Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Debate between Robert Neill and Christopher Chope

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill]

I do not think the Bill adds to that problem at all. If it exists, it can exist in any profession and can be dealt with by proper regulation. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, that the current situation makes that problem worse, because people have to go through what is rightly described by the research from the University of Exeter as a legal farce—a legal ritual of saying, “What is the minimum form of words that your client will accept that will meet the legal test to enable us to get divorced?” That is the sort of thing that can be taken advantage of and it is where the unscrupulous will come in. Removing fault removes the ability for the unscrupulous person to play upon fault, be they a purported adviser or a party to the divorce. Maintaining that approach and resisting these amendments, however well intended, is important and I urge the Government to do so.

It is important to look at the international comparisons. In England, a disproportionate amount of reliance is placed upon fault as the grounds for divorce. There are other grounds for divorce, but because it is complicated at the moment some 60% of divorces in England are based upon allegations of adultery. By that stage, people have split up and are often living apart. There is the business of having to point the finger about who did what. My old pupil master, whom I believe I mentioned on Second Reading, was around when we still had to go through the charade of getting an affidavit from a chambermaid or the receptionist in a hotel to prove divorce. It was a demeaning business and thank God we got rid of that. Maintaining a fault system, which, as I say, entrenches conflict, does us no credit as far as that is concerned.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is only one ground for divorce, which is irretrievable breakdown, and there are five areas where one can adduce evidence of that irretrievable breakdown? Should we not be concentrating on that one issue: irretrievable breakdown?

[Sir Robert Neill]

It seems to me that that is precisely what the Bill is seeking to do. The problem is the requirement to prove the following facts to support that because, inevitably, that evidential requirement elides into the grounds, and the conflict created by the need to prove one or other of those facts is the difficulty. So I think that the Bill is moving in the direction that my hon. Friend, with his own experience in the law, will probably wish us to go.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Gentleman, whom I respect in these matters, makes an interesting point. I have two points to make in response. First, we consulted prior to the design of the system, and one question that came up is whether we should include council tax benefit in the universal credit. The cross-party local authority associations did not want that, which we reflected in the Bill. That was their view at the time and I still believe they were right. We adopted a localist stance, and we need take no lessons on that.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman says there will be different approaches in different areas, but I should gently tell him that he betrays the error of the Labour party’s thinking. Labour Members take a monolithic approach, but local economic circumstances, the demands on people who are not in work, and the demand that they place on council budgets, vary from place to place. The whole point of localising the scheme is to recognise that local authorities are generally better placed than a monolithic and centrally administered scheme to recognise the particular influences on the jobs market and routes back into work in different places.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he put into the Bill, which is a worthwhile contribution to localism. Does he agree that one great virtue of localism is that it gives elected local authorities the opportunity to inculcate their values in the local community? Tendring council might have values it wants to promote in the context of the legislation, but socialist local authorities might want to implement more socialism locally.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour Members’ approach is bizarre. They claim to be localist but object when anything is localised. They claim to recognise the need to reduce the deficit—I am never quite sure about that—but never actually say how or when they would do it. Instead, they just give a blanket criticism of anything that seeks to move things forward.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Robert Neill and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)]

I am grateful that I have been given the opportunity to sit through this almost unique debate. I hope to participate fairly briefly, as Members still wish to consider other aspects of the Bill in the time available.

It is fair to say that this is an unusual type of Bill and this is probably an even rarer stage of debate on it. I am grateful to all Members who have participated and hope they will forgive me if I do not follow them down all the highways and byways through which the debate has ranged. I shall say a few words factually about the Government’s stance and position on the Bill as we now find it, and I shall cover a little of the history.

I believe this Bill started out before the last general election. It is, of course, a private Bill, so a different set of procedures apply. It has been changed a great deal in the course of its passage. It is worth remembering that it is more than a year since the Bill was last debated in this House and there have been some significant changes. Because it is an unusual form of legislation, it is right that the appropriate level of scrutiny is given to it. I appreciate the spirit in which Members of all parties have approached the debate.

The changes take on board to some extent the concerns raised by the Government at an earlier stage. I hope hon. Members will recollect—I looked back and checked—that my concerns focused in particular on measures that potentially placed undue burdens on businesses, business owners and entrepreneurs or that otherwise did not sit comfortably with Government policies.

In fairness, the principal elements that concerned the Government on Second Reading have been removed, and I thank the Bill’s supporters for their flexibility and willingness to compromise. As is normal in the case of such Bills, all the Departments that might be affected have been consulted, and no concern has been expressed about direct conflict with Government policy. As far as can be ascertained, it has historically been the convention for Governments to take a neutral position on private Bills, and that is what the Government intend to do in this instance. The Bill has been scrutinised by the House, and it is therefore appropriate for the Government to defer to the conclusions that Members reach on the basis of what we have heard so far, and of what we may yet hear before the day is out.

[Mr Chope]

It seems that the Government are now saying that they are taking a neutral position. However, on Second Reading they expressed something other than neutrality: they expressed opposition to certain provisions. Can I tease out from my hon. Friend a little more about how the Government decide when they will be neutral, when they will be opposed, and when they will support a private Bill?

[Robert Neill]

Because there is comparatively little of what could almost be described as jurisprudence in this regard, we must depend to some extent on precedent, while also applying a measure of practicality on a case-by-case basis.

Given that background, I do not think it appropriate to elaborate further at this stage.

[Mr Chope]

We have had an excellent debate. I thank all who have participated, including those who have made telling interventions. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) was not present for much of the debate, but I am grateful to him for his participation, although he did not go into much detail. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) for listening to the arguments and, as a result, giving notice that, on behalf of the promoters, he will accept a fair number of my amendments.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) for supporting the amendments, thereby contributing significantly to the decision of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green to accept so many of them. They go some way towards improving some of the clauses in the Bill, but, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, they do not do anything other than ameliorate the Bill. They do not address some of the most fundamental issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset spoke for some time about clause 4, which contains the power to require names and addresses. He cited a number of historical precedents. I thought the Homeric example was the most telling, but the reference to P. G. Wodehouse was also very pertinent. However, underlying his argument, which he made in his inimitable and witty style, were some serious issues that touched on the reason why we have not had revolutions in the United Kingdom for centuries. We have always accepted the primary importance of allowing citizens their liberties, and we take away those liberties only if there is a strong case for so doing. Recently, however, there has been a gradual erosion of the right to which he referred—the right of a person not to tell anybody their name, address and identity unless they have committed, or are thought to be committing, a criminal offence, and even then only if that information is demanded by a police constable.

That right was jealously guarded when the House considered the legislation relating to police community support officers. The House realised that PCSOs might need to ask the identity of individuals who they thought were committing criminal offences. Even then, however, the House did not allow PCSOs to have the power of arrest. Instead, it said that PCSOs could ask someone who refused to give their name and address or whom they suspected of giving an inaccurate name and address to stay behind for up to half an hour, during which time a police constable could come along and effect the necessary arrest.

Clause 4 would significantly extend that power to borough councils and police community support officers, although as a result of the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green has accepted, clause 4 will no longer apply to accredited persons. Obviously we are grateful for that, but we think that the power in clause 4 to require names and address, coupled with the power effectively to criminalise a person and subject them to a maximum £1,000 fine for refusing to supply that information, is wrong in principle.

It is all the more wrong that the law should apply in one part of the country and not across the country as a whole. The House should deal with issues of civil liberties on a national basis, rather than on a piecemeal basis. Nobody has made the case for why borough councils or PCSOs in London should have greater powers to obtain names and addresses and to impose penalties if they are not supplied than powers elsewhere in the country. At the heart of the provision, therefore, is a problem. It is a misuse of a private Bill to extend powers at the expense of ordinary citizens in London, especially if the same is not being done elsewhere in the country.

The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, quite reasonably, that the Bill was supported by the 33 London boroughs, but that is not an end in itself. If this was simply a matter of byelaws, those London boroughs could implement them; but here we are introducing public law and criminal restrictions in London and not elsewhere in the country. It is incumbent upon the House to consider the matter not only from the point of view of a resident of a London borough, but in a national context and from the point of view of people who work in London, visitors and others.

Fire Safety (Protection of Tenants) Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Christopher Chope

Friday 19th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair and interesting point. Of course, we cannot put a price on saving life, and I would not like to think that anyone thought we could do that. Inevitably with a private Member’s Bill, we do not have an impact assessment, as we might with a Government proposal. However, if he is saying that we should keep the door open to considering the most effective technology, he is right. As I made clear to the hon. Member for Torbay, however, price is not the sole consideration. I also want something that is genuinely enforceable and will genuinely work on the ground. That is why it is important to look at up-to-date technology and not inadvertently to create a lack of flexibility.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

One thing that concerns me about the Bill is the requirement that every tenant should have to test the smoke alarm once a month. There is no sanction, so I cannot understand how that provision would be enforced. Does my hon. Friend understand how it could be enforced?

[Robert Neill]

With every respect to the hon. Member for Torbay, I am afraid that that is one of the most significant problems with the Bill. As I said, it is difficult in principle to create an obligation without some means of enforcing it.

Two specific difficulties arise in relation to the obligations in the Bill. First, it works on the premise that its requirements must be included in a written contract of tenancy. As a matter of practice, most contracts of tenancy are in writing, but there is no legal requirement for them to be. I would not want to create a perverse incentive for people not to have written contracts so that they could get around these provisions.

The second point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) rightly said, is that there is an obligation not only on the landlord to ensure that the system is in place—that might be straightforward enough, subject to certain cost considerations and the right technology—but on the tenant to test all smoke alarms

“at least once a month”

and to

“notify the landlord of any defect”.

I find it difficult to see how that could ever be policed in any proportionate or practical manner. If the provision is intended to raise the awareness of landlords and tenants of the desirability of such measures, that is well and good, and I would welcome it. However, primary legislation is not the right route to deal with that laudable objective.

When a criminal sanction attaches to the tenant who fails to test the fire alarm once a month—the Bill refers to tenants failing to do that—there are real risks involved. That aside, although the landlord faces a criminal sanction under clause 2(1), it is not clear what the sanction on the tenant is, so how do we enforce it? An obligation that is not enforceable will not actually help anyone. Furthermore, there is no means of coming back at the landlord, even if the tenant did notify him, and he did not act. If such a case ever came to proceedings, how would we prove whether it was the tenant who had not tested the system or, having tested it, had not notified the landlord of the problem—there could be two errors—or the landlord, who, having been notified, had failed to act? There are so many variables and possibilities that the Bill does not make for good primary legislation. That is why, with every respect to the hon. Member for Torbay, I do not believe that it is the right way forward, but I am more than happy to have discussions with him.

Officials have met the hon. Gentleman before today. He met the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), who has responsibility for housing, on 13 October, and he has had discussions with officials. We have not shut the hon. Gentleman out of the Department, and I greatly hope that he will take up the opportunity to meet me and discuss the matter further. He has a good reputation for campaigning on the subject, and I hope that he will act as an advocate for people, both as a Member of Parliament—

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Debate between Robert Neill and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I have enjoyed sitting outside the occasional premises myself in the past, and the hon. Gentleman is right. It is entirely a question of getting the right balance, and I hope that we can do that with some good will as the Bill makes progress.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Neill]

I will on this occasion, although I might not be as generous as the Bill’s sponsor throughout the whole debate.

[Mr Chope]

I find that rather disappointing, because I do not seek to intervene unless I have a question.

The Minister says that he and Ministers from other Departments such as the Home Office will have to reflect on the contents of the Bill, but it has been around since 2007 and the coalition Government have been in office for many months. How will those deliberations reach a conclusion, and how will it be communicated to the promoters of the Bill and other people who are interested in the subject?

[Robert Neill]

I do not believe the Department for Communities and Local Government can be accused of having twiddled our thumbs unduly. In fact, a number of people would argue the contrary. Our officials are already in discussions with the promoters of the Bill, as are those of other Departments. Difficulties sometimes arise because a number of Departments have an interest in a Bill of this kind, and it is important to get it right, so I do not believe there can be any criticism of the current Government. It is in the nature of private Bills that they sometimes progress more slowly than other types of legislation. I do not intend to disappoint my hon. Friend gratuitously when he seeks to intervene, but equally I am sure that the House will want to make progress.

I wish to touch upon a matter where I understand the point that my hon. Friend and other Members have made. The Government have made a clear pledge to reverse the erosion of civil liberties and roll back the state’s power to intrude on citizens. That is an important principle and may be pertinent in considering some of the provisions on houses in multiple occupation in parts 4 and 5 of the Bill, which have been mentioned. It may help if I offer a little detail.

The Housing Act 2004 introduced a range of measures intended to improve the management standards and condition of privately rented accommodation such as HMOs. It provided local authorities with extensive tools and powers to take action when the condition or management of HMOs falls below required standards. It introduced mandatory licensing of larger, higher-risk HMOs and provided local authorities with the discretion to extend licensing to other categories of HMOs to address particular management problems in smaller properties. It also introduced management regulations for all HMOs, regardless of whether they are licensable, which local authorities can use to take action when they find management problems in specific properties.

HMO licensing works alongside the housing health and safety rating system, which was also introduced in 2004, under which local authorities can make a risk assessment of the likely impact of property condition on occupants of privately rented accommodation. When that happens and when a category 1 or 2 hazard is identified, local authorities have powers to impose improvements.

Of course, failure to comply with an improvement notice and a breach of the HMO management regulations are already criminal offences. Both the licensing and the housing health and safety rating system regimes provide local authorities with an extensive enforcement framework to take action in cases in which the condition and management of HMOs fall below required standards.

Therefore, with regard to part 5 of the Bill, the existing powers-of-entry provisions in the Housing Act 2004 provide local authorities with extensive powers to enter properties and to take immediate enforcement action in cases in which the condition and management of the property falls well below required standards. In such cases, local authorities are required to give a minimum of 24 hours’ notice to the owner and occupiers of a property prior to an inspection. However, in emergency cases—those that involve an imminent risk of serious harm to the health and safety of any occupier of a property or when it is suspected that an offence has been committed in relation to HMO licensing—local authorities may enter the property immediately without giving notice. The legislation also requires authorisation by a deputy chief officer to ensure that such powers are used in the appropriate circumstances, where the severity of the case warrants emergency action.

As I have said, the Government pledged to reverse the erosion of civil liberties and to roll back the ability of the state to intrude on citizens. Extending the powers of entry beyond those that exist would therefore, on the face of it, tend to undermine the purpose of the freedom Bill, which is delivering a key objective of the coalition Government. We have also made it clear that we do not propose to introduce new burdens on the private-rented sector. The Government therefore oppose parts 4 and 5 of the Bill. However, I recommend further consultation between the Bill’s proponents and my officials at the Department for Communities and Local Government to see whether improvements can be made that sit in harmony with the Government’s wider civil liberties ambitions.