Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

It is a pleasure to see the hon. Lady in her place today. I have begun to forget what the shadow Secretary of State looks like. His team regularly attends these events, but there are some faces missing.

The whole point of what we are trying to do is to address the glaring gap in the system that is leading to reoffending rates that are simply unacceptable. The mechanisms that we are putting in place to manage risk will provide a simple means of transferring offenders from a medium-risk category to a high-risk category if their situation changes and if a risk assessment carried out by the public probation service requires such a transfer. The public probation service will always remain responsible for dealing with the highest-risk offenders.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the Secretary of State has ambitions to deliver a public lecture on this subject, but he should preferably not do so in the Chamber today.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that one way of maintaining continuity in the records of ex-offenders under his new regime would be to welcome in-house spin-offs such as those being proposed in Wiltshire? These would involve the existing probation service becoming a separate and private individual organisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

I think that what there is good evidence of is the need for reform. We need to make sure more work on rehabilitation is going on within prisons, as well as more work through the gate and out into the community. As the hon. Lady well knows, the truth is that there are good and bad reports on private prisons, just as there are good and bad reports on public prisons. We will want to make sure that we do everything we can to engage in rehabilitation while people are in prison. More work in prison will certainly help: 800,000 more hours were worked in prisons last year than the year before. Progress is being made, but there is certainly more to do, hence our reforms, which I hope the hon. Lady will support.

[Mr Speaker]

We are immensely grateful to the Minister. I feel sure that the Government could with great advantage schedule at some point a full day’s debate on the subject.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

6. What recent progress he has made on the implementation of section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Justice Act 1999.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

I entirely agree that we need to see more abstinence from drugs. My hon. Friend will know that one of the obstacles to proceeding down that path with many drug-addicted offenders is that they stay in prison for a very short period and there is no confidence about what happens when they leave custody. [Interruption.] Our through-the-gate reforms mean that we will be able to move more offenders on to that pathway much more quickly and be confident that they will be supported when they leave custody.

[Mr Speaker]

We all heard the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) say, “Lock ’em up for longer”. If he was worried that his tone was untypically muted, his worry was groundless.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

20. What the Government’s strategy is for victims of crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I remind the Secretary of State that answers to topical questions must be brief?

[Chris Grayling]

Given that I do not have the time at the Dispatch Box that I might choose to discuss the matter, I would simply say that the European Commission’s recent decision to publish a justice scorecard assessing justice systems across Europe, and making recommendations for their improvement, is one that this country neither welcomes nor intends to co-operate with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I was going to call the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), but she has been perambulating around the Chamber and I had lost sight of her. If she wishes to ask a question, her time is now.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. I was going to ask the Secretary of State about legal aid. A vulnerable constituent of mine was charged on four separate occasions, and her solicitor, whom she appointed, was able to support her throughout. That ability is under threat from the legal aid proposals. Why is the Secretary of State proposing restrictions on access to legal aid for the vulnerable and those who cannot afford to pay?

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New schedule 1—‘Consequential amendments—Marriage according to usages of approved organisations—

The following amendments are made to the Marriage Act 1949—

(1) In section 26 (marriages which may be solemnized on authority of superintendent registrar’s certificate) in subsection (1) after paragraph (c) there is inserted—

(ca) a marriage conducted under the auspices of an approved organisation;”.

(2) In section 35 (marriages in registration district in which neither party resides) after “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.

(3) In section 43 (appointment of authorised persons) in subsection (3) after “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation authorised by the Registrar General under section 47A”.

(4) In section 50 (person to whom certificate to be delivered), in subsection (1) after paragraph (d) there is inserted—

(da) if the marriage is to be solemnized according to the usages of an approved organisation, a registering officer of that organisation”.

(5) After section 52, the following section is inserted—

“52A Interpretation

In this Part of this Act “approved organisation” has the meaning given to it in section 67.”.

(6) In section 53 (persons by whom marriages are to be registered), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—

(ba) in the case of a marriage solemnized according to the usages of an approved organisation, a registered officer of that organisation;”.

(7) In section 54 (provision of marriage register books by Registrar General), in subsection (1) after the words “the Society of Friends,” there is inserted “registering officer of an approved organisation”.

(8) In section 55 (manner of registration of marriages)—

(a) in subsection (1) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”; and

(b) in subsection (1)(b) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation” and after the words “the said Society” there is inserted “or organisation”.

(9) In section 57 (quarterly returns to be made to superintendent registrar), in subsection (1) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.

(10) In section 59 (custody of register books) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.

(11) In section 60 (filled register books) in subsection (1), paragraph (b), after the words “registering officer of the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”; after the words “members of the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of the said organisation”, and after the words “the said Society” there is inserted “or organisation”.

(12) In section 63 (searches in register books) after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”.

(13) In section 67 (interpretation of Part IV), there are inserted in the list of definitions the following—

““approved organisation” means an organisation approved by the Registrar General under section 47A of this Act;” and

““registering officer of an approved organisation” means a person whom the principal officer of the said organisation certifies in writing under his or her hand to the Registrar General to be a registering officer in England or Wales of that organisation;”;

and in the definition of “superintendent registrar” after paragraph (b) there is inserted—

(ba) in the case of a marriage registered by a registering officer of an approved organisation, the superintendent registrar of the registration district which is assigned by the Registrar General to that registering officer;”.

(14) In section 75 (offences relating to solemnization of marriages) in subsection (1), paragraph (a), after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation”; and in subsection (2), paragraph (a), after the words “the Society of Friends” there is inserted “or of an approved organisation.”.’.

Amendment 19, in clause 2, page 3, line 28, at end insert—

(iA) section 47A (marriage according to the usages of approved organisations).’.

Amendment 20, in clause 5, page 6, line 29, after ‘solemnized’, insert

‘and includes an organisation approved under section 47A(1).’.

Amendment 21, schedule 7, page 49, line 16, after ‘celebrated’, insert

‘and includes an organisation approved under section 47A(1).’.

New clause 14—Civil union—

‘(1) Two people, whether they are of different or the same sex, may enter into a civil union if—

(a) they are both aged 18 or over;

(b) they are not within prohibited degrees of relationship;

(c) they are not currently in a civil union with someone else.

(2) A civil union must be solemnized by a Registrar.

(3) No religious service is to be used while the civil union registrar is officiating at the signing of a civil union document.

(4) A civil union ends only on death, dissolution or annulment.

(5) The Marriage Act 1949 is repealed.’.

New clause 18—Marriage solemnized other than at a religious ceremony to be termed Civil Marriage—

‘(1) Any marriage solemnized (whether before or after the passing of this Act) under Part 3 of the Marriage Act 1949 (Marriage under Superintendent Registrar’s Certificate), the Marriage (Registrar General’s Licence) Act 1970 or an Order in Council made under Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 6 (other than a marriage according to religious rites and usages) shall be termed a Civil Marriage.

(2) The Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor may, by order, make such provision (including provision amending UK legislation) as the Secretary of Sate or Lord Chancellor considers appropriate in consequence of this section.’.

Amendment 58, in clause 9, page 9, line 5, at end insert

‘and such a marriage shall be a civil marriage’.

Amendment 59, in clause 15, page 12, line 15, at end insert—

‘(ba) an order under section (Marriage solemnized other than at a religious ceremony to be termed Civil Marriage).

[Kate Green]

I am moving new clause 15 to introduce humanist marriage, along with new schedule 1 and amendments 19, 20 and 21 that are consequential to new clause 15. May I start by paying tribute—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will not say that I was heckled by the Clerk of the House from a sedentary position, as he was rather helpfully advising me from his usual position on a point on which we need to be clear. I am sorry if the hon. Lady thinks this is a pedantic point, but it is quite important procedurally. The hon. Lady can speak to the other amendments in the group, but the only item she is moving at this stage is new clause 15. We anoraks like to get these things right.

[Kate Green]

Thank you for that exceptionally helpful advice, Mr Speaker. I am, of course, moving new clause 15 and speaking to new schedule 1 and amendments 19, 20 and 21.

I should like to pay tribute to the British Humanist Association for its support with drafting and its general and wider advice. This proposal seeks to put right a long-standing injustice in a simple and uncontroversial way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

It is always so encouraging to see such a display of enthusiasm at this hour.

Third Reading

Queen’s consent signified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I should point out to the House that I have had indication of no fewer than 14 right hon. and hon. Members seeking to contribute on Third Reading, in consequence of which I am imposing a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I am greatly saddened that the hon. Gentleman chose to use the term “playing the race card”. My comments were merely sited in an understanding of equality. There have been many battles on equality in this House. The battles against slavery, racism and sexism were noble, and many people outside the House will recognise that the fight for gay rights is one of equality; it is not playing—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) must have a chance to finish his speech.

[Mr Burrowes]

The Bill is triumphed over as being all about inclusivity, when what it has done has caused division, not just in the Conservative party—that is not the most relevant point—but in the country. The settled, respected position on supporting civil partnerships and the previously united concept of marriage between Church and state have now had a wedge driven between them by the Bill. Indeed, we had late resolutions to try to deal with the inequalities that are still apparent. What unites the opposition to the Bill is an unshakeable belief that will not accept the state’s redefinition of marriage and will recognise only the distinctive value of marriage as the bringing together of one man and one woman.

Throughout its passage through the House, the Bill has lacked legitimacy and scrutiny. I urge all hon. Members to exercise their consciences, listen to the real concerns of their constituents and join me in voting no on Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In view of the level of interest, I am reducing the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to three minutes with immediate effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Dr Julian Huppert. If he can speak more briefly—he does not have to—more Members will get in.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner]

You’re telling fibs.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I heard that last sedentary interjection, which was an imputation of dishonesty. I know the hon. Gentleman will want to withdraw that.

[Karl Turner]

Yes, please, Mr Speaker. I withdraw it.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman and will move on.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

I welcome the measures announced by my right hon. Friend to help young offenders. Does he agree that we can provide help through smaller charitable and voluntary organisations, such as Action Acton in my constituency, which does excellent work? Does he also recognise that some smaller organisations find that waiting a long time for payment by results stretches their resources to breaking point?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I bow to no one in my admiration for the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption]—apart from my Secretary of State, as was said from a sedentary position. I say that particularly given his family connection with the Arts Council and the expertise that he is able to access across the dinner table on occasion. We are working very hard. Most of the money that we use to fund arts organisations goes outside London, and we set up Creative England to provide a national body to support creative start-ups outside London, and that is doing a fine job.

[Mr Speaker]

It sounds as though the Sheerman household is an improving environment.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Will the Minister join me in the commending the excellent work of the Creative Foundation in Folkestone in supporting start-up creative businesses? Does he agree that its work will make Folkestone and east Kent an excellent choice for UK city of culture in 2017?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am afraid this question will have to be the last.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

Will the Minister tell us what steps he is taking to ensure that consumers do not lose Freeview television reception as part of the 4G roll-out?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

Let me tell the Minister about a constituent of mine. He was assessed as fit for work after being disabled for 12 years as a result of a degenerative disease. While he appeals, he loses £25 a week in benefits. He has now lost a further £14.71 a week through the bedroom tax and £34 a month as a result of the council tax reduction scheme. That is over £200 a month in total. Like thousands of people with disabilities—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but we are very pressed for time. I need a quick question with a question mark at the end of it—a sentence.

[Bill Esterson]

Does not my constituent’s example show that it is time the Government admitted they have got it wrong about the impact on disabled people?

Defamation Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier]

First, may I make it perfectly clear to the ignorant person who tweeted about me this afternoon that I have, in fact, declared my interest in relation to this matter on the amendment paper?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Derbyshire county council case, while Lord Keith held that the council should not be able to sue, he confirmed that corporations should be able to sue to protect their trading reputation? The heart of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument is that this is about inequality of arms. He thinks rich, very large and hugely well-resourced companies are bullying less resourced individuals, but the same criticism could be made of immensely rich private individuals who bring claims. Robert Maxwell used his millions—perhaps they were other people’s millions—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity to catch my eye and make his own speech in due course, but we do not have all that long for this debate and we have got the gist of his point.

[Sadiq Khan]

Thank you for rescuing me from that speech, Mr Speaker.

First, we are not saying corporations cannot sue at all. We are saying, “If you’ve suffered serious financial loss relative to the size of your company, you can sue.” Also, directors can sue, which is especially relevant to a small company suffering harm.

All in all, we believe that the provisions in Lords amendment 2 are measured and sensible, and modernise our existing defamation laws in a proportionate manner. They enjoy wide support, too. They are supported by the Libel Reform Campaign, the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, chaired, as we have been reminded, by former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Lord Mawhinney.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier]

It does, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I point out that I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was born not in 1853 but, if memory serves me, in 1952?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

On 26 October, and I share a birthday with President Mitterrand and Hillary Clinton. Let us move on, however.

I have already declared my interest, so I hope I do not have to do so again. I want to say that this is not a question of being right or wrong. I am not saying that I am right, that my hon. Friend the Minister is right or that the right hon. Member for Tooting is wrong, but that this is a matter of judgment and opinion. We are perfectly entitled to have different views about how best to order the law on defamation.

It so happens that the right hon. Gentleman and I take a different view on Lords amendment 2 on non-natural persons. I happen to think that Lord Bingham was right in the Jameel case in 2007 to make it quite clear that he thought it was perfectly proper and right for corporations to be able to bring actions for libel without proof of special damage—without having to show money loss. I will not recite all that he said, as there is not enough time, but it is worth bearing it in mind when some of the more hyperbolic accusations are traded about companies that bring actions for libel to terrorise or use their financial muscle to inhibit the defence of those actions or to inhibit free speech.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman is right that one of the major issues that has arisen through this process is the dynamic nature of risk, and we fully appreciate that that is an important subject. None the less, it is important to look at the need to make the best use of the skills of the probation service. There are considerable skills within the probation service in managing the risk of serious harm, which is why we propose that those offenders who pose the highest risk should be managed directly. We also think that it would be good to bring in new ideas from those who work in the voluntary and private sectors to manage the reoffending rates of medium and low-risk offenders. As to the point he makes, it will be clearly crucial for good relationships to exist between the public sector probation service and those providing work for medium and lower-risk offenders, and we will build into the system those safeguards.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Minister.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

The Government’s proposals for the reform of probation offer the prospect for probation officers to be able to deliver rehabilitation in a much more effective, creative and positive way. However, they will be working for a multitude of different organisations, which will mean that all the things that bind the probation service together will have to be strengthened. What proposals does the Minister have in mind for that, if he can say anything before he announces the response to the consultation?

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

My hon. and learned Friend is making a very good case. Does he agree that the PCC was notoriously fallible when resolving large newspaper disputes, but very effective at resolving disputes involving local media and newspapers, which genuinely respected and obeyed its procedures? The danger with the new system, which my hon. and learned Friend is outlining eloquently, is that the local paper will be stuck with the same regulatory process, which is clearly meant to be a sledgehammer, as large national newspapers such as The Sun and the Daily Mirror. I suspect that that will result in the process being more expensive for the smaller paper—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is exceptionally lengthy. I know that he has a distinguished record at the bar. If he were being paid by the word he would be greatly enriched, but I trust that he has made his point to his satisfaction. If not, he can always have another go in a moment.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

What the PCC was good at was dealing with unfairness—the hideous intrusion on private grief, the doorstepper, the camera coming through the letter box, the knock on the door demanding a photograph of the dead child and so on. The PCC dealt with that extremely well, but what it could not deal with was the multi-issue disputes that I have outlined.

It is not just a question of assessing the truth or falsity of words or of whether they are defensible and honest comment. On honest comment and certain forms of qualified privileged defence, the judge or the arbiter has to consider the question of malice and the respondent newspaper’s motive when it published the words complained of. I do not think, even with the best will in the world, that the proposed arbitration system for relevant publishers, under a recognised regulator, good though it will be, will be sufficiently well breeched and resourced to substitute itself for a disinterested judge when dealing with the case.

When it comes to disciplinary measures or the incentivisation of costs to bring people into this scheme, either as claimants or defendants—this goes back to a point that I made in the earlier debate—it will not be possible to deal with many expensive cases cheaply and quickly. They will need to go to a more formal, court-like, if not court, system. They will require proper arbitration with qualified arbiters, the sifting and assessment of evidence, the judging of witnesses and the reading of lots of documents. Those are functions of any form of arbitration dispute and it will not be quick or cheap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before I call the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), I will just point out that there are four Members seeking to contribute. The Secretary of State will want briefly to wind up on the new clause, and the knife falls at 10.21 pm. I am sure all Members will wish to take account of that; it would be good to get them all in.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I rise to thank the Secretary of State for introducing this group of new clauses and amendments, and to support them. They are in the name not just of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Home Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition, but the Deputy Prime Minister. They are the additional provisions on exemplary damages and costs agreed as a result of the labours of recent days. I have paid tribute to various people, but I just want to add my tribute to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), who was more thoroughly engaged, and later into the night, than many of us throughout pretty much all of this process. He must be thanked, too.

I am relieved that agreement was reached, because otherwise it would have been my name leading on 10 amendments, new clauses and schedules, and I would have had to explain all the technical matters on exemplary damages, costs and so on, on behalf of the coalition and other parties, instead of the Secretary of State. I therefore thank those who came to the rescue and did the deal. I will make just a couple of simple points and follow your request, Mr Speaker, to make sure there will be time for the other Members who wish to speak.

As we have all done, I went back to what Lord Justice Leveson said on these matters in his report. He was clear, in paragraphs 66 to 70, about what he was seeking to do. He led into that in paragraph 57, in relation to the body he recommended. He stated that it should

“order appropriate redress while encouraging individual newspapers to embrace a more rigorous process for dealing with complaints internally…and provide a fair, quick and inexpensive arbitration service to deal with any civil law claims based upon its members’ publications.”

I agree absolutely with the deputy leader of the Labour party that an arbitration service is an indispensible part of the structure. I hear, of course, what the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) said—that that does not necessarily produce a quick, speedy or cheap outcome—but to get something by agreement, rather than full-frontal litigation, is clearly a good thing.

Paragraphs 66 and 67 read:

“The need for incentives…has led me to recommend the provision of an arbitration service… Such a system…would then make it possible to provide an incentive in relation to the costs of civil litigation. The normal rule is that the loser pays the legal costs incurred by the winner but costs recovered are never all the costs incurred”—

everyone who has been to law knows about that—

“and litigation is expensive not only for the loser but frequently for the winner as well. If, by declining to be a part of a regulatory system, a publisher has deprived a claimant of access to a quick, fair, low cost arbitration of the type I have proposed, the Civil Procedure Rules (governing civil litigation) could permit the court to deprive that publisher of its costs of litigation in privacy, defamation and other media cases, even if it had been successful.”

Lord Justice Leveson then sets out how that would happen in relation to exemplary damages, and concludes in paragraph 69:

“Such a system would also work the other way round. If an extremely wealthy claimant wished to force a newspaper publisher that was a member of the regulatory body into litigation (in the hope that the financial risk would compel settlement), it would be open to the publisher to argue that having provided a recognised low cost arbitral route, that claimant, even if successful, should be deprived of costs, simply because there was another, reasonable and cheap route to justice which could have been followed.”

Then there is an easy-to-understand set of recommendations at the back of the Lord Justice Leveson’s introduction on the process for damages.

The really good thing is that, without anybody, including the Secretary of State, pretending that the drafting is perfect for all time, those of us who were involved in the discussions have sought to strike a balance: if a publisher is part of the system, the presumption—I use the word in a non-legalistic way—will be that it will not be subject to exemplary damages, but if it is outside the system, the presumption will be that it could be subject to them. It is not quite that straightforward, but that was the general idea—and it was a good idea. It is an incentive-disincentive system, which was what everybody was working towards, so I join others in calling on the press to join up. If they do, there will be a system ready for them to make. This is not a pre-made system. The starting point is the existing code, but it will be up to the press to make the system work, and we all encourage them to do that. I am glad, then, that we have a platform from which to proceed.

I want to make three final points. First, I understand that further amendments might be necessary. The House of Lords has that opportunity, and the Liberal Democrat team is certainly willing to collaborate with Conservative colleagues, Labour colleagues and colleagues from elsewhere to ensure that we get it right, if we need to make further, more technical amendments in the Lords. We have time to do it. Secondly, I join others in thanking Hacked Off, which became the assembly of people speaking on behalf of victims. It was hard work at times, as all of us who were in the negotiations know, but it had a justified case. Its job was to remind us why we went down this road and, rightfully, to hold our feet to the fire and ensure that we did not forget why we were doing this. It is about the lives of people not in the public gaze.

Finally, we have referred to people—the McCanns, the Dowlers and others have been cited—who suddenly find themselves unexpectedly in the public eye. The other people referred to by at least one colleague are those who become part of the public commentary simply by their association with somebody who is in the public eye. That is equally unacceptable. It is the children, the mother, the elderly parent, the former wife, husband or partner, the friend or the associate—those people often get dragged in completely unwittingly. Perhaps they happened to be in a photograph or were at the house when somebody knocked on the door. We have to have a system that understands that if there is due cause for complaint about a politician, a sports celebrity or a business person, that is fine, but that does not mean that anyone has a free rein to go after all the other people who are absolutely innocent appendages to their lives, which happen to be public lives.

--- Later in debate ---

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Speaker]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 16—Restraint orders and legal aid: supplementary.

Amendment 1, in clause 24, page 21, line 22, at end insert—

‘(6A) In fixing such an amount, and subsequent additions, account must be taken of the person’s relevant weekly income, excluding housing benefit and child related benefits, and allowance must be made for the protection of a reasonable financial subsistence level, in the manner used to determine the initial fine.’.

Amendment 103, page 21, line 25, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 96, page 22, line 3, at end insert—

‘(5A) The Lord Chancellor must, by regulation, in statutory instrument of which a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, provide the amount of any costs for services carried out for the purposes of collecting sums.’.

Amendment 97, in clause 25, page 23, line 11, leave out ‘person’ and insert ‘civil servant’.

Amendment 98, page 24, line 1, leave out paragraph (3).

New clause 12—Provision of intermediaries for very vulnerable witnesses—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must provide for intermediaries to be assigned to very vulnerable witnesses in all court cases.

(2) In the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, after section 29 there is inserted:

“29A Intermediaries for very vulnerable witnesses

(1) A special measures direction must be made to provide for any examination of a very vulnerable witness (however and wherever conducted to be conducted through an interpreter or other person approved by the court for the purposes of this section (“an intermediary”).

(2) In addition to the functions set out in subsection 29(2), an intermediary must be assigned to very a vulnerable witness through their whole experience before, during and after court.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “very vulnerable witness” has the same meaning as defined in section [Court arrangements for very vulnerable witnesses] (5) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.”.’.

New clause 14—Court arrangements for very vulnerable witnesses—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for specialist courts for very vulnerable witnesses.

(2) A specialist court for very vulnerable witnesses will consist of a partnership programme within the criminal court structure.

(3) In establishing the specialist court, the Secretary of State must involve the following partners—

(a) the judiciary;

(b) court officials;

(c) the Crown Prosecution Service;

(d) police forces;

(e) witness support services;

(f) victim support services; and

(g) any other specialist services that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(4) In cases where there is a very vulnerable witness—

(a) no judge can sit on the case unless he has taken part in appropriate training provided by the Judicial College;

(b) a single court usher, who has taken part in appropriate training provided by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service, must be assigned to the witness throughout their time at court;

(c) the case will be assigned to a court with all necessary facilities to offer the full range of special measures set out in sections (23) to (30) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999;

(d) before allocating time for trials the court must take into account the impact of delays on very vulnerable witnesses; and

(e) the services of independent sexual violence advisors must be offered to very vulnerable witnesses in cases involving sexual offences.

(5) The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice giving guidance about court arrangements for very vulnerable witnesses, which must be published, and may be revised from time to time.

(6) Before issuing or revising a code under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must lay a copy before each House of Parliament for approval within a 40 day period.

(7) For the purposes of this section—

“very vulnerable witness” includes the victim in a case of child sexual abuse.

“independent sexual violence advisers” are victims-focused advocates who work with victims of recent and historic serious sexual crimes to enable them to access the services they need in the aftermath of the abuse they have experienced.’.

Government amendment 119.

[Damian Green]

Given the time pressure on our consideration of this large and disparate group, I propose to speak to the Government amendments—new clauses 15 and 16 and amendment 119—which relate to legal aid, and then, if possible, respond to the other amendments once I have had an opportunity to hear the arguments put forward by their sponsors. I hope that will provide a proper balance between Front-Bench and Back-Bench contributions to the debate.

Access to legal aid is a fundamental part of our legal system. However, difficult decisions relating to how the legal aid budget should be spent are made every day. We must remember that legal aid is not free and that we do not have unlimited resources. As such, we need to ensure that the limited funds are used effectively and directed to those who really need them.

At present, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 prevents restrained funds from being released to a defendant for legal expenses in relation to the offences to which the restraint order relates. Before the 2002 Act, there was a risk that individuals might recklessly dissipate assets through lavish spending on their defence in order to try to secure an acquittal at any cost. In 2002, the then Government decided that it was better to allow access to legal aid than to allow a defendant to draw down restrained funds to pay for their defence. However, that has led to a public perception that rich offenders with significant restrained assets are receiving vast sums of legal aid when they could afford to make a contribution to their defence. For example, over the past three years more than £14.3 million in legal aid was paid to just 49 high-profile individuals. Let us not forget that we are talking about individuals suspected of involvement in serious and organised crime, including drug smuggling and large-scale fraud, the victims of which are all too often numerous. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the Minister. May I gently say to the House that a number of Back Benchers on both sides have new clauses or amendments to which they wish to speak, and there is such a hubbub that it is quite difficult to hear properly what the Minister is saying? Let us please have a bit of order, in everybody’s interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I would like to accommodate others as well, if at all possible, and that requires extreme self-discipline.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I think the hon. Lady knows very well that we have replaced IPP sentences with extended determinate sentences. We have also introduced a mandatory life sentence for a second very serious violent or sexual offence. Those are entirely sensible sentencing approaches. The position with IPPs had become a disorganised and chaotic one, which we could not allow to stand. I am afraid that that is another classic example of the last Government’s introducing a measures that they had not thought through properly.

I also think that the hon. Lady is entirely wrong to minimise the seriousness of the need to ensure that the regime in prison commands public confidence. If she believes that the public take no interest in what happens to prisoners while they are there and in the privileges to which they have access, I think she is wrong, and if she believes we should leave the position as it is, she should say so.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know whether the Minister wants an Adjournment debate on the subject, but I am sorry to tell him that that answer was far too long. We need to speed up.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

2. What assessment his Department has made of the effect of his proposals for the probation service on low and medium-risk offenders.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

We are considering a number of ways to make the best use of magistrates’ courts, including the option of increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers. Our priority in the short term, however, is to extend supervision to short-sentenced prisoners to ensure they receive supervision on release to help them stop offending.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has clearly been undertaking work experience on a farmyard. We are grateful for his contribution.

[Mr Hollobone]

Kettering is fortunate to have an excellent bench of magistrates and the whole nation should be grateful for the tremendous unpaid work carried out by 24,000 magistrates up and down the country. Is the Minister aware that £40 million could be saved in the criminal justice system were he to undertake this simple revision of magistrates’ powers? Justice would be better, cheaper, quicker and more local as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Henderson]

I was going to use this opportunity to follow up on my previous question, but since I got a good answer, I will not bother.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has created a precedent, but I do not know whether it will ever be followed.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I only wish that I had received a good answer from the Justice Secretary. He has been busy in recent weeks chasing headlines with general statements on everything from Titan prisons to spartan prisons, and from gay prisoners to smacking children. May I ask him about the specifics? I note that his junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), could not answer earlier, but then he did not do the media appearances. When will the first Titan prison open, where will it be and how much will it cost?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

On behalf of the whole House, I congratulate all of those who have been involved. It is an historic occasion and an extraordinary piece of history. I hope everyone will come together for a proper service to mark the occasion, and for a formal internment in the cathedral.

[Mr Speaker]

We are not debating the question of whether Richard III incurred parking fines.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I have been in touch with the Youth Justice Board about the decision to change Ashfield young offenders institution into an adult prison. I am told that young offenders from the Bristol area will now be sent as far away as Feltham. I am concerned about their contact with their families, chances of rehabilitation and so on. What reassurance can the Minister give me that those facts will be taken into account?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am immensely grateful to the Minister. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but Chris Ruane will have to have the last question.

[Chris Ruane]

You have not disappointed me, Mr Speaker. The prisons Minister misunderstood the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) on the issue of a prison for north Wales. Will he meet north Wales MPs of all parties to discuss this important issue, in the interests of clarity?

Points of Order

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on whether it is appropriate for a Minister to refuse to meet hon. Members to discuss important matters relating to their constituencies. It seems extraordinary that a Minister has refused three times to meet elected Members of Parliament, who should be given respect.

[Mr Speaker]

Even if something is extraordinary, that does not necessarily render it disorderly. It is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter between the Minister and the Member. The hon. Gentleman has made his point. If the Minister wants briefly to respond, he can.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker, because I want to ensure, in the interests of clarity, that the hon. Gentleman understands what I have just said: once he and his colleagues have worked out what it is they want, I am very happy to meet them.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope there is just a possibility of an outbreak of harmony, but as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) is on his feet I somewhat doubt it.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that right hon. and hon. Members have only two privileges that are not available to every citizen in this country? One is freedom of speech in this Chamber, subject to your rulings, and the other is access to Ministers.

[Mr Speaker]

I am reluctant to enter into a debate on this matter. The first point is unarguable; the second is something about which I have just opined. I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not seek to lure me further, because that would be unfair and the right hon. Gentleman would never knowingly be unfair.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

Libraries provide a centre for deprived children to be able to study when there are no facilities at home. I highlight a case where Brent council closed six of its libraries last year. Since then, library visitor numbers have fallen by 130,000. The council attempted to save nearly £1 million by closing the branch libraries, but it has had to mothball them, which has cost it £500,000. Equally, £120,000 has been spent on legal fees. At the same time, it is negotiating—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. The question is simply too long, and it is not clear what it is.

[Bob Blackman]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No, the hon. Gentleman has taken far too long, and he has enough experience that he ought to be able to be more succinct. Let us have a brief response from the Front Bench.

[Mr Vaizey]

Briefly, libraries are run and paid for by local authorities. I hear what my hon. Friend says. Perhaps it is best to point to good examples of Tory councils, such as Hammersmith and Fulham and Hillingdon, which have kept their libraries open and are reducing or freezing their council tax at the same time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

It is clear that new ways to fund sports and the arts must be found, particularly for local and regional projects. In Darlington, Project Vane involves exciting private sector partners who want to invest in bringing an old arts centre back to life, which may well hold boxing too—

[Mr Speaker]

Is this a question about boxing?

[Jenny Chapman]

Yes, indeed, Mr Speaker. May I invite the Minister to look at our bid to the Arts Council for capital investment—there are no ongoing revenue needs requiring public sector investment—to help us to bring that project along?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T7. The blue plaque scheme in London is greatly loved. I remember serving on the historic buildings committee of the Greater London council 35 years ago with Sir John Betjeman. When it was abolished, we were given an absolutely firm commitment, by a Conservative Government, that the blue plaque scheme would carry on. Now that it is in danger, will the Minister intervene to stop the silly games between the chief executive officer and the chair of English Heritage and tell them to get a move on and carry on with this much loved scheme?

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Minister answers, I say to the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson) that, for the avoidance of doubt, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) is neither cheap nor expensive; she is simply priceless.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the important role of the blue plaque scheme. The chairman of English Heritage made it clear yesterday that the scheme is continuing, but I am sure that my hon. Friend, in his many roles in the House, would want us to look carefully at how it is run in future, because at the moment we are spending some £250,000 a year, employing four people putting up six plaques a year. I am sure there are different ways that we could run the scheme; and I am sure that consideration will be given in the future to him having his own plaque.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

On the subject of the equal marriage consultation, I call James Duddridge.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

In the course of her discussions on equal marriage, did the Minister discuss with the Church of England the fact that it would continue to bless marriages, whether of same-sex or opposite-sex couples, that have taken place elsewhere?