Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Simon Hughes and Greg Mulholland(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The Ministry of Justice’s own figures show that more than half of the parties in family courts are now unrepresented by a solicitor. There are concerns from the legal sector that this means that people are not getting fair hearings, and actually hearings seem to be taking longer. What plans has the Department got to review this?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
Before the legal aid reforms, one party did not have legal representation in about two thirds of private law cases. It is common for the courts to deal with people who represent themselves. The Department is very watchful of what is happening, but we have already supported organisations such as Citizens Advice and Advicenow to produce more guides. There is also support for the personal support unit, and there is new material for litigants in person, and new leaflets and online advice and guidance, as well as judicial support and advice. We expect to make further announcements of support to deal with this matter in the very near future.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Debate between Simon Hughes and Greg Mulholland(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I want first to speak to new clause 15 and to express my full support for it. After doing so, I will link that with new clause 14, which stands in my name, and the comments I made yesterday on amendment 10 and why it could and should have been dealt with separately.
In expressing my support for new clause 15, I remind the House of my early-day motion 667, tabled in September 2010, which called for humanist marriages to be allowed in England and Wales in exactly the same way as in Scotland. That is something I believe as a liberal, and also because I was extremely fortunate in having the honour of being best man at the wedding of two humanist friends, Derek and Louise, in September 2007. It was an honour to play a role in that ceremony. I was moved by what an appropriate, fitting and solemn ceremony it was. They were married exactly the way they wanted to be, according to their beliefs. They were equally happy to participate in my Catholic wedding a few years before.
As a liberal, I believe that each and every one of us has the right to marry according to our own beliefs. The problem with how the Bill is currently drafted is that we are allowing a situation to continue in which some religions—to be more precise, some sects of some religions—have access to a civil marriage ceremony while other religions, sects of religions and belief-based systems do not. To me, as a liberal, that is simply not justifiable. My opinion is simply that each and every citizen of this country, of all belief systems and religions and none, should have the same right to equal recognition of their relationship.
New clause 14 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), whose support and common-sense approach on this I appreciate. The simple reality is that if the Government had approached this matter in a more rational and common-sense way, the debate we are having now would be entirely unnecessary. Many Members on both sides of the House—interestingly, they include many who have concerns about the Bill and many who fully support it—believe that we should be making a proper separation of the belief-based recognition of a relationship, whether humanist or religious, from the state’s right to confer legal rights and legal recognition on individuals. The trouble is that the Bill, as drafted, conflates and confuses the two. Even worse, it enshrines the confusion we have heard about, such as the various marriage Acts replacing each other, and adds even more layers of complexity, which means legal confusion. At the same time, there is the absurd situation in which the Bill is having to specify in law that some Churches may not marry certain people and having to put in place protections for other Churches so that they do not have to do so. Of course, if we had a proper separation of civil and marriage, those things would simply not be necessary.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I commend my hon. Friend for tabling new clause 14 and for advancing the argument that I hope to make later in relation to new clause 18, if you call me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the Bill’s real failings is that it does not address the need to separate, for the purposes of marriage, the secular and the religious. Had we gone down that road, there would have been a much better resolution and many more people would have found it far less difficult to deal with this legislation.
Greg Mulholland
I thank my right hon. Friend for that pertinent contribution. I support his new clause 18 and the similar way in which he is trying to deal with this issue. It cannot be right that certain people of some religions and, in the case of humanism, belief systems, have the right to access a civil marriage ceremony according to their beliefs while others do not. The Bill, as drafted, will continue to allow that. I am afraid that, as with civil partnerships, it will enshrine the existing inequality in the law, and that cannot be right in something that is supposed to be about equality.
Green Investment Bank (Leeds)
Debate between Simon Hughes and Greg Mulholland
Greg Mulholland
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I also thank the other Members representing constituencies in the region who are present. I shall be very happy to take interventions from any of them, in order to show that there is cross-party support on this issue, but I should also make it clear that I will only take interventions in support of the Leeds city region bid. Those supporting other regions and bids can get their own debate, just as I have this evening.
Greg Mulholland
I must ask my right hon. Friend whether he wishes to comment in support of the Leeds bid.
Greg Mulholland
As it is my right hon. Friend who seeks to intervene, I shall give way.
Simon Hughes
As a London MP, I am very clear that the GIB should be located not in London, but in one of the other parts of the country. I hope my hon. Friend regards that as a helpful comment, although he must realise that I cannot be explicit as there are also other bids. It is definitely right that the GIB should not be located in London, however.
Greg Mulholland
That is very helpful, and I thank my right hon. Friend very warmly for his intervention. Whether it is as popular with his constituents as it will be with mine, I do not know, but I thank him for it and agree with his sentiment.
The vision for the green investment bank is admirable and exciting, and the case for its location in Leeds is similarly exciting and innovative. They seem to be an excellent match. The Leeds city region already has a mission to become a world-class, low-carbon economy, and at the same time, as we know, the Government have said that they want to be the greenest Government ever.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) said, the Leeds city region is wide and diverse, covering the whole of west Yorkshire, parts of neighbouring north and south Yorkshire and the 10 local authority districts of Barnsley, Bradford, Calderdale, Craven, Harrogate, Kirklees, Leeds, Selby, Wakefield, and York. With close to 3 million people, a diverse resident work force of 1.5 million, 106,000 businesses and an economy worth £53 billion per year, it is a region to be taken seriously.