Valedictory Debate

Debate between Robert Neill and Nigel Evans

Friday 24th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who reminded me that, as a young girl, she lived in Bromley. I am delighted to see her here.

Like my hon. Friend, I started my career in local government, and it is exactly 50 years since I was elected to Havering Council. I was younger and somewhat more acned, which indicates something about the quality of social life that I had at the time. I was lucky enough to take responsibilities on the council quite early, and I enjoyed doing so. I was chairman of the environment committee—we had a committee system back then, rather than portfolio holders—and I was able to initiate important measures, such as cleaning up the streets of Havering, Romford and Hornchurch. That triggered a headline in the Romford Recorder that read, “Dog mess Neill steps in”, which may have set the general tone for what was to be the early part of my political career.

I then briefly found myself on the Greater London Council. That was useful, because I managed to keep pace with Ken Livingstone in the bar from time to time, which came in handy later when I became the London Assembly Member for Bexley and Bromley, and leader of the Conservative group on the London Assembly. Of course, that background in London politics has enabled me to meet many of my hon. Friends who are here today. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster is one, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who is sitting next to me, is another.

As I was engaged in London politics, I was also practising as a barrister, and I will say more about that in a moment. My journey, which started 50 years ago, comes to an end today, and it has been an amazing privilege. I am not quite sure what my maternal grandfather, a staunch trade unionist, would have made of it all, but I hope he is looking down favourably.

Eventually I was fortunate enough to be elected, after a couple of mishaps. I fought Dagenham twice—Dagenham fought back. It was perhaps the only election campaign where one of my former clients volunteered to deliver leaflets for me. When I was elected at the by-election in Chislehurst, another former client came up to me and said, “Ah, Bob. I voted for you.” Given I had got him acquitted a year or so before of a £250 million bearer bond fraud, I thought that was the least he could have done. In the end, the Bromley and Chislehurst constituency came along and I was elected at the by-election.

I had become the London Assembly Member under the usual circumstances: I did not live in either Bexley or Bromley, but the people of Bexley did not want anyone from Bromley and the people of Bromley did not want anyone from Bexley. I arrived and served on the London Assembly. I pay tribute to the work that is done in local government, across the piece and everywhere. I had the privilege thereafter of being local government Minister for a time, so I know how important the work of local government is.

I have now represented the wonderful constituency of Bromley and Chislehurst for the past 18 years, and I have made many great friends there. Bromley was Harold Macmillan’s constituency; I have always felt that very strongly as I see myself in the Macmillan tradition of one nation Conservatism. I am a politician on the centre-right. In my book, the centre in that phrase is as important as the right. Long may we continue to hold to that tradition of pragmatism, compassion and sensible moderation that has been the hallmark of our party over the years, which Macmillan epitomised and which inspired many of my generation.

The seat has changed over the years, but it is a still a wonderful part of London to live in, as I do and intend to continue to do. It has been split up by the Boundary Commission. Among other things, that has triggered my decision to leave, as well as perhaps the passing of the years, although not really. I wish both Charlie Davis in Chislehurst and Eltham and Peter Fortune in Bromley and Biggin Hill every good fortune in carrying on the fight—if they are successful, as I hope they will be, at the election.

Having arrived in the House, I served as a shadow Minister and was then appointed a junior Minister at the Department of Communities and Local Government in 2010. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and I arrived at the Department on the same day. I seem to recall it took 24 hours before the civil service would let us into the building, because a fax needed to be sent to confirm who we were and that we had been appointed as Ministers. Lo and behold, who was the then Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State Eric Pickles, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon?

It was a privilege to serve as a Minister. As well as local government, I dealt with the fire service. Interestingly, Eric asked me to become Minister for community pubs—I cannot think why that came about. I noticed that far more officials were willing to come with me on visits when I was dealing with community pubs than they were when I was dealing with local government pension funds. In the course of that local government work, I met the Deputy Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who is now sitting on the Front Bench. I appreciated David Cameron giving me the opportunity to serve as a Minister. He once described me at a Conservative councillors’ conference as “Eric’s mini me”. Somebody once said junior Ministers were there to be the Secretary of State’s human shield; well, I don’t think I was much of that.

That time in Government passed, and for the past nine years I have had the greatest privilege of my career in Parliament: to Chair the Justice Committee. The law has been central to my life and always will be. Dealing with those issues in this House, and reminding people that a functioning justice system is as important a social service as functioning education, health and care systems, matters.

My brand of conservatism, and indeed all safe forms of constitutional government, depend upon respect for institutions, checks and balances, and the independence of our judiciary. I gently say that anyone in politics who has attempted to attack lawyers for doing their job, or judges for coming to their independent decisions, is not understanding of checks and balances—that is neither constitutional, nor, I say gently, very Conservative. I hope that I have done my best to make that case, and that there will be other ways in which I can continue doing so from outside this House.

I thank all members of the Committee. We have had a magnificent team over the years. When I started, two bright young Back Benchers came on to the Committee. One is now the Attorney General; the other is the Lord Chancellor. I rather feel that I have become a sort of legal-political Banquo—not king but father of kings. It is a great source of pride to me to see that serious lawyers are still prepared to come into Parliament and carry out essential public service. Frankly, we need more of them, because to scrutinise legislation, a forensic mind and approach is of genuine value.

I also thank the Committee Clerks. They have been absolutely brilliant. We have had numbers of them, most recently Rob Cope and his team, and David Weir, who many hon. Members know, before him. I thank everybody who has worked with me in that role. I like to think that we have been consensual and dealt with things on a cross-party basis, and I hope that we have made a difference in a number of areas. My only regret in my farewell being brought forward somewhat unexpectedly is that there is still business undone that I would like to have returned to, such as the service and work of the probate registry, the situation in our prisons, and the pressures in our courts—there is still much more to do. The people who work in the justice system at every level provide a great service to our country.

I have also had the chance to pursue other causes dear to my heart, and I hope to be able to continue that, too. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, which is a matter of great pride to me. Gibraltar is a proud part of the British family, and we owe it to Gibraltarians to have a good deal with the European Union in order to enable the free-flowing border that is absolutely essential to Gibraltar’s wellbeing. It was our choice—although not my personal choice—to leave the European Union. That was the democratic decision, but as many people will know, it placed Gibraltar under particular pressures. We owe it to them not to obstruct any sensible deal. I am sure that that will be the case in the hands of this or any future Government, because we have built cross-party consensus on supporting Gibraltar.

I have also been able to do that sometimes very dangerous thing in politics of owning up to an interest in the arts. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on opera, and am delighted to have worked across parties with the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) in our campaign to rescue great institutions such as the English National Opera from at least some of the damage done by the cuts by Arts Council England. I have never understood the inverted snobbery that we sometimes have about public figures talking about an interest in the arts. I got interested in opera when I was a teenager, when I did a bit of amateur acting, would you believe. I never saw any contradiction in going to Sadler’s Wells or Covent Garden, up in the gods on a Friday, and going to Upton Park to watch West Ham on a Saturday. It ought to be perfectly possible to enjoy both, and I hope that we have a future generation of politicians just as willing to talk about their interest in theatre, music and all other art forms as they are about sporting activities. They are all part of what enriches our souls.

Finally, the other thing that I have dealt with is stroke care. I very much hope to continue with that as it is very personal to me, as the House will know. For Ann-Louise’s sake, and the sake of many others, I want to continue to ensure that we get better stroke care. We are great at the lifesaving bit, but we need an awful lot more to be done for therapy and recovery thereafter.

And so, as the greyhound of destiny catches up with the electric hare of fate, to quote those immortal words that we used to get on “I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue”, I had better draw my remarks to an end with some thank-yous. I say a particular thank you to my office staff, who have looked after me throughout—to Vanessa and Rory, who are up in the Gallery, to Jane, to Lewis, to Sam, who was with me for many years, and to Joanne in the constituency office. They have all been stars. They have been very tolerant of me. They have collected things that I have left in all manner of unlikely places. I could not thank them enough. They are like a second family.

I, too, thank all the members of staff of the Commons, at every level, from the Doorkeepers right the way around. All of you have been magnificent. I do hope that the Smoking Room will remain financially viable when I have gone. I shall always miss all of you.

The final thank-yous are to my family: to Anne-Louise, who has always been there for me—now it is my turn to be there for her—my two wonderful stepchildren, James and Victoria, and my little grandson, Aneurin, who is one this week. We are a very ecumenical family in political terms, as colleagues can tell from the names. For him, I want to make sure that the world is better when he grows up than it is in some respects at the moment. That is an ambition that we all have. Maybe watching this at some point will be my old mum, who is 100 in September—I just hope it is in the genes.

As for what the future holds, we will see. My practice was, of course, always at the criminal Bar. I found it useful sometimes when the witnesses could not see where the cross-examination was coming from. Anyone who knows the criminal Bar will not be surprised to hear that I had a message earlier today from my old head of chambers, Jim Sturman KC, saying, “Ring the clerks about coming back.” Who knows, but it has been the privilege of my life to represent Bromley and Chislehurst and its wonderful people—my friends and neighbours—and a privilege to have had the chance to do the jobs that I have done. Now is the right time for me to go—before, as happens with all old lawyers, I lose my appeal.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Sir Robert—Bob, as you are known to everybody—we are going to miss you. Love to Anne-Louise. You have always been there for her; we know that. Maybe there will be a bit more time now for opera. We wish you incredibly well.

Criminal Justice Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Wednesday 15th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Sir Robert Neill]

This has been a wide-ranging debate, because it is a wide-ranging Bill, and it has touched on a number of difficult, sometimes sensitive and complex topics. However, the tone of the debate does the House a great deal of credit. I appreciate the tone and approach taken by both Front-Bench teams; there is more common ground than not on a number of these areas. Let us see what we can do to improve things. I particularly appreciate the approach adopted by our Minister today, whose engagement has been exceptional on all these matters; I am grateful to her.

Let me deal with some of the amendments. I certainly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on his work on cuckooing, which is a real issue; I have seen it in my constituency. We have a gap in the law that we need to plug. I also endorse what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) about new clause 86 and related matters. The concept of consent is perfectly well established in the law on sexual offences, and there would be nothing abnormal in making consent, rather than motive, the gravamen of the offences in question. In fact, that approach would bring them more into line with the rest of the canon of sexual offences. I really hope that the Government will think hard about that. Obviously, I take on board the points made about the amendments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) spoke to, and the powerful speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) about the desecration of corpses. That is a vile concept, and clearly the law needs to be amended.

I will concentrate on two matters that the Justice Committee has examined over a period, the first being the provisions on the transfer of prisoners to serve sentences in prisons overseas. I made it clear that I am sceptical about the efficacy of that measure. I do not say it is unlawful, and I do not think the Opposition are saying that either. I accept that it has happened in limited circumstances elsewhere, including in states that are party to the European convention on human rights. The most obvious example is Belgium renting prison space in the Netherlands, but there has also been an example in Norway and Scandinavia. However, our situation is very different. Those two instances highlight the limited value of such arrangements. The prison space that Belgium rented in Holland was very close by—in some cases, it was literally up the road—and there was a similar situation in the Scandinavian countries. In addition, those countries are in the Schengen area. Those instances are not the same as transferring people overseas, some distance away. The practical implications, which the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others referred to, will get in the way of the proposal achieving anything.

I am grateful to the Minister for recognising some of the concerns raised by Opposition Front Benchers and the Law Society. It is imperative that proper legal advice be available. It is important that there be an inspection regime that ensures parity of standards with those in United Kingdom prisons. Again, I stress the importance of maintaining family ties. The Minister follows these things very closely, so she will know that the evidence overwhelmingly shows, time and again, that the three best things for getting people to turn their life around and not reoffend are a roof over their head, a home, and a family or relationship. If a family relationship or close family ties of any kind are undermined, it makes it more likely that people will reoffend.

Given the number of safeguards that will have to be put in place—to safeguard not just convention rights, to which the Minister rightly referred, but common law rights, which predate the convention and our incorporation of it into our domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998—it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever end up going abroad. I would much rather we concentrated on more direct measures to deal with the crisis of overcrowding in our prisons. The overseas jail cells measures will not make any difference to the pressures on prison places, or any contribution to long-term demand. If we want to return foreign national prisoners abroad, it would be much better to speed up our prisoner return agreements and get those prisoners to serve their sentence in their home country. That would be constructive. We already have the measures and the legal framework to do that; we just need to be much more rigorous in our use of them.

If we really want to deal with overcrowding in our prisons, the Government and the business managers need to get a grip and bring the Sentencing Bill back to the Floor of the House. That Bill contains valuable, sensible and balanced measures that deal with public protection properly. It provides a far better suite of measures to reduce unproductive forms of imprisonment, and concentrate the very expensive resource of prison where it is most needed: on violent, dangerous and serious offenders. That would be a far greater contribution.

I pay massive tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) for her work in this area. As a lawyer, during my time at the criminal bar, I have both prosecuted and defended one-punch manslaughter cases. I fully understand the impact on families; I have sometimes had to talk to families who have had to accept manslaughter charges. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think the wording of her new clause, as it stands, would meet what is required to deal with this. I am concerned that we are looking at the offence in a piecemeal fashion. Unlawful act manslaughter is a legally complex area. It is often not easy for juries to understand; it is not even easy for judges looking at the factual situation to direct on. That was highlighted recently in the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Auriol Grey, the severely autistic and disabled lady whose actions, tragically, caused an elderly cyclist to fall off her bicycle into the path of a car and be killed. She was originally convicted on the basis of unlawful act manslaughter. A very strong Court of Appeal quashed that conviction, which highlights some of difficulties in such cases.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am introducing a six-minute limit from the very beginning.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Given the time available, I will concentrate on some specific aspects of this very important Bill.

I welcome the approach taken by the Minister and by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State, whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench. Their constructive approach has improved the Bill considerably. I am particularly grateful to them for having taken on board, in a large number of aspects, the Justice Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Victims Bill, as it then was, and our September 2022 report on imprisonment for public protection sentences. They have moved and I very much welcome that. I particularly appreciate the efforts the Lord Chancellor has made personally to engage with me and members of my Committee.

It is worth saying that IPP sentences remain a blot on the justice system—not my words, but those, dare I say it, of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. We want to try to remove that blot as much as possible. We need not rehearse the history. Whatever the intentions, the scheme did not have the desired effect. Indeed, it had the effect of creating real injustice to such an extent that this House, with cross-party support, abolished IPP sentences as long ago as 2012. What we did not do was remove the sentences retrospectively, so we now have a situation where there are still some 2,600 people in prison with indeterminate sentences that we as a House think are not appropriate and do not work. The noble Lord Blunkett, the author of the scheme, said in another place, “I got it wrong” and that we need to put it right. Against that honesty from the author of the scheme, I hope the House will reflect that we ought to grasp the nettle.

There have been major changes, and we should recognise the Government’s good intent, in relation to the licence situation. As the Minister observed, these go beyond our recommendations. I appreciate that, and it will make a major change for very many prisoners. Our Committee took evidence from more witnesses than for any other inquiry and published a report of some 62 pages about how the licence provisions were setting people up to fail. Because they had a lifelong sword of Damocles over their head, their rehabilitation was inhibited. Indeed, we heard compelling evidence about the negative impact on their mental health and ability to reintegrate into society.

Reducing the wait for a lifelong licence to be removed from 10 years to three, with the extra possibility after two further years, is a major reform, and I am grateful for it, particularly as there are more people who have been recalled to prison on their licences than there are those serving their original sentences. That is important but, with all due respect to the Government, I do not think it goes far enough, which is why I want to persist, if possible, with my new clause 1—and, in setting out the reasons for doing so, to address the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) from the Opposition Front Bench.

This is not about an immediate opening of the prison gates. I can understand people’s perfectly proper concerns about public protection, not least because many of those incarcerated on these sentences will have suffered real mental deterioration while in prison, as the indefinite nature of the sentence gives them no hope, and so will potentially be in a worse state, in terms of public protection, than when they went in. It would be unfair and unrealistic to pretend that new clause 1 would lead to the immediate release of every person in this situation. It is much more considered and modest than that, and would set up a process whereby an independent panel would advise on how best to embark on a resentencing exercise. That is an unusual thing, but the existence of the IPP sentences, without any retrospective change, is an unusual thing, too.

This was recommended to us as the logical option by the noble Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, a former Lord Chief Justice. Against the background of his eminence, I think the new clause warrants better consideration than we have yet had. If new clause 1 is not supported in this House tonight, I very much hope that the other House will look at it again and that the Government will continue to engage on it, because it would not lead to an immediate release of anybody. It would, though, set in train a process to enable everyone to be given a determinate sentence. That seems to me only fair and just, and I hope that we can look at that going forward. It cannot be just or accord with our sense of fairness that we should have people serving sentences in some cases 10 years in excess of their tariff, which is out of all proportion to the sentence that the judge at the time thought was appropriate for the index offence, as we call it.

There are other important parts of this Bill—which I am afraid I do not have time to touch on—that I also welcome and hope will be taken forward. In particular, I welcome the changes to parole, which are a much more balanced set of measures now than they were when the Bill was originally brought forward. I know that the Lord Chancellor and the Minister have acted personally to improve the Bill in that regard. I thank them for that, but I ask them still to reflect upon the position on IPP sentences.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the SNP Front Bencher.

Armed Forces Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The debate finishes at 6.29 pm and we would like to hear from the Minister at the end, so I ask everybody to be conscious of the need to get everybody in.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I shall be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I welcome my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister’s tone. He has sought to be constructive. I appreciate that he has made a number of concessions, and I am glad the Government have done that. In particular, I welcome his tribute to the noble Lord Mackay and others. Anyone who knows anything about the law and Government does not lightly mix with James Mackay, and I am glad that has been recognised. I also welcome and endorse the comments made about the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in this regard.

On defence justice issues, I rather agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the Chair of the Defence Committee. There has been movement and I am glad about that, but I am still not convinced by the salami-slicing point. I cannot for the life of me see how Lords amendment 1B creates any difficulty.

My real concern—the additional point I was going to make beyond the interventions I have already made—is about the way the defence serious crimes unit will be structured. Hopefully, there will not be a large number of cases to prosecute, but those involving rape and serious sexual offences in particular will almost invariably require great sensitivity in handling the investigation and the presentation in court, both in prosecution and in defending. Inevitably, such cases—where a member of the forces is either a complainant or a victim, or perhaps both—will by their nature, very properly, engage the highest level of public interest in the broadest sense. The concern is whether a small prosecuting body will ever be able to gather the critical mass of expertise to adequately do justice in those cases, whatever the good intentions.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Sir Robert Neill, who must resume his seat at 8.55 pm or before.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and his expertise in this policy area. I accept that the amendment is not at all perfect, but it is the only thing that is currently available to keep the issue in play, which is why, unfortunately, I cannot support the Government tonight. I had hoped we would have a solution by now.

The simple point is that whoever is at fault—there may be a number of them as this has happened over a period of time—the people who are not at fault are the leaseholders who bought in good faith. They relied on surveys and regulations that appeared to suggest that their properties were in order and had no reason to think otherwise. It therefore cannot be right that they are out of pocket, regardless of the height of the building. I quite understand that there may be perfectly good reasons for using 18 metres as a threshold of risk for prioritising work, but it has no relevance to responsibility, moral or otherwise, so it is an arbitrary cut-off point.

I had hoped that Ministers would have taken the opportunity between the previous debate and this one to come up with a further scheme. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister, who I know is trying to do the right thing and has put a great deal of money into the matter, to continue to think again and work urgently on this matter because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, time is pressing. The only people who do not have the cash flow are the leaseholders. By all means go after those at fault, be they builders, developers or contractors, but in the meantime we cannot leave leaseholders, who have done nothing wrong, facing bankruptcy because they are effectively in negative equity and are having to fork out for a significant amount of costs, as are my constituents at Northpoint in Bromley.

This is destroying people’s lives. None of us wants to do that and I know that the Government do not want to do that. To find a solution, we have to cover the costs for those people who are not in a position to fund these costs over the length of time between this Bill imposing a liability on them and the Building Safety Bill coming along perhaps 18 months—12 months at best—down the track. It is covering that gap that needs to be done. That gap has to be covered in a way that treats and protects all leaseholders equitably regardless of the height of the building. I hope that the Government will use the opportunity of this going back to the other House to think again and urgently to crystallise a solution that we can all join around. The intentions are the same across the House, but we must have something that does not leave leaseholders—those who are not at fault—exposed. It is not a question of caveat emptor. They relied on professional advice and assurances. They are not the ones at fault. Be it loan or grant, either way they should not be picking up the tab for something that was not, ultimately, their responsibility.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I have been encouraged by those here physically who tell me that they will make short contributions to try to do this without imposing a time limit. May I encourage those participating remotely, if they have prepared short speeches, to stick with the speeches they have prepared?

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I shall be as short as comes naturally to me, Mr Deputy Speaker.

This is a very important Bill, because the topics are of profound significance to every citizen of this country. It is a difficult and sometimes very fine balance that has to be achieved between the key obligation of any Government to protect the citizen, and our commitment to the rule of law, due process and sensible and rational sentencing in dealing with people who are suspected of being, or have been, involved in the gravest of offences. The endeavour to get it right was very important. I think the Bill has been improved by the scrutiny. I, too, thank the Minister for his approach—it is a pleasure to follow him and the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) —and I think that we have got to a sensible place. I was grateful for the Minister’s briefing to me about the Government’s thinking on the Bill. As he knows, I have raised the two issues that we are discussing tonight on earlier occasions. I am grateful to the Government for listening and for the tribute to the noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who has vast experience in this field. I am pleased that the Government have taken on board the genuinely felt views and experience of many practitioners in the field, and I think that we have ended up in a sensible place of compromise.

Trade Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I yield to no one in my detestation of genocide and I yield to no one in my admiration for the domestic courts of the United Kingdom. Despite the good intentions of Lords amendment 3B, it has to be faced that it has a fundamental flaw, in that it brings the domestic courts of the United Kingdom into areas where, constitutionally, they have never sought to go.

When we refer to the competent courts in relation to genocide, it is abundantly clear from the convention and subsequent legislation that we refer to the international courts and, in certain circumstances, the criminal courts of the United Kingdom in relation to individuals who are within their jurisdiction. That is wholly different from what is proposed in Lords amendment 3B, which brings the civil courts of the United Kingdom into a wholly novel area of jurisprudence, linked only to one specific issue, which is genocide in contemplation of a trade deal, not more generally.

The decisions on trade deals are constitutionally entirely matters for Parliament. That is why, despite the best endeavours and intentions of the amendment, I cannot support it and why I brought forward the amendment in lieu in my name, supported by three former law officers of the Crown. This would enable Parliament to express a clear view and would, inevitably, in real political terms, enable it to block a trade agreement with a genocidal state, because no Government could ignore that, but it would do so at the end of a parliamentary process. This would then give the appropriate Select Committee greater powers than Select Committees otherwise have, because they will be entitled not only to demand as a matter of law that the Government table the motion that they require if they are dissatisfied with the Government’s response, but to write the wording of the motion. This goes further than the powers that Select Committees have at the moment. That would be most important, as it would enable us to have a proper lock on the matter. We must not allow the courts to be dragged into an area where they have not themselves sought to go. We saw the wholly unfair and unjust criticism of our courts in cases such as the Miller litigation. To place them in this situation, where they will be obliged to step beyond what is the normal constitutional balance, would not be fair on them. They would not be in an easy position to come to a determination, as has been pointed out. Above all, it would inevitably be inviting them to trespass into areas that are highly politically contentious.

I want to have a means of scrutinising future trade deals. That is why I have much more sympathy for Lords amendment 1B than I have for Lords amendment 3B, because that would give a means of dealing with it. Lords amendment 3B, it is misconceived because of that misunderstanding in relation to what a competent court is and the need not to stretch that beyond our constitutional practices—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will leave it there, Sir Robert.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill]

Nobody else has been giving way, with every respect to my hon. Friend. Other people want to get in. I have said what I have to say. In fairness, he and I could happily go on all day about this in a friendly manner of disagreement, but I think possibly that is for outside the Chamber, rather than in it. I say that in the nicest possible way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will call Mr Scully to close the debate no later than 2.30 pm.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Nigel Evans

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There are 22 Members—because a couple have withdrawn—on the call list. It would be really useful if Members could focus their attention on self-limiting their speeches so that we can get in as many as we possibly can.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and I very much agree with a great deal of what he has said. I hope the Minister will be able to prove to us why it is not necessary to pursue some of these amendments, but I think the right hon. Gentleman put his case very well and very moderately. I appeal to the Minister, who is himself a moderate and considered man, to think about whether it is not appropriate to look at some of the detail of the Bill rather than the thrust of the objective, which we all absolutely support.

I will, if I may, touch on some of the amendments. The broad principle that I have, again rather like the right hon. Gentleman, is that, of course, there will be certain circumstances when it is necessary in the national interest for the brave operatives of our security services to have the power to take actions that might not otherwise be countenanced in the ordinary run of life. I accept that, sometimes, there are people who have put their lives on the line for the country’s sake and that there are circumstances in which they are entitled to protections. I do not have any problem with that, but it is the broad breadth nature of the Bill that is a concern to many of us. Those of us who have served in Government have come across those tempting occasions when submissions come along, and civil servants say, “It will be useful to draw on this widely, Minister, because x, y or z circumstance may occur at some point in the future, so it is better to have this in reserve—in the back pocket.” When one is dealing with things that touch on the exceptional circumstance of the state or its agents being permitted to break the criminal law, or potentially do harm of one kind or another—perhaps out of necessity, but none the less do harm to others—we should be pretty tight in circumscribing those instances as far as we can. We should ensure that, at the very least, there is proper oversight either beforehand when it is appropriate or thereafter by way of proper parliamentary scrutiny—I will come back to that in a moment.

That is why I do not take the line of the official Opposition’s amendment that there should always be pre-authorisation, but I do think, as a basic principle, that there ought to be pre-authorisation at the appropriate level, be that by the judicial commissioner, a prosecutor or another appropriate authority, wherever possible. That ought to be the starting point unless there is some ground, such as a matter of emergency, perhaps literally of life or death, or of the highest importance, where it is not possible to do that. I would like reassurance from the Minister on the test that will be applied as to when these powers will be used, prior to authorisation by a responsible, vetted and highly dependable individual of the kind that we are talking about. That is the first point on which I would like the Minister’s reassurance, and the point about guidance is well made, as far as that is concerned.

My second point, on amendment 20, which has been referred to, is on the position of the exclusion of civil liability. Again, there may be certain circumstances where it is appropriate for agents of the Government to act in a way that may cause some harm to others. A lot of people might not have too much concern if the target of the operation is an organised criminal or a terrorist, or someone who is a threat to us all, but I am concerned that the way in which that particular clause is drawn would also prevent the innocent victim of what might have been an otherwise necessary action—a person who is the collateral damage—from seeking civil redress. I am talking about somebody who was not the target of the steps that were taken but was caught up, literally, in the incident that occurred. Is it really fair or just to say, “Well, that’s just hard luck,” and exclude them from any liability?

The number of cases that this might engage are probably very limited, but the principle is important—someone who has done no harm to the state should not be the victim by happenstance of something that might necessarily and properly have been done in the state’s interests. If we give the state and its agents that power—perhaps reasonably enough—it is not unfair to say that there should be some safeguard for those who, through no fault of their own, might be damaged by it in some way. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that carefully.

There is also the point in the amendments that touches on the authorisation of certain very grave crimes. I appreciate what the Minister said about the intention that our adherence to the Human Rights Act—which I was glad to see the Lord Chancellor restate the other day—is protected, but if that is the case, and given the importance of the subject, why not put that on the face of the Bill? What is lost by that? Should at any time any future Government—I hope not this one—ever derogate in any way from the Human Rights Act, it would be better to have the protection there. My next point is about the scope of the agencies. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, it is pretty difficult think of what types of extreme violence might be authorised in the national interest by the Food Standards Agency? Some greater particularity around that would not be a bad idea either.

I will touch on the point that arises from amendment 13, which is in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and others. It is important because, if we are attempting to adopt a similar approach to our important security partners, why not adopt the same approach that is appropriate in the United States or, I would say, perhaps even more persuasively, Canada? It is a Commonwealth and common law jurisdiction country, which has had no difficulty operating a security regime like our own, with operational efficiency but equal concern for protection against abuse. It has found it perfectly possible to work within a statutory parameter of the kind that is suggested. I would like to understand from the Minister a little better why he thinks that that is not appropriate and why that might not be a safeguard to brave operatives under certain circumstances against the bringing of an unjustified complaint or litigation against them.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Robert Neill and Nigel Evans

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), and to see the Lord Chancellor be supported, albeit at some distance on the Front Bench, by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk), who is the Minister responsible for the Ministry of Justice victims strategy. He is a former member of the Justice Committee, and we are delighted to see him on the Treasury Bench.

This is an important Bill that deals with a real and pressing social evil. The Lord Chancellor was right to bring it forward as swiftly as he has, and I welcome the tone of his remarks. May I concentrate in particular on the provisions that relate to legal proceedings and court procedures, starting with part 5? The prohibition on cross-examination by litigants in person in family cases is to be welcomed as a very important advance. It is something for which lawyers and the judiciary involved in family cases have been calling for a considerable time, and it is good to see it in the Bill. What I hope Ministers will take away is the detail of how we actually make that work in practice.

The first point that I hope the Government will take on board is that those advocates who are appointed to carry out that often sensitive and difficult cross-examination in often very sensitive and fraught cases must be properly remunerated in order to be prepared for that work. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will know, one of the first things that we were taught at Bar school was that the key to good cross-examination is preparation. To do that, the lawyers have to be appointed in a timely fashion. They must be paid properly to ensure that they are of adequate experience and seniority to deal with these matters, and they must have time to access the material and be rewarded for doing so.

One issue in the family jurisdiction is that there is not the extent of disclosure that we see in criminal cases and therefore preparatory work may be harder in those cases. Perhaps we need to look therefore at what stage those advocates are appointed to carry out that work. It seems to me that, in order to have the ability to cross-examine properly, it may well be necessary for them to be able to read all of the papers in the case. They probably also need the ability to seek a conference in order to get from the person on whose behalf they are appointed the necessary detail to do justice in the case. That cannot be done on the cheap. I am sure the Government will not want to do that, but it is important that that is not missed out, as both the Bar Council and the Law Society have pointed out. It may also be important, as the professional bodies have pointed out, to consider extending that to instructions to carry out examination-in-chief as well. The example that is given is where an alleged perpetrator of abuse seeks to call a child in the family as a relevant witness to some of the proceedings before the court. It seems to me that the same risks of intimidation would be transferred under those circumstances.

It is also important to consider the nature of the proceedings. It may well be that the allegation of abuse relates to one part of the family proceedings, but the coercive behaviour would have an impact on that perpetrator cross-examining the victim under any part of the proceedings. If someone has a history of coercive control over another, it would be just as difficult for the victim to be cross-examined by them about financial provisions as it would in relation to the actual incidents of assault and abuse, or in relation to custody. I hope that we will be generous in carrying out the legal support that is made available. I hope, too, that we will recognise the need to use the review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to look at the re-introduction, as soon as possible, of early legal advice in these matters, so that the necessary issues are flagged up at the earliest opportunity.

I am glad to see that the Lord Chancellor is proposing to bring forward the report of the specialist panel. I hope that he will do that as soon as possible, not least because there has been concern that provision around special measures has never been as consistent or as advanced in the family jurisdiction as it has been in criminal courts. That is not because I think family practitioners and judges do not want it, but because the infrastructure has not been there. I hope that that will give us an opportunity to address that.

I am pleased that the Lord Chancellor is proposing to pilot the domestic abuse protection orders and prevention notices rather than going in immediately. We do need to see how those will integrate—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am sorry, Sir Bob, your five minutes are up. Thank you for your contribution. I call Yvette Cooper.