his assistance for now.

I hope my guidance to the hon. Lady is clear. I realise this is an unusual situation for her to face, but if I remember rightly she is a product of Lincoln college, Oxford, so she is what they call prodigiously bright, and I am sure she can cope with the situation.

Point of Order

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. Last Friday, at column 591 in Hansard, I intervened on the shadow Foreign Secretary to ask him to confirm that the German Government’s coalition agreement makes specific reference to EU treaty change. He denied this, and said that there was not a single reference in that document to it. However, at page 111, the document says:

“Wir werden die vertraglichen Grundlagen der Wirtschaft und Wahrungsunion anpassen”,

which means, “We will adapt the Treaty bases of the Economic and Monetary Union.” Should not the shadow Foreign Secretary, as a senior Privy Counsellor, come to the House and correct the record? He got it wrong; I got it right.

[Mr Speaker]

I am immensely grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but whether his German accent would command the approval of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), I leave open to speculation and conjecture. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman has done himself and those who think like him on this matter a service. I am asked whether the shadow Foreign Secretary should come to the House in these circumstances, I think my response—I am well advised on these matters—is that there is no need for that to happen. It is a matter of judgment for the individual Member concerned. In any case, the hon. and learned Gentleman has put his point very firmly, very clearly and, I hope, intelligently on the record. [Interruption.] It is true that there was a quotation in German, but I was exercising a generosity of spirit that I thought was appropriate. [Interruption.] I think we probably need to improve the tone somewhat.

Bill Presented

General Practitioner Surgeries (Rural Areas) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Tim Farron presented a Bill to require provision of General Practitioner surgeries in certain rural areas; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 January 2015, and to be printed (Bill 105)

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed, but this can be dealt with now. What I was gently, diplomatically, politely suggesting to the hon. Lady was that one question ordinarily suffices, and it is not necessary to have five in one go.

[The Solicitor-General]

I do not think I will be able to answer all those questions, but I will certainly write to the hon. Lady when I have reflected on all the detailed points she made.

I want to make the point that the sort of decisions made in 1970 or 1998 occurred under a very different approach from the courts. I think the hon. Lady would accept that since that time the maximum sentences for indecent assault have been increased; the way in which corroboration is dealt with by the courts has changed; and the ways in which character evidence and historical allegations are looked at have changed. For now, I would say that in the current situation the Crown Prosecution Service makes the prosecution of these cases a top priority, and there are new guidelines and all the sorts of approaches I have already mentioned. We are living in a very different world, but I will write to her on the detailed points.

[Mr Speaker]

If lawyers were paid by the word, they would be multi-millionaires by now. I would like to get through a bit more, preferably with the co-operation of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), in the form of an exceptionally pithy question.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

Will Law Officers take every available step to ensure that public servants and former public servants are not prevented, by terms of severance agreements or the Official Secrets Act, from providing information on which the inquiry is contingent?

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is very generous of the Minister to offer the opportunity of a break in the proceedings. It would be churlish of me turn down his offer.

[The Solicitor-General]

Knowing that the House wants to know the answer, I give way. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Minister, particularly for his sensitivity to the sensibilities of colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

Yes, all parts of the criminal justice system are embracing digitalisation, with Essex and Chelmsford playing a key role. Essex police lead on the development of the Athena digital police system—the largest ever collaboration on a police IT project, taking a case from report to court—and Chelmsford is piloting court wi-fi and clickshare video.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is pleased to represent the new white heat of the technological revolution.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

I did not want to trespass on Mr Speaker’s good will, but I am delighted to set out the six actions. First, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary will carry out a themed inspection of domestic violence, liaising closely with the Home Office and the CPS. Secondly, the evidence that I have just mentioned about how out-of-court disposals are dealt with will be examined in more detail to see what is happening in this area. Thirdly, the performance of the CPS is being closely examined to see whether there are differences between areas in the way in which cases are referred. The fourth action entails looking at the independent domestic violence adviser network and making sure that it is performing consistently across the country. Fifthly, six areas are being reviewed and cases which were not referred to the police are being examined closely to see why. Sixthly, the Crown Prosecution Service is going to give further advice to the police about how to pursue cases without the witnesses giving evidence.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Robert Halfon, assuming that he can still remember the original question.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Just about, Mr Speaker.

In 2012 there was the tragic death in my constituency of Eystna Blunnie, a victim of domestic violence. The CPS admitted that there had been a failure to prosecute the murderer for a previous assault. What steps are my hon. and learned Friend and the Government taking to ensure that the CPS properly follows through prosecutions of perpetrators of domestic violence?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

Yes, it is in here somewhere.

None. [Laughter.] No—there is a bit more: the Crown Prosecution Service is not involved in the use of community resolutions, which are out-of-court disposals that enable a police officer to deal proportionately with appropriate offences in a timely and transparent manner.

[Mr Speaker]

I must say that the initial answer was the shortest that I have ever heard, especially from a lawyer.

[Kerry McCarthy]

There is real concern that the orders are being used increasingly to resolve—or supposedly resolve—domestic violence incidents. In 2012, nearly 2,500 of the orders were issued rather than cases being put before the CPS for possible prosecution. Does the Minister share my concern that the orders may be being used as an easy disposal, rather than taking domestic violence seriously?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

It is difficult to prosecute some cases. Often, it is the word of one person against the word of another. It is important in those circumstances to ensure that the victim who is the witness is properly supported. In addition, it is vital to have corroborative evidence and to use it effectively. It is sometimes said that there are a lot of incorrect allegations, but recent research by the CPS shows that there are very few cases of that sort. There has been a big improvement in the conviction rate, but we cannot be complacent. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is important to tackle this matter.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:

Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2013

Presumption of Death Act 2013

Mobile Homes Act 2013

Antarctic Act 2013

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013

Diocese in Europe Measure 2013

Clergy Discipline (Amendment) Measure 2013.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have received no such indication from a Minister. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) is a ready source of information. She has now enlightened the House. I had not heard that news, but I imagine that it will now be well known to the Treasury Bench and her remarks will very soon find their way to Ministers, so my advice to her is that she should remain alert for any developments that might arise. I thank her for what she said.

[The Solicitor-General]

May I start where the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) left off? I entirely accept that what has happened since 2005 has been very disappointing indeed. We had high hopes. I was involved in the debates at that time and we expected that we would see far more women at the very top of the judiciary than we have done. He mentioned one out of 12 in the Supreme Court. I believe it is four out of 38 in the Court of Appeal. It is not acceptable and there is no question but that more needs to be done.

As the right hon. Gentleman conceded to some extent, we have done much in the Bill to try to achieve that, starting with flexible working, which could make a difference, and the tipping-point provisions where two people are of an equal standard. There has been a long debate in the legal profession and among judges about exactly what merit means in this context. Lord Bingham and Lord Phillips previously said that it was the judicial qualities, plus what the needs of the Court were, which had to be put together to establish what the commission should be looking for. One of the needs of the Court is to have the wisdom of highly intelligent women who have sat as judges for many years and who come to the role with the experience of women, which is, admittedly, different in all parts of the House. We are very keen to see the position improved.

There are one or two encouraging signs. For example, those entering the legal profession are now balanced and there is some progress, as the right hon. Gentleman said, at the lower levels. There is no question but that more needs to be done. The Bill makes a start with the flexible working and the tipping point. There was a great deal of discussion in the other place about how to try to make matters go forward faster, and it was accepted there that one way would be a statutory duty underpinning the leadership role of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. That is why, as the right hon. Gentleman said, paragraph 11 of schedule 13 provides that both office holders must take such steps as they consider appropriate for the purposes of encouraging diversity.

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is correct that that is not the application of an objective standard. We are putting trust in the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor to take this matter seriously and come up with a plan for the steps they consider appropriate for the purposes of encouraging diversity. For my part, given that we have not done that previously, and given that I trust those office holders to take it seriously and pursue it vigorously, I am prepared to give them the chance without making it an objective standard. We are putting trust in them, under paragraph 11 of schedule 13, to do the job. I believe that the current Lord Chief Justice takes that very seriously—I have discussed it with him and he certainly gives that impression—as does the Lord Chancellor.

Points of Order

Debate between Oliver Heald and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

If it is on the same matter, I call Mr Oliver Heald.

[Oliver Heald]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. For some hours, the PoliticsHome website has been reporting details of the wording of tomorrow’s motion, yet when I went to inquire where the motion was, I found a queue of Members doing the same thing and we were told that it had not yet been tabled. Should not the rule be that the motion is tabled here first and then put into the media? Is it not time that the recommendation of the Wright Committee that 48’ hours notice should always be given was referred to the Procedure Committee?

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said in support of the point of order raised by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). There is inevitably a certain amount of letting off steam in points of order, but the simple factual position is that this is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman asked a normative question about what the rule should be. That is a matter for the House to decide; I have no power in these matters. It is commonplace for some notice to be given, but that is not an unfailing practice. It is for the Member in charge of the motion to decide on the timing of its tabling, in keeping with such rules of the House as apply, but there has been no breach of order in this case. The concern has been registered and will have been heard—

[Oliver Heald]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

In a moment. The hon. Gentleman has had one bite; he must not be too greedy. I call Mr John McDonnell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Heald]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the Opposition motion is likely to be

“That this House believes that it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB”,

would it be in order for the shadow Leader of the House to rise and tell us whether that is the case, as doing so would be a courtesy to the House?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is a persistent and indefatigable fellow, but I need to say two things to him. First, that is not the way we go about the confirmation of business in this place. Secondly, although it is extraordinarily generous of the hon. Gentleman to refer me to the PoliticsHome website, I am not among those who browse it with any frequency. [Interruption.] “Very wise” says a Government Whip on the Treasury Bench; I suppose Government Whips know about these matters. I think it was the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) who volunteered that helpful advice to me.