Cost of Living: Energy and Housing

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me so early in this debate, Mr Speaker. I commend both the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State for starting off our proceedings, but I am afraid that I will diverge from energy and housing issues to concentrate on other matters.

Although much has been said about the shortness of the Queen’s Speech—that it does not contain many measures—to my mind that is a quality. This House passes far too much legislation, and we ought to spend more time repealing legislation before we consider passing more. Although some say that its shortness is a fault of this Queen’s Speech, I say that it is a particular benefit.

There is one Bill in particular of which I am very fond: the pensions tax Bill. As a private Member, I introduced—I think in 2004—the Retirement Income Reform Bill, which intended to do away with the need for those at the age of 75 to buy an annuity. It passed Second Reading on a Friday afternoon, I think by a majority of 101. Unfortunately, the Labour Government crushed it. I hope that the Labour party has changed its mind and will support the Bill when it comes before the House again in the guise of the pensions tax Bill.

Another measure that I am particularly pleased to see in the Queen’s Speech which is not politically controversial is the modern slavery Bill. As a former law officer who has appeared in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal dealing with cases that concerned the trafficking of very vulnerable men and women from overseas to this country, some to be sexually abused and some to be abused in the world of employment, I am particularly pleased that the Government and, I hope, the House will pass that Bill in due course. It will add strength to the law that seeks to protect the victims of this most appalling form of criminal behaviour. We all know of examples of appalling gangmasters and people who traffic young girls and women into this country for sexual purposes. Anything that this House can do to protect the victims and to ensure that they are brought to a place of safety and allowed to lead fulfilling lives is much to be approved.

I want to see the modern slavery Bill advance for two other reasons. This morning, I received a letter from my constituent, Laura Palmer, who tells me that there is, in France, something called the Picard law. She writes that the law

“states it is illegal to take money off someone who has been mentally manipulated.”

That put me in mind of the case that was brought by the Moonies—the rather eccentric religious sect—some years ago against the Daily Mail, for which, I hasten to add, I was acting at the time. [Laughter.] It was a long time ago.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I hope it paid well.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I got married on the strength of the case, thank you very much. Indeed, I bought my first house on the strength of it. However, I want to make a serious point.

The sting of the libel in the case was that the Moonies brainwashed children and extracted money from them for the purposes of the Moonie organisation. Of course, a lot of those activities took place overseas, particularly in America. However, if the modern slavery Bill can criminalise the suborning of vulnerable adults and children for the purpose of encouraging them to join such sects and to give up their independence and what money they have for the benefit of the leaders of such groups, it is much to be encouraged. If my constituent, Laura Palmer, is right about the Picard law in France, I hope that the modern slavery Bill that we are about to introduce into this House will take account of that law and learn from it.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Given the excellent points that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making about trafficking, does he share my disappointment at the lack of any mention of female genital mutilation in yesterday’s Queen’s Speech?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

That matter was certainly mentioned in yesterday’s debate. Of course, female genital mutilation is a crime under our law. I share the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment at the lack of prosecutions so far, if that is what he is driving at, but I think he will understand that one difficulty that the prosecuting authorities and the police have had is in the gathering of evidence.

This is too obvious a point, but I will make it anyway: FGM does not take place in public. It is difficult for independent witnesses to come across evidence, although there will be children who are examined in hospital or seen by schoolteachers or general practitioners. Now that the subject is increasingly coming into the public arena, I am sure that such people will be on their guard to ensure that those who are already victims of FGM find at least some protection under the law, despite what has already happened to them, and that children who may be vulnerable to FGM are also protected. The hon. Gentleman’s point is not one of controversy—he and I generally agree that the more we can do to protect those young women, the better and more civilised our country will be.

It is a tradition in this House to have at least four or five criminal justice Bills every Session, most of which do exactly what previous Bills did in earlier Sessions and no doubt repeat what was done in earlier Parliaments. By and large that comes under the heading of too much legislation—often too much ill-thought-through legislation. The previous Labour Government passed something like 65 pieces of legislation on criminal justice. That was utterly wasteful of parliamentary time and most of it achieved very little. However, it makes Ministers feel good.

I think that the serious crime Bill will be better than that, although it concerns me—I say this gently—that there may be some rough edges to the proposed legislation. In parenthesis, I say to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) that as I understand it, the Bill will strengthen this country’s ability to protect vulnerable children and women and extend the reach of powers to tackle FGM, and it will also make it an offence to possess paedophile manuals. There is plenty of good stuff in the Bill, but I am concerned that in dealing with the protection of vulnerable children, the Government may adjust section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 in a way that will have unintended consequences. I urge the House, and the Government, to be sure before they amend the 1933 Act that that does not do something that they should not or do not intend.

At the risk of being excessively prissy and overly legalistic—a very rare thing for me—let me tell the House what the Act currently states. It is an offence if someone wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes a child

“or causes or procures him to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and—”

I stress—

“any mental derangement),”.

As I understand it, the new Bill follows a campaign from 2012-13 that wishes to extend that part of the Act to cover emotional distress. That seems to me a difficult area to move into when the Bill is already being interpreted in a constructive and protective way.

Some of my constituents, particularly those who are strongly religious, have written to me because they are concerned that the teaching of particular religious tenets—not just Christian or Muslim—would or could stray into the area of emotional distress. I have no view on that because I am not aware of the factual basis on which such things might be established. However, we need to be careful when wishing to send out these messages and signals—I am afraid that such phrases are used by the Government in their surrounding material for this Bill and others—because we are in danger of passing legislation that amounts to just a collection of early-day motions, rather than producing coherent, well argued and well constructed law.

Earlier this week, Libby Purves, the Times journalist, wrote an interesting article—which I recommend—headlined, “You can’t always bring ugly sisters to trial”, towards the end of which she said,

“is it not potentially damaging to ‘intellectual development’ to bring up a child in a strict religious belief that daily contradicts the evolutionary science they learn at school? Is it not detrimental to ‘social development’ to raise a girl—or boy—in the firm expectation that she or he will only marry by parental arrangement?”

She continued:

“Think how many things you could potentially include. Suppose a family has a baby by donor insemination, or indeed another father, and never tells that child…Is it cruel and diminishing to deny someone knowledge of their origins? Come to that, the emotional damage wrought by divorce is well-attested and divorce is a deliberate act by at least one partner: criminal?”

I place these suggestions before the House to encourage us to be careful, as we move forward with enthusiasm in the last Session of this Parliament, about passing laws that are eye-catching. They must have some utility as well. This also applies to the social action, responsibility and heroism Bill. I cannot think of a more wonderful title for an Act of Parliament.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain how he seems to support the Picard law, which is about mental manipulation, but does not support the idea of dealing with emotional stress? Those are related areas. Does he support any move to tighten up on advertising standards, which is a form of mental manipulation, in relation to Wonga, for example, or breakfast cereals that are described as low fat but which contain high levels of sugar, and so on? How does he square these things?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman, perhaps unwittingly, illustrates my point. If we were to criminalise advertising sugar-filled cereals, we would be stepping down a path that I have no intention of going down. I do not know enough about the Picard law to comment intelligently about it, but I understand from my constituent, Laura Palmer, that it outlaws the manipulation of people under a mental incapacity, or who are temporarily mentally disturbed, to extract money from them—this goes back to my Moonies example. That is not the same as extending section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, under which it is already an offence to do terrible things to children, including causing them mental derangement.

The better answer to the question posed by the 2012 campaign—and to what I fear may be the consequence of the relevant part of the serious crime Bill—is to reflect emotional or intellectual damage in the sentencing under section 1 of the 1933 Act, not to create a whole new category of offence based on intellectual or emotional damage or impairment.

I am just placing the arguments before the House—I do not want to be nailed to the cross on this point—but I am always cautious about this House’s being too ready to pass spuriously attractive pieces of legislation for the purposes of sending out a message or giving a signal without thinking about the consequences of doing so. The purpose of the various stages of a Bill—Second Reading, Committee and Report stages, and then its going through the House of Lords, where it is examined again—is to deal with rough edges or unintended consequences. However, there is no harm in pointing them out now, so that the Government are aware of at least some people’s concerns.

To my mind, those concerns also apply to the social action, responsibility and heroism Bill. I am sure there is much good intention behind the Bill. The Government say:

“All too often people who are doing the right thing in our society feel constrained by the fear that they are the ones who will end up facing a lawsuit for negligence”

and that they want to

“change the law to reassure the public that they can participate in good causes or intervene in an emergency. In the unlikely event that something goes wrong and they are sued, the courts will take full and sympathetic account of the context of their actions.”

They also tell me that the proposed law is

“designed to bring some common sense back to Britain’s health and safety culture. We will put the law on the side of people who are doing the right thing and building better communities.”

That is all well and good, but if one descends into the potential detail of the legislation a number of concerns arise. They are illustrated by an article written by the Secretary of State for Justice headlined, “Our Bill to Curb the Elf and Safety Culture”. I am as great an admirer of the advocates of the saloon bar as anybody else, but I think we need to be a little careful when we are framing laws that affect the way in which our courts treat litigation between citizens.

My right hon. Friend is perfectly right that there have been a number of cases where people have felt constrained—for example, from taking children on school adventure trips and so on—for fear that they, or the school they are employed by, will be sued if somebody breaks their leg or falls into a river and comes to harm through no fault of the school or the individual supervisor, be they a schoolmaster or schoolmistress. As I understand the law of negligence, if it is just an accident, then by and large the courts will recognise that it is just an accident and liability will not be attached to the supervisor.

[Andy McDonald]

Is it not the case that all that is ever expected when people take children on a school trip is that they take reasonable care? They need to have some forethought as to the risks they run, but nobody is expecting a counsel of perfection. If an accident happens that could not have been foreseen, and there has been no carelessness or negligence, then no liability will ever attach.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I agree. I hope that common sense already exists not only for those contemplating taking children away on trips. That is to say, we do not have to worry about this. If we set in place proper arrangements—we make sure there are lifejackets if people are going out in canoes and all that sort of stuff—then it strikes me that common sense is already in play.

What I am concerned about, however, is the concept of heroic negligence. I would be very interested to hear from a Minister from the Ministry of Justice the definition of heroic negligence. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles), is the embodiment of political heroism—that is easy to understand—but I think even he would be pushed to find a cogent definition of heroic negligence. When he goes to the next Cabinet meeting and discusses the important things they discuss in Cabinet, I wonder if he could encourage the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for Justice to think carefully about the concept of heroic negligence, because it will lead to derision, if not amusement, if it is pushed forward.

I accept fully that this is not a courtroom and that the people who draft or think about legislation are not always thinking entirely legalistically. I plead guilty to occasionally being rather prissy about that, as I said a moment ago. However, I am a politician and in the Chamber there are other politicians, so we all understand the need for the political backdrop to the things we do. Governments will of course send out their messages and their signals. At some stage, however, somebody has to apply this law. At some stage, a judge in a county court or in the High Court is going to be faced with a case in which a fireman has been sued by someone he has rescued. He will not just personally be sued—the fire authority will also be sued.

One will have the most complicated litigation. Perhaps expert witnesses on heroism will be called, who will say, “Well, this was heroism that strayed into the area of negligence. It was foolhardy. On the other hand, this chap up the other ladder was heroic in a common-sense way.” One needs to go through these slightly absurd examples in order to demonstrate that somebody needs to think a little more carefully before this aspect of this very important Bill goes forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

Yes.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I am very glad that my right hon. Friend will be responding because not only is he the embodiment of political heroism, he is the embodiment of political common sense. I know that because I have heard him say things that are eminent common sense. I dare say that in winding up the debate this afternoon he will do no more than utter eminent common sense, but with a delightful Conservative political tinge that I would be disappointed if he did not show.

I was elected to this House as a Conservative. I cannot wait for a single-party Conservative Government. I cannot wait for Robert Jenrick, the next Member of Parliament for Newark, to take his place in this House. Given that this debate continues until next Thursday, I hope he will be able to make his maiden speech during the Queen’s Speech debate, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr Speaker.

I am now getting into the area of waffle—[Hon. Members: “No!”] I finish on a serious point. This Queen’s Speech is full of good things and good intentions but I say with the greatest deference to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that we need to be a little careful when we construct laws that do no more than send out a message. If I want to send out a message, I will use semaphore.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before I call the next speaker, may I impress upon the House that although there is no formal time limit on speeches, a certain self-denying ordinance would help? I invite hon. Members to help each other in these matters. Although in terms of courtesy, legendary as it is, there is much to be said for Members seeking to imitate the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), there is no need for them to feel the need to do so as far as length of speech is concerned.

Tributes to Tony Benn

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

Had the late Tony Benn been making the speech of the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), this Chamber would have been full. I trust that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) will not think me impertinent for intervening. I did not know Tony Benn as well as many Members on the Opposition Benches did nor as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir Peter Tapsell) did, but I want briefly to recognise his huge humanity and conduct as a Member of this House. I did not share his politics—I fundamentally disagreed with more or less everything he ever said—but I got to know his humanity.

After he had left this House, he and I very occasionally spoke on the same platforms—at meetings of Liberty, for example, discussing the previous Government’s proposals on identity cards and other forms of, as we thought, excessive Government interference in the life of the individual. There were occasions when we would walk back from halls to the tube station or bus stop and he would talk to me as if I had known him for ever, utterly without side and utterly unconcerned that I was a member of the Conservative party and he was not, but the occasion I remember most clearly is the one when he stood at that Dispatch Box with his son, introducing him to this House. The sheer pride of a father for his son was palpable. That is evidence, it seems to me, that we were looking not just at the typical two-dimensional modern politician but at the three-dimensional transparent decency of a very great man.

Tributes to Nelson Mandela

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

Having heard the contributions of two Prime Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and a number of other senior Members of the House, I think my contribution this evening is almost superfluous. In fact, it probably is superfluous. But having heard the contribution of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), I think my contribution is probably impertinent. However, I want briefly to give a little illustration of Nelson Mandela, the man not in the public eye, and perhaps to illustrate—others will know of him far better than I did—how that characteristic of disarming modesty and magnanimity, which has been spoken about so much this afternoon, came across to me.

In September 1990, just a few months after Nelson Mandela had been released, I was in Johannesburg, in the offices of the Johannesburg Star, discussing as a newspaper lawyer with the editor of the newspaper issues to do with freedom of the press and wider freedom of expression, to do with censorship and self-censorship, which the media in South Africa had either had imposed upon them or had felt sensible to impose upon themselves. There came a time when our conversation came to an end and I said to the editor, “Just across the street are the offices of the ANC. Do you think if I went in there and asked to see Mr Mandela, they would let me?” Whereupon the editor said, “Of course they won’t, but you might as well have a go.” So I went across the street, pressed the button on the lift and went to the top floor of the building, and the girl behind the desk in the ANC offices said, “Hello, can I help?” and I said, “Yes, I have come to see Mr Mandela.” She said, “If you sit there, he will be with you in a moment.” So I sat there.

After a few moments, Joe Slovo came out into the hall and said, “Hello. I gather you have come to see Mr Mandela.” I said, “Yes, I have.” He said, “Well, he will be with you in a minute.” He went back, and about 10 minutes later, Mr Mandela, Mr Slovo and a note taker—so reminiscent of our modern government—came into the hall and ushered me into a boardroom, where Mr Mandela sat at the end of the table, Mr Slovo sat on his left, I sat on his right and the note taker sat opposite. Mr Mandela said to me, “Welcome to South Africa. Thank you for coming to see me.” I said, “On the contrary, thank you very much—” and he stopped me and said, “You are not Dutch.” I said, “No, I am English.” He said, “Whoever let you in should be taken out and shot.” Whereupon he roared with laughter, gripped me firmly by the hand and said, “Let’s talk. Who are you? What are you here for?” I was not a Member of Parliament; I was simply a jobbing lawyer across the road at the Johannesburg Star, who had taken an opportunity that Mr Mandela, as a former guerrilla, had thought quite witty.

I had 20 minutes with Messrs Mandela and Slovo, and during the course of those 20 minutes I learned a lot about human nature and political forgiveness, and I learned a lot about that great man himself. During the course of our conversation, he told me that he now felt as much a prisoner of the expectations of the majority population of South Africa as he had of the apartheid regime while incarcerated. It had not occurred to me until he told me what a huge effort would be required by him to ensure that the new South Africa could be a peaceful and prosperous one. But I think it is fair to say—the right hon. Member for Neath will know more about all of this than I—that the South Africa that we see today, with all its imperfections and economic difficulties, would be light years behind where it is now were it not for the example, conduct and character of that most extraordinary man.

When I left that room, Nelson Mandela asked me what I was going to do in future years—I was not quite 39, so for him a youngish man—and I said I was hoping to become a Member of Parliament in the Conservative interest, and he said, “Well, make sure you send me your maiden speech.” I am afraid that I let him down; I did not send him the speech, but I think that if I had done so, he would have read it and probably written back to me—indirectly if not directly—to remind me of our discussion.

Some years later in the mid to late 1990s, when I was a visiting fellow at St Antony’s college in Oxford, President Mandela came to open a seminar and lecture room there. I thrust myself forward from the crowd of hundreds and introduced myself to him, saying, “Of course you will not remember when we met in your offices some years ago.” He said, “You’re quite right. Of course I don’t remember you, but it is very nice to see you.” One of our sort of politicians would have lied and said that they did remember, but he did not.

I realise that I am in danger of talking about myself rather than about Mr Mandela. I am telling this story to illustrate the fact that even though he could expect nothing from me, I had nothing to give him and I was a waste of his time in that meeting room in 1990—and I certainly was not the Dutch parliamentarian he was expecting—he gave me his time and, more importantly, he gave me his hand. I shall never forget that. He shook my hand and I shall be eternally grateful for that hand of friendship that he gave to me, a stranger. That is the man that I remember.

EU Council

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There was not a Council-wide discussion, but I took the opportunity to speak with Cathy Ashton, who is doing an excellent job on behalf of this country and the EU. It has rightly taken a tough line in negotiations with Iran, because steps by Iran on the nuclear front need to be seen. On Syria, the first thing that has to happen is that Iran needs to sign up to Geneva I and those principles before being able to move forward to Geneva II.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

Turning back to the issue of the refugees coming across the Mediterranean and the tragedy at Lampedusa, did the Italian Government or Italian leaders ask my right hon. Friend whether there was any assistance by Royal Navy patrols? On Libyan border security, was my right hon. Friend referring to Libya’s African land border or to the maritime border?

[The Prime Minister]

The Italians have been doing very good work to up their naval patrols in a particular operation to try to assist with the problem. They have not asked us for any assistance, but relations between Britain and Italy are extremely good. On Libya, Britain’s focus is more on helping on the land borders that have been particularly porous and dangerous in recent years. Obviously, we are also working with Libya to try to increase its level of domestic security, because one key to preventing such migratory flows is ensuring that countries have Governments who work.

G20

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about precursor chemicals. In this country we have a very strict licensing regime for the export of those sorts of chemicals, and on this occasion it worked effectively. When the arms ban on Syria was brought in, we were able to revoke those licences, so from what I have seen to date our system worked well.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

Are international banking and other financial sanctions in place to prevent the Assad regime from acquiring further weapons of mass destruction or “ordinary” weapons? If there is none, is that not something we should be thinking about?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. There are obviously international agreements made about not selling arms to Syria, but tragically the regime has been able to get hold of weapons, not least from the Russians and the Iranians, and that is one of the problems we face today.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

May I begin by commenting on the analysis of my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Reigate (Mr Blunt)? Their remarks were well worth rereading, but I differ from them on the conclusion that they drew tonight. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan)—although I, like she, will vote with the Government tonight, they cannot expect that it is a blank cheque. I, too, want the Deputy Prime Minister to accede to the request that she made.

We have seen this evening the report of the Joint Intelligence Committee stating that it is reasonably sure that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical warfare strike on 21 August. That is likely to be true on the balance of probabilities. I do not think it is fair to say that we could prove it beyond all reasonable doubt, but for tonight’s purposes, bearing in mind the last two paragraphs of the Government’s motion, I believe it is the best we can do.

I also accept that an attack upon the Assad regime’s chemical weapons factories and stockpiles, even if it caused the loss of human life beyond the Syrian military, could be lawful irrespective of whether we, the United States and France had prior United Nations Security Council approval. However, what concerns me is that we find ourselves here today in something of a short-term hurry, albeit that we have taken some time to get here. It is difficult for a Back Bencher to reach any firm conclusion about what our strategy is and how, tactically, we are to achieve the end goal of that strategy.

It is, of course, entirely proper for the Prime Minister to concentrate on the chemical warfare aspect of the crisis, but much as he wants to do that, many inside and outside the House cannot see 21 August and our response to it in isolation from the context of the Syrian civil war and how we went into Iraq.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

My hon. and learned Friend says that we are in a hurry, but we have taken more than two and a half years to come to this position and are where we are only because there has been an escalation through the use of chemical weapons.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I said that we were in a short-term hurry, albeit that it has taken us a long time to get here.

Some 100,000 people have been killed and more than 1 million displaced because of the other terrible actions by the Syrian regime and opposition forces, and 350 were killed by the chemical attacks and many more injured. Whatever the method of earlier killings, it is not possible to avoid the conclusion that military action to deal with chemical weapons could well lead to action to consolidate that military gain and then escalate to other action. In the light of the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures, the public suspect mission creep, to use that hideous expression. It is only because of the final words of the Government’s motion—

“before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place”—

that I am prepared to vote with the Government this evening.

However, I am concerned that much of the anodyne and uncontroversial nature of the motion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, is an attempt to suck us into a particular position irrespective of the merits of it and the evidence on the ground. I am also concerned that there is a distinction between the third paragraph of the motion, which requires

“military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons”,

and the 10th, which refers simply to “deterring” it. I urge the Government to listen hard to what has been said tonight, and not to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

Royal Charter on Press Conduct

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the incredible work that she and others have put in. Her point was that it is important that we go down the royal charter route rather than the legislation route. That has been our position consistently, because we do not want a situation in which politicians can meddle with the system. That is why we have agreed the no-change clause in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, which will be debated tonight in another place. The measure will have the effect that the charter, now that it has been so carefully agreed, can be amended only if the process contained within it is followed. As I have said, that means that both Houses of Parliament must agree to a motion for change by a two-thirds majority.

Let me be clear. This is not by any stretch statutory regulation of the press, and nor is it statutory recognition of either the self-regulatory body or the recognition body.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. Will he confirm that awards of exemplary damages and awards of cost will be made not by the self-regulatory body, but by the courts?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right: they will be made by the courts. The point of what we are doing is to create an incentive for publishers to be part of the self-regulatory system, because, other than in exceptional circumstances, they will not be subject to exceptional costs or damages if they are within the regulatory system—that is important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

May I invite you, Mr Speaker, to imply into what I am about to say all the paeans of praise, self-congratulation and mutual congratulation there have been in the course of the afternoon, because that would save time? May I also draw the attention of the House to my interest in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?

Much of the debate we have had—not this afternoon, but in the course of the previous six months or so—has been somewhat mis-focused: Lord Justice Leveson never recommended statutory regulation of the press. Just as there has been inaccurate criticism of what he recommended from the more hysterical commentators in the media, so there has been equally inaccurate and exaggerated criticism from the other end of the market. I suspect that what we have managed to do today is to come down sensibly and gently into the middle, which is probably where we would have been in the first place if we had all read the Leveson report carefully. But there we are and here we are, and that is a good thing.

Boiling Leveson down, in essence he said that the Press Complaints Commission was not up to snuff, and that we needed a better version to achieve public protection and to ensure that the press, in the appropriate cases, behaved itself. To achieve that, clearly what we do not need—as the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions—is the press or the media to mark their own homework.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that we need to clear up the relationship between the regional press and the local press, which often finds itself in financial difficulties, especially with the many cutbacks in that area recently?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I am sure that that is a very good point, but it is not quite the one I am addressing.

We need to ensure that press regulation, insofar as we have it, is independent of the press and enabled to achieve justice for those affected by misconduct, but we must be careful not to oversell this project. I have a hunch—it is only a hunch, but we will find out in due course; it might be that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who I think will be winding up the debate—[Interruption.] Oh, the Prime Minister will be winding it up—that is even more wonderful. May I go back and regurgitate that praise after all? It is splendid news. I almost feel like sitting down.

We need to be careful not to oversell the project being launched today. I have a suspicion—I have no evidence for my hunch, but we will see over the next year or so—that not many cases will come before the new body, because it will be unable to deal with issues of huge factual or legal complexity. One problem with the PCC—it had its fans and its critics—was that it could not disentangle hugely complicated issues involving disputes about whether the sting of a libel or the words complained of were true or false. It could not gather together and sift huge volumes of documents exchanged on disclosure, which can be done by a judge and advocates in court. I suspect that this necessarily more informal system will be able to deal with only fairly simple cases. There is nothing wrong with that; I just urge the House not to be persuaded that this cross-party agreement will replace the royal courts of justice.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

We have heard how exemplary damages are supposed to drive people into this voluntary arrangement, but will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that no judge would penalise somebody for not being part of the voluntary arrangement and would be no more likely to impose exemplary damages on somebody outside it than in the normal run of events? In that sense, the whip of exemplary damages would not be there, although I recognise that the incentive for those inside it would be.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The point about exemplary damages, as set out on the amendment paper, would incentivise people to join the scheme, although as I understand the amendments—I might have misread them—they do not mean that if someone is in the scheme, they will be immune from exemplary damages, and that if someone is outside it, they will always be milked for them. The old rule in Rookes v. Barnard and so forth would still apply, insofar as it is relevant nowadays, but, as the Defamation Bill will make clear, juries will be taken out of exemplary damages cases, which will be decided by a judge alone. To that extent, exemplary damages will play a part in the proposals, but in my experience they are quite rare in libel actions nowadays, although not unheard of.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that the proposed system is resilient enough to be exported? Could it be taken off the shelf by Egypt or Kenya, for example, or would it work only in a mature democracy, such as ours, where checks and balances are already in place?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

The Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour party were extremely busy over the weekend, as were their representatives, dealing with England and Wales—

[Chris Bryant]

Wales won.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

And I am not sure that their minds were on libel tourism to Cairo and other places along the Mediterranean, but who knows what will happen? Let us try and get it right for England and Wales.

[Chris Bryant]

Wales won.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) keeps chuntering from a sedentary position that Wales won. His point is now on the record. I trust that he is satisfied.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) will have to wait and see whether the Egyptians cut and paste our system.

On the point about overselling, I have a suspicion that we will not see many of these cases. The arbitration system will be free, which will increase access to it for those without means of their own, so I suspect that many self-represented people will come before it. That will place a strain on the panels deciding complaints.

Leveson recommended a ring-fenced monetary penalty system under which money recovered from malefactors would help to fund the system and the cases being brought before it. It would be interesting to find out from the Prime Minister whether a system of compensatory payments would be available to the body, or whether it would simply be a question of punishing the respondent newspaper or media organisation. If a victim of newspaper misconduct required compensation, would they have to go to the courts to settle or get an agreement from the respondent, or would the independent body be entitled to award the newspaper’s money as compensation? The latter, too, would incentivise claimants to use the system, rather than going to the expense and trouble of clogging up the courts with less important cases.

[Barry Gardiner]

What would happen if a newspaper failed to enact a decision appropriately—for example, if it printed an apology on page 32, instead of page 1? Who would quantify, and how would they quantify, that failure, and what would be the redress? Who would actually enforce the contract?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

The short answer is that I do not know, but I would hazard a guess that if a signed-up member, which would therefore be susceptible to the jurisdiction of the body, failed to do what the body commanded, it would be in breach of contract, and arrangements would be put in place to ensure either that the contract was complied with or that damages were payable for breach of contract. Someone might have to litigate the breach of contract, but the system might contain fail-safe measures allowing the independent body to revisit the matter and deal with the malefactor in some preordained, but sensible, way.

[Mr Bone]

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I will take this interjection, but I am beginning to waffle, and it is high time I sat down.

[Mr Bone]

Is not one of the problems with this process that we have not had time to read and prepare for the detailed issues, such as the ones we have just been discussing? That is a flaw in the process and could lead to bad legislation.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I am afraid that that is just one of the things we have to live with, and if we cannot cope with it, we are probably in the wrong place. I noticed that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was able to speak for 12 fluent minutes without having seen the motion or read the charter—but then he might have prepared something earlier.

[Chris Bryant]

I wish you had.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

That is also probably true.

To wrap up, something good seems to have happened over the course of this weekend and it is about to be translated into further action this evening, but I urge us not to oversell it or think that we have solved the problem of press misconduct. It will go on—it is all part of human nature. However, we have made a small step—indeed, rather more than that—towards bringing the press and the public to a better place. I therefore commend the Prime Minister and all who took part in the negotiations.

Algeria

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. We do a lot of thinking and a lot of work to try to get this impossibly difficult decision right. That is what the police liaison teams do, and the Government should always be asking, “Can this be handled even more sensitively in the future?”

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I was reassured by my right hon. Friend in his answers to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), about our diplomatic and military resources, but will my right hon. Friend draw any lessons from the request by the French to borrow two transport aircraft? They are the third biggest military force in Europe. Does that mean that they just do not have the aeroplanes, or does it mean that their aeroplanes were doing something else and they needed to borrow some from us?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. My understanding is that the French do not have C-17s. They have a different lay-down of forces. I would argue that one of the things that we did in the SDSR, which the previous Government were working on too, was making sure that we had good mobility and strategic lift for our armed forces. They are vital. The C-17s are based in my constituency, at RAF Brize Norton, so perhaps I am biased, but as far as I can see they are workhorses. They are vitally important. We have eight of them, and lending two to the French for this vital task is right. In future, we have the A400M coming in and that is a highly capable plane that will help with the transport and heavy-lift capabilities as well.

Leveson Inquiry

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is obvious, of course, that the Prime Minister and I come at this from different angles, but the right hon. and learned Lady should not overlook the perfectly legitimate misgivings—I happen not to share them, but they are none the less misgivings—that the Prime Minister has expressed about legislation in such a sensitive area.

I have no problem with a speedy timetable, which is obviously one of the main things that we need to concentrate on this afternoon in the cross-party talks. I strongly agree with the right hon. and learned Lady that the long grass is the last place this problem should end up. We have got to act now in one way or another. Lord Justice Leveson has put forward his proposals, and I am convinced that he has made a case for legislation. I have not seen—no one has—what that legislation would actually look like. It is important that we see his proposals translated into draft legislative form so that we can all examine that and make the rapid progress that I think everybody, whatever their different views on specific aspects of this report, believes is now necessary.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a member of the media law Bar.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister—it is always a joy to hear him—set out very briefly the differences in principle between the view that he takes and that of the Prime Minister?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The difference is that I believe that the case for legislation has been made, but of course I acknowledge that we now need to show how it could be delivered in practice in a proportionate and workable way. The Prime Minister—I hesitate to recap what he said while he is sitting next to me—has thoughtfully expressed his serious misgivings about taking the step of legislation, but has not entirely excluded that possibility in the absence of other viable alternatives. I think that, in a nutshell, is the difference between our two approaches.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

4. How many successful prosecutions for fraud were brought by the Serious Fraud Office in 2011.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

Owing to their complexity, SFO cases rarely conclude in the same year in which the prosecution, still less the investigation, begins. In 2011, the SFO concluded 14 fraud cases and 28 defendants were convicted; a further seven bribery cases were brought to a successful conclusion.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

With the SFO budget being cut by 25% over the course of this Parliament, what advantages does the Solicitor-General think the introduction of deferred prosecution agreements will bring, apart from plugging the financial hole in fraud investigations through plea bargains with corporate perpetrators?

[The Solicitor-General]

Deferred prosecution agreements bring with them self-evident advantages: they will ensure that companies are brought to justice, through confession, through whistleblowing or through investigation; they will bring speed, as a resolution in these matters will be brought forward much more quickly—the average SFO case takes about three and a half years and costs about £1.5 million; they will bring compensation to victims; they will avoid collateral damage to innocent parties; and they will provide an additional weapon in the prosecutor’s armoury. I hope that the hon. Lady would welcome that.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate to review the handling of disclosure in complex cases; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

9. What progress he has made on introducing fast-tracked prosecutions during the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

The arrangements for fast-track prosecutions during the Olympics and Paralympics are in place and they have been agreed by the courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and representatives of defence lawyers in London. Olympic offences originating from the hon. Lady’s part of London will be dealt with at Thames magistrates court and Snaresbrook Crown court, with priority cases being dealt with at Highbury Corner magistrate’s court.

[Rushanara Ali]

The Crown Prosecution Service has been quoted by the media as saying that offences classified as “Olympic offences” will be fast-tracked through the courts during the Olympic and Paralympic games. Will the Solicitor-General explain what is meant by an “Olympic offence”, and does he think that it is right that Crown and magistrates courts near Olympic venues or traffic hubs should close or reduce their sittings during the games?

[The Solicitor-General]

I think the media are quoting a letter shown to them by the shadow Attorney-General—

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I have not seen it.

[The Solicitor-General]

The hon. Lady has not seen it either. We are both in the dark, that is wonderful—[Interruption.] The shadow Attorney-General does not know anything, apparently. Let me enlighten her—[Interruption.] She is obviously in a hurry to learn.

The criminal justice system Olympics working group has adopted the following definition of an Olympic offence:

“any offence…committed and charged in the period 1st July to 30th September 2012, and is…stated by any Court to be directly connected to the 2012 Olympic or Paralympics Games”.

It is a definition of a type of crime, not a new offence.

[The Solicitor-General]

I am sorry, but I found it quite difficult to hear my right hon. Friend, but in so far as I heard his question, the courts will be manned by all appropriate judges. At the Crown court, clearly there will be Crown court judges; in magistrates courts, district judges will be deployed and, where appropriate, justices of the peace will sit in banks of three.