Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims (Amendment) Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Friday 21st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I shall not detain the House long, but I just want to express my strong support for the Bill. I have only recently had the great privilege of becoming a Member of Parliament, and in the short time that I have been in this place I have learned that some of the most effective parliamentarians are those who do not appear on “Newsnight” every night of the week and are not always twittering and blogging and filling up the airwaves, but who quietly and effectively champion causes from the Benches of this House. Years and years of assiduous work for a cause can result in massive positive change for people’s lives throughout the country. We see today that there is no greater exemplar than the hon. Member for Molve Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who over many years has championed causes.

Today a small gap in legislation is being filled and a problem tackled. That will lead to hugely beneficial changes, which will protect many vulnerable children from unspeakable abuse. We were all shocked when we saw what happened to baby P and others around the country. The measure will send a loud message that anybody who is caught perpetrating any of the crimes covered by the Bill will be brought to justice and feel the full force of the law. I congratulate my hon. Friend and commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the hon. Member—for Mole Valley—will appreciate the tribute that has just been paid to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

My first duty is to congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David). I think this is the first time that we have met across the Dispatch Box following the reshuffle on the Opposition Benches, so I welcome him to his place. I congratulate him on the crisp way in which he presented Her Majesty’s Opposition’s support for the Bill, following through on the support that his hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) gave it in Committee.

I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on steering the Bill through the House to this stage. This very worthwhile measure would provide increased protection for children and vulnerable adults who are at risk of serious physical harm from members of their own household, and it is a prime example of my hon. Friend’s unstinting efforts to protect vulnerable people, especially children, from harm.

I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) about what makes an effective parliamentarian. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, who is my parliamentary neighbour, has had an outstanding wider political career, first as leader of a London local authority, for which he was properly recognised by Her Majesty, then in this place, starting on the Back Benches and then as a Minister with responsibility for local government, and after that, both in opposition and now, as an absolutely unstinting champion of children at risk. Mr Speaker, I know that you, along with the rest of us, have a special place for my hon. Friend for the work that he has done. You will recognise, as we all do, that when Members take up a cause and drive forward on a narrow agenda, it is remarkable how much progress they can make and how much influence they can bring to bear. The Bill—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister’s encomium to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) will be appreciated by the hon. Gentleman and by many Members of the House. Of course it is perfectly proper for the Minister to spend some time focusing on the contents of the Bill, which doubtless he will do, but it would be very regrettable if the impression were to gain ground that he or others on the Treasury Bench were in any way reluctant to get on to the matters in the Bill to be promoted by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and I am sure that no such consideration is in the Minister’s mind.

[Mr Blunt]

You are of course entirely right, Mr Speaker. No such thought had crossed my mind; indeed, I have taken rather a limited interest in today’s remaining business because this is the only item on which I have focused my attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley is also my parliamentary neighbour, so I hope you will be kind enough to allow me the enthusiasm with which I am able to present the Government’s support for the measure, and allow me to record my appreciation and that of the Government for the work that he has done in this regard. However, bearing in mind your advice, Mr Speaker, I am happy to turn to the Third Reading of the Bill before us.

Justice and Security Green Paper

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have a further statement to follow and it is of course an Opposition day. I therefore appeal to all Members, without regard to seniority or distinction, for brevity.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

My right hon. and learned Friend will know well that much of the success of intelligence is based upon co-operation with other countries. Does he agree that one of the most difficult components in the balance we must strike is the need to ensure that we do not prejudice relations with other countries, such as those with whom we have a special intelligence relationship, such as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am still seeking brevity, an object lesson in which I know will be provided by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins).

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker, and I, too, welcome the Green Paper. It is perfectly clear that the balance on disclosure has tipped too far in sensitive cases, and that results in Ministers being constrained in their ability to fulfil their ultimate obligation, which is to protect the public. Given the complexity of the situation, may I ask specifically what plans the Secretary of State has to consult the judiciary?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I do not think I have ever said that. I have made it quite clear that the prison population responds to demand. I did not anticipate the riots, but we have to have a prison population that can cope with the judgment of judges and magistrates who send us a number of people who have to be dealt with and punished in that way. I have said that I expect to have a more stable system, but I cannot understand why everything possible was done under the last Government to push up the total number of prisoners but to let them all out earlier, so that the system looked tough but actually turned into something of a shambles. I am also hoping that prison can be made somewhat more effective, and that it might be better at putting people to work, getting them off drugs, tackling their mental health problems and getting fewer of them to go on to commit more crimes—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful, but we must move on.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

12. What steps he is taking to improve the functioning of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Payment by results is gathering pace. We are piloting a number of different approaches to see what works best. Two prison pilots have been put in place at Her Majesty’s prisons Peterborough and Doncaster.

Pilots also will begin in public sector prisons next year. Six justice reinvestment pilots have been put in place through memorandums of understanding with either local authority chief executives or local police chiefs in Manchester and London.

In 2012 two community pilots will commence to rehabilitate offenders while serving sentences in the community, in addition to one or more provider-led innovation pilots. We are also working with the Department for Work and Pensions through the Work programme and with the Department of Health on drug and alcohol recovery to look more widely at payment by results mechanisms which fully—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I advise the Minister, for next month the answers should be a bit shorter. They are just a bit too long.

[Ben Gummer]

I thank the Minister for that careful reply. He will be aware of the Justice Committee’s recommendation that contracts should follow the offender through the criminal justice system, rather than attach themselves to the various institutions through which he or she might pass. What progress has the Department made in considering those proposals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunt]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I thank him for his energetic chairmanship of the all-party group on human trafficking, and for continuing to bring the issues to my attention. Trafficking drugs and people are both extremely serious offences, and when people are caught—obviously, we want to make sure that they are, on every conceivable occasion—they should serve an appropriately serious tariff.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Minister both for his succinctness and his control of his breathing, which was impressive.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do apologise to colleagues whom I have not been able to accommodate. I could listen to the Secretary of State all day—and indeed all night for that matter. An additional session should be put on precisely perhaps for that purpose, but today I am afraid that we must move on.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 4 and 6, Government motions to disagree, Government amendments (a) to (d) in lieu, amendment (i) to Government amendment (a) in lieu and amendment (ii) to Government amendment (b) in lieu.

[Nick Herbert]

This Government are determined to swap bureaucratic control of the police for local democratic accountability, replacing police authorities with directly elected commissioners. In the past there has been too much central interference with decisions that should have been taken locally and by professionals, yet too often the centre has been weak where it needed to be strong, such as in ensuring the fight against serious and organised crime or better co-ordination between forces. Our aim is to reverse this position, giving greater freedom to professionals to do their job and sweeping away central interference and bureaucracy, while refocusing the Home Office on key priorities and threats.

But we cannot just take away central direction and leave the police to get on with it. Like any public service, the police must answer to someone. Politicians do not and should not run the police, but they should and they must hold the police to account on behalf of the public whom the police serve. Officers must be accountable for their actions and forces must be accountable for their performance. Both parties in the coalition were committed in their manifestos at the last election, in differing ways, to enhancing the democratic accountability of policing. The coalition agreement pledged the introduction of directly elected individuals, subject to strict checks and balances, by locally elected representatives.

The Bill seeks to establish clear and democratically accountable leadership for police governance, but amendments in another place would remove those provisions. The Lords amendments do not try to increase the local accountability of the police. They do not even try to ensure that there are adequate checks and balances in place. The amendments simply say that the status quo should be preserved and that the chair of a police authority should be called a police and crime commissioner. This rebranding of the status quo will not suffice.

The whole purpose of the Government’s reform and its strength is that local councillors will still be involved in the governance of policing, but an elected individual, with a mandate from the people, will take the executive decisions.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is not making a speech or addressing the House; he is reading something into the record.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a point not of order but of frustration.

[Mr Djanogly]

We carefully considered those points in our consultation response, but we are clear that the proposals put forward by respondents do not, overall, represent a realistic alternative to our programme of reform. We can all agree on the need for greater efficiency. That point was made strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), and we already plan to deliver £1 billion of the Ministry’s savings through efficiencies. The Justice for All campaign also asked us to improve alternatives to legal processes instead of cutting legal help. The Government seized the point, which is why we are increasing the funding available for mediation by £10 million. Some 50% of the proposals suggested by the Law Society amounted to new taxation, but legal aid is primarily funded out of general taxation, and the Government are seeking to reduce the amount of public spending overall. The deficit is also shared across government, and suggestions of cost shifting will not address the overall financial position.

As the Lord Chancellor said earlier, we have the most expensive legal aid system in the world, except for Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, the Opposition have been quick to criticise but they have offered no viable alternative. They profess to want to cut legal aid without saying what they would do. They propose to spend £65 million more on social welfare. Does the right hon. Member for Tooting mean to say that he would cut criminal legal aid? If so, by how much would he cut it? By the way, we have looked into the proposals of 20 March 2010, and they were on criminal competitive tendering, so where will the right hon. Gentleman get his savings? This is an unsustainable level of expenditure. In some cases the system encourages people to bring issues before courts where other solutions might be better. In others, it enables people to pursue litigation that they would not contemplate were they paying for it from their own pockets.

I firmly believe that the range of cases identified for inclusion within the scope of civil legal aid reflects the desire—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is quite a lot of chuntering in the Chamber. I am sure that the Minister will want to speak up a bit so that everyone can hear him

[Mr Djanogly]

We must make tough choices and target scarce legal aid on those who need it most. I am sorry to tell the hon. Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and the right hon. Member for Manchester Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) that legal aid has never been available for all cases and that we simply need to prioritise our spending. The hon. Member for Sunderland Central said that everyone deserves their day in court. That might be so, but mediation can sometimes be more appropriate.

The Bill’s reforms are not limited to public funding but extend to provisions to implement a fundamental reform of privately funded no win, no fee conditional fee agreements. The changes we propose will rebalance the CFA regime.

The right hon. Member for Tooting, incredibly, refused to say whether he supports our attack on the compensation culture. Under current arrangements, claimants can bring cases without any financial risk. Risk-free litigation encourages unnecessary or avoidable claims to be pursued and puts businesses and other defendants under pressure of excessive legal costs. Under our changes, claimants using CFAs will have to think carefully about whether it is necessary to pursue their claim. I confirm to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) that CFAs will still be available for group actions against multinational companies.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed rightly mentioned fixed costs and referral fees, which we need to look at. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) mentioned the disgraceful episode involving referral fees in relation to miners’ compensation. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) felt strongly about referral fees and made a number of valid suggestions that are outwith the direct scope of the Bill but do, I agree, need to be looked at.

We are aware of the strong concern that the payment of referral fees in personal injury cases adds to the costs of civil litigation. We are considering the issue and will announce the way forward in due course. I point out, however, that in 1999 claimant costs represented 50% of damages but that by 2010 the figure had risen to 150%. The previous Government lost control of the situation. Under the relevant provisions in the Bill, the legal costs of all defendants facing CFA-funded claims will reduce. That said, we recognise that there are complex and difficult cases, such as clinical negligence cases, which the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury and for Mid Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) raised. Our Jackson and legal aid reforms will address such cases. CFAs are a viable alternative to legal aid for these cases and the Bill will, exceptionally, enable the recovery of after-the-event insurance premiums for expert reports in clinical negligence cases, in recognition of the fact that they are important.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the RBL manifesto he will see that we are meeting most of its requests for reform without having a chief coroner. If we were simply leaving the office on the statute book and not implementing any changes, I would agree with that claim. However, regulations about training for coroners, including for service personnel cases, will be possible for the first time under our proposals. We will be implementing powers to transfer cases more easily within England and Wales—and for the first time to Scotland—when required for cases involving the deaths of service personnel abroad. Those are real and significant improvements to the system that will directly improve the experience of service personnel families who come into contact with the coroner system.

[Mr Speaker]

One of the difficulties with these long answers is that Ministers are reading out great screeds that have been written for them. On the whole, it is better to keep that for the long winter evenings.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

6. What progress has been made on the proposals in his Department’s rehabilitation revolution Green Paper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

It is obvious that members of the public generally were appalled by the experience through which that family were put as a result of that criminal trial going ahead and the nature of the defence. Such cases are exceedingly difficult, because any defendant has the right to put forward a defence, however distasteful or distressing that may be to the victims. That sometimes happens. The straightforward process of calling the victim a liar can be extremely offensive to someone who has suffered grievously at the hands of the accused.

The judge has a discretion to cut out all irrelevant and unnecessary lines of questioning. I have no reason to doubt that the judge considered his discretion in that case. The Crown Prosecution Service actually applied for an order to ban the reporting of the relevant pieces of the cross-examination. I respect the decision of the judge, who decided that the principle of open justice should prevail. It was therefore all reported. The newspapers made their own judgments on the extent to which they reported those incidents.

In that case, which was exceedingly distressing, there was never a question of an early guilty plea, but it is useful to remind ourselves of just what an ordeal it can be when victims and witnesses have to go to a court to face someone who is denying the crime.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is not an ordeal to listen to the Secretary of State—indeed, one might almost call it a leisure pursuit—but unfortunately, we have not the time on this occasion to do so uninterrupted.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the Government’s U-turn on shorter sentences, which could have led to a reduction in the prison population, mean that in future under the coalition, any Minister caught in possession of an intelligent idea is likely to be doomed to a brief unhappy ministerial career?

Sentencing Reform/Legal Aid

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of his statement.

Our justice policy should be about protecting the public, punishing and reforming offenders, being on the side of the victim and bringing crime down. That underpinned our record in government, which led to a 43% fall in crime, reductions in reoffending and serious improvements in youth offending rates. However, the Government demonstrate that that is not what matters in their approach to crime and justice. Instead, it is about cutting cost, despite the impact it could have on communities across the country.

The Government have seen sense and taken heed of opposition to cost-driven proposals to reduce sentences by 50% on early guilty pleas. A coalition of victims, the judiciary, justice groups, the Sentencing Council and victims groups rightly questioned the motivation and effectiveness of that policy. Let us be clear: the policy had been agreed by the Cabinet. I asked the Justice Secretary during the Opposition day debate on sentencing whether the Prime Minister agreed with him. His response was:

“This was an entirely collectively agreed policy”.—[Official Report, 23 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 672.]

It is therefore no good No. 10’s distancing itself from it. In oral questions last month, the Justice Secretary said that the policy would survive the consultation. Of course, some Government Members voted against our motion—although some had the sense not to—which opposed the proposal on 23 May.

Will the Justice Secretary outline why the Prime Minister ditched the proposal when the Government were so wedded to it only a matter of weeks ago? When was the decision made to change the Bill’s title from the Legal Aid and Sentencing Bill, as it was called up until late last week, to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and—I like this—Punishment of Offenders Bill? What did he hope to achieve by tinkering with the title?

We know from the impact assessment that was provided with the Green Paper that removing the option of remanding offenders in custody for certain cases could save £50 million and 1,300 prison places. I note that that proposal remains. Will the Justice Secretary outline the view of the Magistrates Association on the proposal and say whether he believes that the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers support the policy?

In the past 13 months, we have seen broken promises on minimum and maximum sentencing, prison building and knife crime. Today the Justice Secretary proposes a new offence of a mandatory custodial sentence for knife possession in aggravated circumstances, with a minimum sentence of six months. Even that proposal is less than that promised to the electorate in the Conservative manifesto, which stated that

“we will make it clear that anyone convicted of a knife crime can expect to face a prison sentence”.

That is still a broken promise, and tinkering with the Bill’s title will not change that.

On indeterminate sentences for public protection, I have consistently questioned the Justice Secretary on how he will ensure the safety of our communities when considering which offenders should be released and when. Again, the impact assessment helpfully tells us that financial savings will be “sizeable”. From that, it is obvious that the focus is saving money, not what is in the public’s best interests. Today we find that the Justice Secretary is to undertake an “urgent review” of IPPs with a view to replacing them. Will he explain to the House why he needs another review when he has had 13 months, a Green Paper and a consultation that he has consistently described as an opportunity to review IPPs?

How does the Justice Secretary reconcile losing thousands of front-line, experienced prison and probation staff with the desire to increase the numbers of offenders diverted into specialist drug, alcohol and mental health facilities, and how does he reconcile that with more prisoners working, because they will clearly need more supervision?

The legal aid proposals have been roundly criticised across the board as devastating social welfare law—[Interruption.] Has the Justice Secretary—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There was too much noise when the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor addressed the House, and once again there is too much noise. Let me just say this to those who are making a persistent noise: stop it, or leave the Chamber, but do not for one moment suppose that making that noise you have the foggiest chance of being called to ask a question.

[Sadiq Khan]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker.

As I was saying a moment ago, the proposals on legal aid have been roundly criticised across the board as devastating social welfare law. Has the Justice Secretary seriously considered the alternative funding options proposed by, for example, Justice for All? Does he accept that his changes will have a huge impact on the viability of many law centres, citizens advice bureaux and high street practices up and down the country that do an enormous amount to provide access to justice for some of our most deprived citizens? The Prime Minister claims that the whole point of a Green Paper is to listen and to be ready to change one’s mind, so why have the Government made no substantive changes to their proposals on social welfare legal aid?

This morning the Prime Minister said that savings that would have been made by the 50% sentence proposals will be found elsewhere in the Ministry of Justice budget. Can the Justice Secretary explain exactly where those savings will be made and when?

We are seeing cuts to the police and cuts to prison staff and probation trusts, but where is the strategy to cut crime? The Government’s policies on crime and justice are a shambles. We have always known that we cannot trust the Tories on the NHS, but now it seems that we cannot trust the Tories on law and order either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In the interests of maximising the number of contributors, I appeal to hon. and right hon. Members for short questions and short answers.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Does the Lord Chancellor agree that it was the last Labour Government who, having introduced IPPs, then changed the law for no other reason than to reduce the prison population? As for the thoroughly good idea that we now scrap IPPs, would we not thereby ensure that the public—the victims and, indeed, the offenders—were better protected and had greater justice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, with whom I agree. Of course one of the things that we should address is the cost of running prisons. We all want to address the efficiency with which prisons are run, just as much as we wish to address who is sent there and how many we can accommodate. I am glad to say that we have carried out a very successful tendering exercise and saved a lot of money, and I hope also potentially improved the regimes in those prisons. We intend to do the same thing again. Personally, I have no ideological hang-up about whether the successful bidder is a public sector or private sector bidder: we want the best bidder and the best quality regime at the lowest cost. That has to go hand in hand with sentencing reform. This is exciting, but it is also a much better way of running a prison system.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently and in a jocular fashion say to the Secretary of State that he should not be like a cruise ship in rotation? The House wishes to hear him. He swivels around, but it is helpful if he faces the House; I would be obliged to him if he did so.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has made much of his desire to have alternative dispute resolution, which he considers to be better—in family law, for example. Presumably, he is thinking of mediation. Has he made any realistic assessment of the costs and of on whom those costs would fall? Will they fall on individuals or will there be some cost to his Department, which might undermine the reductions he hopes to achieve in legal aid?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I have done many U-turns in my time. They should be done with purpose and panache when we have to do them, but I do not think this is a U-turn at all—[Laughter.] No, I do not. Let me explain—[Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think Opposition Front Benchers have taken some sort of tickling powder. I have been listening with bated breath to the Secretary of State for the best part of 20 years and I want to continue listening to him.

[Mr Clarke]

We are aiming at a package of radical reform of sentencing to make it more effective in protecting the public, and at the same time making a substantial contribution to reducing the country’s deficit, which is vital to our economic recovery. We consulted on what is a leviathan of a Bill, with a huge range of proposals. We have changed some of it and have come up with what we intended, which is actually a better balanced package of good reform of the sentencing system. It achieves the savings we wanted. When I want to exercise a U-turn in future I shall give the hon. Lady notice, but this is not such a manoeuvre.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to accommodate remaining Back Benchers, but I reiterate my ritual appeal for brevity.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

On legal aid for medical negligence cases, can the Secretary of State reassure the House that he has made an assessment and we are not going to end up transferring additional costs to the NHS Litigation Authority?

Sentencing

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister. Just before I call the shadow Secretary of State to move the motion, may I gently point out to him and the Secretary of State that there is a premium on time and that Back Benchers will be heavily restricted? There is no time limit on Front-Bench speeches, but I am sure that both right hon. Gentlemen will wish to apply a certain self-denying ordinance.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

That is one of the arguments which the judge who decides whether to grant the injunction will no doubt have in mind. Whether it is reasonable and in the public interest for the injunction to be granted is what the judge is meant to try to establish. The question for us is how we can make that clearer and more defensible, and how we can know more about what is happening so that we are all satisfied that injunctions are granted only in cases where the right to privacy of the individual is, indeed, being interfered with unjustly, but I know of the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this topic, and we will bear his views in mind—

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

3. What reforms he is pursuing of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

We are considering our policy in the light of the debate and the result in the House of Lords. I have been discussing the matter with various interest groups, various Members of another place, and one or two Members of this House. Some of the lobbyists attribute to the chief coroner powers to tackle all kinds of failings in the system that the legislation never gave him or her. We could deliver some of the substantial changes that need to be made to the coroner system rather more quickly by distributing the functions elsewhere, rather than by creating unnecessarily a whole new office. I am considering the arguments. We ought to concentrate on what outcomes we are trying to produce, rather than argue about structures and new institutions.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Graham Evans. He is not here. Mr Davies.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Has the Secretary of State read the research commissioned by Lord Ashcroft and conducted by Populus called “Crime, Punishment & The People—Public opinion and the criminal justice debate”? If he has read the report, which I commend to him, will he confirm that its findings, which will make sobering reading for him, will be part of the proposals on sentencing?

Prisons Competition

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the House of the pressure on time and the consequent need for brevity.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Secretary of State’s announcement will be widely welcomed in Wellingborough. Is he aware that the POA there and the management worked tirelessly together, doing so against the national union policy, to come up with a bid that has driven down the cost to £19,000 per prisoner and has reduced the number of prison officers from 147 to 101? Could either the Secretary of State or a member of his team visit Wellingborough prison to see the improvements?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

G4S has done very well in this particular round. It had some strong competitors, which will no doubt come back in future rounds when we arrange them. The contracts are for 14 years, but are reviewable after seven years so that performance can be checked at that stage. I wish G4S well in delivering the very strong bids that it put in.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Secretary of State and colleagues for their co-operation.