Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill
Lindsay Hoyle ExcerptsTuesday 25th June 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill 2017-19 View all Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—Mr Deputy Speaker. That was, perhaps, a Freudian slip.
Robert Neill
It is a pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). She made a heartfelt speech. I know that this is a matter on which she feels very strongly. It is an issue to which I myself have given considerable thought. It is sensitive and important, particularly for those who have a faith and regard marriage as a sacrament as well as a legal contract.
I look at this issue from the point of view of someone who happens to be a practising Anglican, as someone who has for 25 or 30 years been a practising lawyer—not predominantly in the field of family law, although I did practise family law to some degree in my earlier days—as someone who served as a councillor in a local authority, and as someone who has the honour of serving as Chair of the Justice Committee. I have had the chance to see the issue from a number of points of view and I have come to a different conclusion from my hon. Friend. I do not say that with any disrespect for the strength or genuineness of her feeling; I am just persuaded, on balance, that the Secretary of State is right and that the evidence points quite clearly to this being an appropriate and necessary reform.
As Chair of the Justice Committee, I have had the opportunity to engage with leading members of the judiciary, particularly, in this context, with those of the family division. It is the overwhelming view of family practitioners, including solicitors, barristers and senior judges, that the current arrangements, which require fault to be used as a proof of irretrievable breakdown, do not work satisfactorily and do not achieve what is ultimately the necessary objective of enabling people whose marriage has sadly broken down irretrievably—I suspect that none of us want that to happen when we embark on a marriage, but it does happen in some cases—to leave their marriage with a measure of dignity and to do so in a way that enables the important issue of financial fairness to be resolved, and, in the case of children, to enable civilised and caring arrangements to be made for them and their children. That, ultimately, must be the chief and principal objective.
Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill [Lords]
Lindsay Hoyle ExcerptsMonday 11th March 2019
(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) 2017-19 View all Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 March 2019 - (5 Mar 2019)
Mrs Miller
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. We agreed earlier that it is important for local authorities to have the funding, but I am not sure whether I agree that we should not encourage local authorities to take on this responsibility, because surely getting them to prioritise funding of facilities such as the one she mentioned is a great way to try to raise their awareness of this issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have 13 Members waiting to speak, and the Minister needs to wind up the debate. I do not want someone to miss out on the opportunity to make a speech. Can we all look after each other in this important debate?
Sarah Champion
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention, but I disagree. We need a centre of expertise. When resources are tight, we need to be able to push and make local authorities prioritise. If the Minister wants to do that and guarantee that all local authorities will make provision and ring-fence that money, I will be happy, but there still needs to be that centre of expertise.
The other area that I would like to touch on is relationships and sex education. I welcome the fact that children will now be taught about FGM at secondary school, but we need to teach them about it at primary school as well, because the majority of the crime happens to primary age children. They need to be empowered to understand what is going on and that it is a crime so that we can get ahead of this. All that said, I am hugely grateful that we are taking forward this amendment to the law.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
May I just suggest about five minutes each to give everybody equal time?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in. It would be rather unfair on the other people who have been here. I think he should wait a little while.
Mrs Latham
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think I know what my hon. Friend was going to say, because he was talking about something that we worked on together to try to bring this issue to the fore some years ago. We have to recognise that what has happened in this country has not been as successful as it could have been. We need people in this country to really go for the perpetrators, and anybody who knows anything should report it to the police. As I said, however, it is very hard for young girls to testify in court against family members or friends of the family, and we have to work together to try to make it easier for these cases to come to court and to have successful prosecutions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Can I just remind people to stick to five minutes, please?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I asked people to speak for only five minutes, and I am concerned that some Members might not have a chance to speak. It is only Conservative Members who are waiting to speak, so they are actually cutting into each other’s time.
Dr Johnson
Thank you for that guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will aim to wrap this up quickly.
My final point is that the law is useful, but we also need education. There is a cross-Government strategy to prevent violence against women and girls, and that includes health professionals, identification, mandatory reporting, teachers who are in a trusted position keeping children safe, charities, the work of Nimco Ali and others, international work, DFID’s flagship programmes, UN resolutions and so on. Children need to be educated so that they develop key skills, not necessarily just about FGM in isolation, but self-esteem, social and emotional skills. They should also be taught where to get support if they are worried. All that will empower our young women.
In summary, this amendment to the law will make it easier to protect children from FGM, which is a dreadful form of child abuse. I congratulate those who have successfully campaigned to get the Bill through the House.
Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords]
Lindsay Hoyle ExcerptsWednesday 12th December 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018 View all Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 December 2018 - (12 Dec 2018)
Simon Hoare
Everything I do is short, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We are all, thank God, living longer. At some point, might there be merit in reviewing the retirement age both for our judges and our magistrates? With people taking early retirement and so on, the receptacle of wisdom should not be lost to the courts, particularly taking the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) on the difficulty of finding people to fill these posts.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. We need to move on now. I was very generous before, but magistrates have absolutely nothing to do with the Bill, as the Minister well knows.
Lucy Frazer
I am happy to come on to the three reasons why amendments 2 to 4 cannot be accepted. First, the amendments are not necessary. The functions are already being carried out, and carried out well, by those with lesser qualifications than those sought by the hon. Member for Bolton South East. The qualification requirements for legal advisers in the magistrates court and family court are currently set out in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, as they have been since 1979, and amendments 2 and 3 would raise the qualifications bar significantly higher than the current regulations and would rule out a large proportion of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff from giving legal advice in future.
Robert Neill
My hon. and learned Friend will know, and perhaps she will confirm, that the way this works in practice is that either the Lord Chief Justice or the Senior President of Tribunals makes the authorisation. Alternatively, in the case of the civil jurisdiction, for example, this will invariably at least go to the senior presiding judge or the presiding judges of the circuit. We are talking about people who, in their administrative role, never mind their judicial capacity, will have visited and met these—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Minister, come on. And you have had three speeches already, Bob, you don’t need to stretch the imagination of the Chamber.
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, was making an important point. The rule committees are—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Some might think it is very important—[Interruption.] Order. Would the Minister like to sit down for a moment? In fairness, I am beginning to get a little frustrated with the people who were not here for all the speeches; we had no speakers in, and now everyone wants to come in with interventions. I have only got one Member now down to speak on Third Reading, so if people really want to make a contribution, they know what to do.
Lucy Frazer
I hope that more will put in to speak on this important subject. I wish to pick up on what my hon. Friend was saying, because he cited a number of speeches from the other place, where senior members of the judiciary were highlighting the appropriateness of the Government’s position. Lord Neuberger, former President of the Supreme Court, warned that these amendments would place
“a potential straitjacket on the ability to appoint the appropriate people to make appropriate decisions.”
He went on to reflect that there “will be many decisions” for which the experience set out in the amendments
“would be appropriate, but there will be others where less experience would be adequate for the decision-making.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 882.]
Thirdly, I come to an important point that has not yet been mentioned in the House. The amendments would limit flexibility should new routes to legal qualifications emerge. For example, one key change that we have made in the draft regulations that we published alongside the Bill is to include fellows of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, or those who have passed the necessary examinations to be a CILEx fellow, among those who can give legal advice. That is a progressive step, but if we were to accept amendments 2 and 3, it would be much harder to respond to such changes in the future, as we would have to amend primary, rather than secondary, legislation.
Furthermore, a legal qualification might not be the most relevant qualification for a particular judicial function. For example, it is more helpful for a registrar in the tax tribunal to be a tax professional by background, rather than a legal professional.
The hon. Member for Bolton South East raised a number of points on independence, and I wish to start by saying that I think the judiciary, whether sitting in court or in committee, has, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) said when he was in his place, the highest level of independence and integrity.
The hon. Lady queried, both here and in Committee, the independence of authorised staff, implying that those with a legal qualification were more likely to be independent. Under the Bill, all court and tribunal staff who are authorised to exercise judicial functions will now be independent of the Lord Chancellor when doing so, and subject only to the direction of the Lord Chief Justice or their nominee, or the Senior President of Tribunals or their delegate.
The Bill also provides, for the first time, protections from legal proceedings and costs in legal proceedings and indemnities for all authorised staff when carrying out judicial functions, which will further safeguard their independence in decision making.
Finally, amendment 5 deals with the right of reconsideration of decisions taken by authorised staff in the courts. I wish to start by acknowledging that the hon. Lady and the Opposition have listened carefully to the points made in Committee; I note there is now no amendment dealing with decisions taken by staff in the tribunals, and I welcome that.
It is right that in some circumstances a party to proceedings may wish to have the decision reconsidered, but we remain opposed to the amendment for three reasons. First, the Bill already ensures that a right of reconsideration will be available when appropriate. We believe that the independent procedure rule committees—comprised, as I and others have said, of jurisdictional experts and experienced practitioners—are best placed to decide whether such a right of further reconsideration is needed and, if so, the form that that right should take.
Indeed, the procedure rule committees in the civil and tribunals jurisdictions have already included in their respective rules a specific right to judicial reconsideration for decisions made by authorised persons in appropriate cases. For example, the magistrates courts and the family court have their own existing mechanisms for reviewing various decisions, which amendment 5 would cut across.
Secondly, the right identified by the hon. Lady is too broad, even by her own admission. In speaking to amendments in Committee, she said that
“we accept and acknowledge that one should not be able to ask for reconsideration simply because one disagrees with the decision of the authorised person; one must have a cogent reason. There must be proper grounds for requesting a reconsideration.”—[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) [Lords] Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 17.]
I was delighted to hear those words, because the Government have also been arguing, both here and in the other place, that a blanket right of reconsideration simply would not work in practice. Yet amendment 5 would give a party in a case an automatic right to request that any decision made by an authorised person exercising the functions of a court be reconsidered by a judge, irrespective of the merits.
Thirdly, the approach we put forward is fair and balanced. The Government listened to concerns about ensuring there were adequate safeguards in the Bill. For that reason, we moved amendments on the right of reconsideration that were accepted on Report in the other place. They effectively require the rule committee, when making rules, to allow authorised staff to exercise judicial functions to consider whether each of those functions should be subject to a right to judicial reconsideration. Where a rule committee decides against the creation of a right of reconsideration, it must inform the Lord Chancellor of its decision and the reasons for it.
The hon. Lady also referred to the Briggs report, and I would like to touch on that very briefly. The recommendations made by Lord Justice Briggs are taken from the report “Civil Courts Structure Review”, the focus of which was the courts of the civil jurisdiction. While an unqualified right of reconsideration might have been appropriate to recommend for the civil courts, given their unique way of working it would be ineffective simply to transpose this recommendation on entirely different jurisdictions.
The civil procedure rule committee has built a right of reconsideration into its rules, but this will not necessarily be appropriate for other jurisdictions. It is for each jurisdiction, with the expertise it has within the rule committee, to decide what is right.
That approach has found favour in the other place. Lord Thomas, former Lord Chief Justice and former chair of the criminal procedure rule committee, said:
“I support what the Government seek to do and urge a substantial degree of caution in respect of the proposals brought forward by the noble Baroness”—
that is, Baroness Chakrabarti. He added that the Government’s approach provides the right balance:
“It gives discretion to a body that knows and has a lot of experience, but it contains that degree of explanatory accountability that will make sure that it does not do anything—even if we were to worry that it might—that goes outside a proper and just delegation”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. 425-26.]
The Bill strikes the right balance between ensuring appropriate safeguards and transparency of decision making, and leaving the jurisdictional rule committees the discretion to determine the most appropriate mechanism for reviewing decisions by authorised people.
Finally, I would like to respond to the very important points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). I was very pleased to meet her and Sammy Woodhouse a week or so ago. She raised issues that are outside the scope of the Bill, but none the less what Sammy went through was harrowing and the hon. Lady made some important points. As she knows, I committed to look very carefully at the issues she raised and I assure her that we are doing that.
As the hon. Lady mentioned, we have already taken some steps. We have, as she alluded to, asked the president of the family court to look at the practice directions and he has committed to doing that with the rule committee. My officials have spoken to the Association of Directors of Children’s Services about whether it is appropriate to send further guidance to councils on the circumstances in which they should apply to court not to give notice of hearings to parties, such as happened in the Sammy Woodhouse case. The Department will continue to look closely at those issues.
For all those reasons, this is an important Bill that will ensure that we can bring flexibility to our judges, deploy them in the most flexible way, use their resources where they are needed and not when they are not needed, and ensure that those who operate our court system do so effectively and fairly for the people they serve.
The Ministry of Justice is putting users of the court at the heart of our reforms and of our programme on court reform. The measures will not only save on cost—that is not the primary reason for them, although it is important—but ensure that cases go through the system fairly and well. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I have now to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The Ayes were 513 and the Noes were 13, so the Question was agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 5, in the schedule, page 11, line 32, leave out subsection 67C and insert—
“67C Right to judicial reconsideration of decision made by an authorised person
A party to any decision made by an authorised person in the execution of the person’s duty as an authorised person exercising a relevant judicial function, by virtue of section 67B(1), may apply in writing, within 14 days of the service of the order, to have the decision reconsidered by a judge of the relevant court within 14 days from the date of application.”—(Yasmin Qureshi.)
This amendment would grant people subject to a decision made under delegated powers a statutory right to judicial reconsideration.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords]
Lindsay Hoyle ExcerptsTuesday 23rd October 2018
(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Civil Liability Act 2018 View all Civil Liability Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 23 October 2018 - (23 Oct 2018)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I will now suspend the House for no more than five minutes in order to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following certification, the Government will table the appropriate consent motions, copies of which will be made available in the Vote Office and distributed by the Doorkeepers.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I can now inform the House that I have completed certification of the Bill, as required by the Standing Order. I have confirmed the view expressed in the Speaker’s provisional certificate issued yesterday. Copies of the final certificate will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website. Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website, and have been made available to Members in the Chamber. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?
Rory Stewart
indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M).
[Sir Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee consents to the Civil Liability Bill [Lords].—(Rory Stewart.)
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Lindsay, especially when we are in such privileged surroundings as the de facto English Parliament. As you know, I always think that it is important that we mark and commemorate these auspicious occasions when English Members of Parliament get the opportunity to express their true English political values and to get to their feet, en masse, to discuss and debate these critical English-only issues. I also like to make a contribution in these events, as you know, Sir Lindsay. I have the proud record of having taken every single opportunity to speak when the English Parliament has met. In fact I have got the record—I have taken up something like 80% of the time in the English Parliament.
What surprises me is that when this opportunity is available to English Members, they cannot seem to bring themselves to actually consider and debate these critically important issues. There are important issues in this Bill that are English-only. In fact, the whole Bill is English-only, which rather prompts the question of why on earth we are doing this. I know that the Serjeant at Arms needs a bit of exercise, and it is quite an onerous responsibility to take the Mace down and then put it back up. We obviously need an opportunity to see if the Division bells are still working, so the bells will go on and off, but then nothing ever happens. What is the point of this ludicrous session that we go through every time that a Bill has been certified in this way?
Rory Stewart
I would be grateful to know how Union issues of foreign affairs and defence, which the people of Scotland voted in a referendum should continue to be dealt with by the United Kingdom, would be covered by the hon. Gentleman’s proposal.
Pete Wishart
I only have a few seconds left. I am surprised at the Minister, because he is an erudite chap who understands constitutional issues and the history of this nation. Quite succinctly, I will tell him what it is called. It is called federalism, which is where there are constituent Assemblies that have equal power and authority, and there is then another stratum of government, which would be the UK Parliament—
The Chairman
Order. You did better than normal, Mr Wishart.
Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 4 September).
The Chair put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83M(5)),
That the Committee consents to the Civil Liability Bill [Lords].
Question agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.
Third Reading
Stephen Kerr
Since the Minister was taking interventions, I thought I would chance my arm and intervene to ask, as a Scottish Member, what discussions he has had with his Scottish counterpart. The Scottish Government committed to introducing draft legislation mirroring this Bill, which is for England and Wales only. Where is that Bill? I understand that it has not even begun to make progress in the Scottish Parliament. What has the conversation been like with the Scottish Minister?
Rory Stewart
Unfortunately, tempted though I am to respond, as you point out, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not entitled, particularly following some of the comic interventions from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), to speculate on what the Scottish Government think they are doing. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, however, that they chose to withdraw from this Bill.
We have talked a great deal about whiplash injuries and how we have attempted to address them, and I am happy for others to return to that question in interventions if they wish to do so, but we have perhaps had less time to address another central issue, which is the second part of the Bill, on the discount rate.
Victims Strategy
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I would be very interested in that. Section 41 is widely framed; it involves not only adult complainants, and it embraces all types of sexual offence, not just rape, important though that is. I would be very interested to hear more about that evidence. She and I have worked together on many Bill Committees as Back Benchers, and I look forward to hearing more information from her.
Spousal rights were raised, as were the terrible circumstances in which someone might have murdered or tried unlawfully to kill their spouse. I understand that the hon. Member for Ashfield raised this point in Justice questions this week, and that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), has undertaken to meet her to discuss it. I reiterate my hon. and learned Friend’s words, because the hon. Lady has raised this matter quite properly in the context of this debate. She also raised the issue of sentence changes to the maximum term for perpetrators of the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. We have committed to doing that as soon as parliamentary time allows. I can tell her that I am anxiously looking at a number of unduly lenient cases involving that type of offence and that I get frustrated by the 14-year maximum. I know that it causes judges real sentencing issues when it comes to reflecting the full gravity of the offence, particularly when more than one death has occurred as a result of appalling driving. That point is well made, and we hear it loud and clear.
The debate moved on in a helpful and important way when we heard the input from constituency Members. They referred to their own experiences in their constituencies, and echoed some of the analysis that we can see in the strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) made those points very well in his speech. He reminded us of how far we have come in terms of changing the law to respond to the needs of modern crime—in particular, stalking and harassment. The hon. Member for Rotherham and I have worked on those issues in the past. I had the honour as a Minister of bringing into law the offence of coercive control, having campaigned for it as a Back Bencher. In the past year, we saw about 4,000 such cases, which equates to 4,000 victims of criminality who would not have had a voice two or three years ago. I constantly ask my local senior police officers about their experience of rolling out and using that new offence, and I am glad to say that there is an increasing understanding of its complexities.
Clare’s law was also mentioned. It is among the many key changes that the Government have introduced to safeguard and protect those who have either been the victims of crime or are at risk. I was particularly proud of our decision to place domestic homicide reviews on a statutory footing, bringing into force legislation that had been passed under the previous Government.
I have omitted to mention pre-trial counselling, to which the hon. Member for Rotherham and others have referred. There is a legitimate question about ensuring that the evidence of victims and witnesses is preserved and protected in a way that minimises the risk of its being undermined in cross-examination, but plenty of professionals out there have the training and understanding to know that. Where we have suitably qualified psychiatrists or other mental health professionals, there should in my view be no bar to the sort of general counselling help that would be of real value to people who are experiencing some form of trauma as a result of what has happened to them. With those safeguards, I am sure that more can be done to support victims, who often have to wait too long between the offence and the trial or the sentencing process.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) drew our attention at length to the Scottish experience, as he is wont to do, and I make no criticism of him for that. He knows from previous answers that I have given to him and his colleagues that I am always alive to and interested in the Scottish experience. Indeed, history teaches us that many of the innovations brought in via the Scottish criminal justice system have been adapted here in England and Wales, and I see no reason for that to stop. That is why his contribution was particularly valuable today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) spoke with some force about his local experiences and the work being done by people such as the Donovans, who are an inspiration to many. His speech saw the welcome introduction of the theme of restorative justice, another issue in which I have taken a long and deep interest. Restorative justice must be victim led, and there are various scenarios where it works most powerfully.
Having spoken to victims who have availed themselves of face-to-face meetings with perpetrators, often in a prison setting, I know that the sense not just of closure, but of regaining control that victims can get is a powerful factor. I was glad that the coalition Government placed restorative justice on a firmer statutory footing in previous legislation, because we see it at all levels, particularly in youth offending, where it can be extremely powerful to bring a young offender face to face with their victim. As long as restorative justice is led by the victim—it is not a substitute for more appropriate action where necessary—then it is a valuable tool.
The hon. Member for Rotherham made an important speech that dealt in particular with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. She knows that the Government have committed to a review of the scheme; we have already committed to an important change to the “under the same roof” rule, which will be brought into force as soon as is practicable. She made other points about the position that people, particularly young people, will often be put into when it comes to consent.
The hon. Lady and I worked on the Serious Crime Act 2015 when it was in Committee, where we removed any suggestion that children were somehow impliedly consenting to sexual conduct when they were under the age of 16. If she remembers, we removed phrases such as “child prostitute” from the law. We tried in a constructive way to reset the clock when it comes to the protection of children, and let me be absolutely clear that victims who have been groomed should never be treated as if they consented. Let that message go out loud and clear to whoever needs to hear it. I am glad to say that the CICA has revised its staff guidance. That was done with engagement with the third sector, so I am interested to know of any instances where that concept of implied consent is somehow being reintroduced into the process when Parliament made it clear that it has no place in criminal law.
The hon. Lady also made other important points about unspent criminal convictions. Again, that issue must never be the subject of generalisation, and CICA claims officers should take into account the reasons for criminal behaviour when considering unspent convictions that do not result in a custodial sentence or community order. In other words, look at the person, not just the lines on a page. While it would be wrong of me to seek to intervene in individual cases—the CICA is independent—this is a useful opportunity for us to make such important points.
I get the point about time limits, and I have seen for myself the delay that understandably means that many victims of sexual offences will not come forward at the first opportunity. We are now light years away from the time when witnesses were asked such questions in court. People understand how difficult it is to come forward. We know that many victims often blame themselves for what happened, quite unfairly, and that this is about people doing things in their own time. Again, there is discretion when it comes to applications, but I have heard the point loud and clear today, and I am sure that that will help to inform the review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) rightly talked about the impact of domestic violence on children, who often witness it or even hear it in the home. We must not forget the effect of the sheer force of noise on young people. I am glad to note that courts up and down the country will treat that as a significant aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing perpetrators of domestic abuse. The scars might not be physical, but they remain for a long time, if not forever, in many cases.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) made some important points about cases of which she has had experience and, again, made the point that the need to improve practice now was imperative. Understandably, the debate has expanded somewhat from just the criminal justice process, but it is right to say that any victims legislation will apply to the victims of crime. That criminality can extend to major disasters, whether it is Grenfell or Hillsborough, and I am not going to prejudge the outcome of any proceedings, as they might well arguably be crimes themselves, although we will have to wait to see the outcome of any procedures. I take her point about the need for urgency, which is why the strategy does more than fill the gap. It brings together years of work and, importantly, looks to the future in a way that we can get to grips with now.
The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) rightly reminded us of an aspect of the debate that we have not touched on today, which is to do with what I call hate crime. He quite properly reminded us of the appalling incident outside Parliament. He knows that I and others have supported the respect the turban campaign, and I have supported it in this place and in my local gurdwara in Swindon as well. He is right that we need to take these things seriously lest they take hold in a way that will reflect poorly on our society. Again, he mentioned stalking, harassment and sexual offences in that context. He was absolutely right to do that. He also mentioned the victim’s right of review and I can assure him that it already exists so when the CPS has a decision with which a particular complainant is not happy, they can ask for that to be reviewed. That is happening now, and in a number of important cases it is already there. Can I reassure him that although he then got on his soapbox a bit—and I am sure that he will forgive me for saying that—a lot of the recommendations made by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and others are things that we have already done or that we are doing via the strategy? As DPP, the right hon. and learned Gentleman took through massive changes to the CPS that I believe resulted in a more efficient service that still delivers a very high degree of justice for thousands of people year in, year out.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) brought her knowledge and experience to the debate. In particular, she talked about the victim personal statement, and in a moving way. I know that she did not intend to be moved in that way, but it moved us. More importantly, it informed us. The victim personal statement is a vital opportunity not just for the victim to have their voice but for the court to be able fully to understand the impact on them. That is why I am particularly enthused by the proposals to use bodyworn videos to capture not just what is said but the way in which it is said and the sense that the victim statement should be a living document.
At the moment, there are sometimes one, two or three versions of the VPS designed to update the court. Asking the victim to make a statement again and again is not necessarily the best way to support them, so the concept of a living VPS would really help. Again, I am pleased with the work done by the CPS to co-ordinate and synthesise the increased use of VPSs across the service—it has to increase. In particular, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood, has dealt with his commitment and our commitment to review the Parole Board process, and the hon. Lady’s comments have considerably informed that debate. We are recruiting intermediaries, and Members have seen our commitment to that. We need to make sure that when we use intermediaries, they are genuinely for the purpose of assisting the victim to give their evidence. I have used them myself in cases and achieved results that I would not have dreamt of without them, so I understand and get it. A major recruitment process is ongoing.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) brought the experience of Northern Ireland as a welcome intervention into this debate. He talked about the wooden spoon, which, in rugby parlance, Ireland have won more than Wales. I do not think I had better dwell any further on his experience of corporal punishment. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North mentioned Scotland, who are the doyenne of the wooden spoon, although they are getting better. I am talking about rugby union, Mr Deputy Speaker, which I know is a discipline you do not care for that much.
The Solicitor General
That is an entirely different debate. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have discussed it at length and heatedly in the past.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for having carefully read the strategy and for helping to outline some of the important detail it contains. It is not just about warm words; it contains a lot of substance and, in particular, it outlines the use of best practice by a number of PCCs and other local services that we want to roll out further. The document is well written, accessible and can be read by a member of the public; it is written in “human being”, to coin my own phrase. That is why it is particularly valuable and important at this time.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the new Minister for suicide prevention. I know she will want to work with both me and colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to make sure that we understand the position of victims. There have been some cases where, as a result of their experiences, we have lost them. A very important point was made.
The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) raised the point about training. Frontline staff, whoever they are, need training, because they will often be involved in the victim’s only encounter with the criminal justice system. Every member of the team, be they a barrister, a legal executive or someone at the end of a phone, needs to understand the importance of our strategy, and how properly to support victims and witnesses. I have seen some really good practice in my experience both as a Member of Parliament and as a practitioner, and again this is echoed in the strategy.
In particular, the right hon. Gentleman asked about support for families bereaved by the tragedy of a homicide abroad. When a British person dies overseas, Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff are able to provide advice on how to repatriate their loved one and to support Her Majesty’s coroner if an inquest is heard in England or Wales. All consular officers receive mandatory training on how to support families bereaved overseas. We are currently completing a new homicide service, which will commence in April next year, so that families bereaved by homicides abroad will be entitled to the same support as those who are bereaved by homicide here in England and Wales. That is a vital commitment, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome it.
My civil servants worked overtime to prepare a draft speech for me, but because there has been so much substance in this debate, I have not needed it. I realise that all good things must come to an end, but, in all seriousness, this debate has been a very important part in the process of developing our strategy. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for taking part, and I commend the victims strategy to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Victims Strategy.
Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill
Lindsay Hoyle ExcerptsWednesday 5th September 2018
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 View all Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 5 September 2018 - (5 Sep 2018)
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out
“for a purpose mentioned in subsection (3))”.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).
Amendment 3, page 2, line 6, leave out subsection (3).
As drafted the Bill potentially does not outlaw “upskirting” in certain cases such as for purely financial motives; or where the motivation is “group bonding” where the identity of the victim is irrelevant. This amendment makes all “upskirting” an offence.
Amendment 5, page 2, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) It is an offence for a person (A) to disclose an image of another person (B) recorded during the commission of an offence under subsection (2) if the disclosure is made without B’s consent.
(3B) It is a defence for a person (A) charged with an offence under subsection (3A) to prove—
(a) that disclosure of the image was necessary for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime, or
(b) that A did not disclose the image with the intent of disclosing an image of another person’s genitals, buttocks or underwear.”
As the Bill is currently drafted it would be an offence to take an upskirting picture but not necessarily an offence for it to be distributed (existing “intimate image” legislation does not outlaw the distribution in all cases). This amendment makes it an offence to distribute non-consensual “upskirting” images.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(4A) Where a court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under this section, and either or both of the facts in subsection (4B) are true, the court—
(a) must treat any fact mentioned in subsection (4B) as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of an offence), and
(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
(4B) The facts referred to in subsection (4A) are that—
(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim having (or being presumed to have) a particular sex characteristic, or
(b) the offence was motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards persons of who share a particular sex characteristic, based on them sharing that characteristic.
(4C) For the purposes of subsection (4B), “sex characteristic” means the protected characteristic of sex in section 11 of the Equality Act 2010.
(4D) The Secretary of State shall, within twelve months of Royal Assent being given to this Act, request that the Law Commission review the provisions of subsections (4A) to (4C).”
This amendment ensures that if the crime is motivated by misogyny then that will be considered by a court as an aggravating factor when considering the seriousness of the crime for the purposes of sentencing.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 27, leave out
“mentioned in section 67A(3)(a) (sexual gratification)” and insert “of obtaining sexual gratification”.
Amendment 6, page 2, line 29, leave out from “the” to end of line 40 and insert
“offender was aged 18 years or older at the time of the offence”.
This amendment makes the offence notifiable in all cases when the offence is committed by a person aged 18 or over and for sexual gratification.
Stella Creasy
I want to put on record my tremendous respect for the very hard work done by Gina Martin to get this legislation before Parliament and by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). It is a testament to the power of a good argument whose time has come. All these women are right that we should not wait around for this legislation, but we should make sure that it works.
I also want to put on record my support for the work that the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) has done, and for her amendments and the case she is making. I will be voting for the Bill and supporting it wholeheartedly, but I will also be supporting all efforts to improve it, because I do not believe that those two things are incompatible. We should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We should recognise that legislation with holes in it will inevitably return to us. It is in that spirit that I have tabled my new clause and amendment, which are about the context in which this crime takes place, and I am proud to see the support for them from across the House.
Let me be very clear that treating misogyny as something we should tackle is not about flirting. It is not about banter. It is not about telling all men that they are rapists. It is not even about new crimes. We cannot apply a hate crime tariff to something that is not already a hate crime. It is about something that has become so widespread that we treat it as a fact of life—but only for 51% of our population.
Across the UK, a huge majority—85%—of young women and nearly half of all women report experiencing sexual harassment in public places. Only one in 10 of them have ever reported receiving help after such incidents. Without recognising the role of misogyny in the day-to-day experiences of women in our society, our legal and criminal justice system masks the true extent of the hostility that exists against gender. This is not about criminalising wolf-whistling or flirting. It is about recognising existing crimes that are motivated by hostility towards somebody because of their gender, as well as recognising what they are—hate crimes.
Although women have protection in their workplaces under equality legislation, as soon as they step out of the door on to our streets, they are not protected. If somebody targets people on the basis of their faith or religion, they can receive a tougher sentence for their behaviour under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Somebody who repeatedly targets women in the same way faces no such comparable sanction.
I hope that we all agree that our young women deserve better. It is particularly our young women who are reporting this as part and parcel of everyday life. One thousand women aged 14 to 21 were asked by Plan International about their experiences in public settings, whether on transport, walking on the street, just going to school or even going to work, with 66% saying they experienced unwanted sexual attention or sexual or physical contact in a public place. Some 40% said that they experienced verbal harassment and 15% said they had been touched, groped or grabbed at least once a month.
What does that mean in practice? It means the experiences of my own constituents, whom I asked about this issue. One woman was followed down the road by a man in a car demanding that she get in. She was then told that he was pranking her when she complained and called a racist for refusing to go with him. A mother wrote to me about her young daughter. Only last week, somebody had come up to her in a tube station, put his face right up in hers and shouted, “Sexy bitch, ” very aggressively. She had been sitting on a bus as men played videos of men masturbating, showing the phones to her to make sure she had seen them. As the mother said:
“This is not about trying to chat someone up—it’s a power play, exerting control and making women feel frightened and unsafe in their own streets.”
Girls and women are nervous about retaliation and worried about what might happen if they fight back. Women say that it is not about whether they are attractive, because violence is never far behind if they reject these advances.
This is about what makes a hate crime. It is not pleasant and funny; it is a way of keeping women and girls feeling on edge all the time and unable to move freely in their own areas. As the mother said, her children walk around “heads down, headphones in”, tensely and purposely avoiding eye contact or hassle from men. That is harassment—it is legally harassment. The women have said no, yet these men still persist. All of us worry what a man who behaves like that might go on to do if his behaviour is not addressed.
It is really important for us to be very clear that we are not talking about all men. Most men in this country do not behave like that towards women, and would be horrified to see that kind of behaviour happening to their mothers, daughters, wives, sisters or friends. In proposing my amendments, I want to defend the reputation of the men of this country. This is not about their behaviour; it is about some men’s behaviour—enough men’s behaviour to make women’s lives difficult, and enough men’s behaviour to mean that women experience hatred.
Stella Creasy
I thank the Minister for listening. For the first time, we are now saying as a country that misogyny is not a part of life or something that should be tolerated but something we are going to tackle. Her commitment to the Law Commission review of all forms of hate crime, including misogyny, and the need for new and existing resources to fund it, is really welcome and a positive reflection of what this place can achieve. We have just sent a message to every young woman in this country that we are on their side. On that basis, I am very happy to withdraw the amendment. I look forward to working with the Minister and the Law Commission review in taking this forward.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind the House that before Second Reading, as required by the Standing Order, the entire Bill was certified as relating exclusively to England and Wales and within legislative competence. The Bill has not been amended since then. Copies of the certificate are available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.
Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are now available Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?
Lucy Frazer
indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M).
[Sir Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind hon. Members that if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote.
Resolved,
That the Committee consents to the Voyeurism (Offences) No. 2 Bill.—(Lucy Frazer).
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.
Civil Liability Bill [Lords]
Lindsay Hoyle ExcerptsTuesday 4th September 2018
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Civil Liability Act 2018 View all Civil Liability Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 56KB) - (26 Jun 2018)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
The Speaker has certified the Civil Liability Bill [Lords] under Standing Order No. 83J as relating exclusively to England and Wales on matters within devolved legislative competence. I remind the House that this does not affect proceedings in the debate on Second Reading, or indeed in Committee or on Report. After the Report stage, the Speaker will consider the Bill again for certification and, if required, the Legislative Grand Committee will be asked to consent to certified provisions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have up to 22 Members standing. I just want to try to help everybody, so if we use up to eight minutes each, we will make sure everybody gets a fair go.
Court Closures: Calderdale
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate. I know that the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) is very interested in this issue and has campaigned hard for her constituents. I am aware of how hard she campaigned against the original closure of the courts in Halifax on the basis of travel times and lack of access to justice. I was aware that, as she said, she met the chief executive officer of the Courts and Tribunals Service in July 2017 to discuss opportunities to establish a video link and, as she identified, she has recently asked a number of written parliamentary questions on this topic.
I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) is present; he, too, campaigned against the closure of the courts in Calderdale. I also see that Mr Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir Lindsay Hoyle), is in the Chair; he is campaigning vigorously against the closure of his local court in Chorley and I have met him several times to hear his concerns and those of his constituents.
Lucy Frazer
Before I turn to the particular instances that affect the hon. Lady’s Halifax constituency, it is important to make a number of broad points about access to justice and the courts estate. In every sector, digitalisation is improving access to services, including to public services. Technology has reformed the way that we live our lives and made many processes more efficient. In such circumstances, we ask ourselves whether justice should be immune from digital advancement.
In 2015, the Civil Justice Council wrote a report, stating that online dispute resolution had enormous potential to bring two great benefits to our justice system: a lower-cost court system and an increase in access to justice. The Ministry of Justice is now in the process of improving and upgrading our justice system to bring it up to date in the 21st century.
Technology is not the only answer to any upgrade. The provision of justice depends on people and courts and on lawyers and judges. However, in circumstances in which 41% of courts in 2016-17 were used at less than half of their available hearing capacity; in circumstances in which the money from the proceeds of the sale of a court are put back into the justice system; in circumstances in which we are spending £1 billion on our courts reform programme; and in circumstances in which finances are not unlimited, we do need to ask ourselves where money on the justice system is best spent. It is in that context that the closure of the courts in Calderdale took place.
The closures of the county and magistrates courts were proposed because they were poorly used. For example, in the financial year before the consultation, the magistrates court had been used for 33% of its available hours. Both the magistrates court and the county court were also grade II listed buildings and not fit for purpose. The court consultation resulted in a proposal to move the work to Bradford, where better facilities were available for those using the courts.
The courts were closed only after the Ministry of Justice had consulted and considered carefully the responses and the Lord Chancellor was satisfied that the courts could be closed without compromising access to justice. The consultation response document stated that the Ministry of Justice would explore the potential for those living in Halifax to give evidence into court remotely from another location in the town. Finding an appropriate IT solution and local venue has taken longer than we had initially hoped, but I am pleased to be able to advise the hon. Lady that arrangements are being put in place to allow witnesses and users, subject to judicial approval, to give evidence via a video link located in the Calderdale council building. The facilities will require some initial testing to make sure that they meet all necessary requirements, but I am told that we will be able to provide this enhancement for those who need to give evidence in court and who are unable to travel to Bradford.
I know that this has taken a long time, and I will identify some of the reasons why that is the case. Initially, it was necessary to find a building. One was identified, but there were problems. The Ministry of Justice then looked at two other buildings: Customer First and the citizens advice bureau. It progressed with Customer First. There was then an issue of incompatible IT, but that issue is now solved. Then it had to bid for funding. It is now working with the judiciary on where the video facility will go in Bradford, but it thinks there will be a solution imminently. Then the IT will have to be installed.
I know that the hon. Lady welcomes video facilities. She mentioned that she was a member of the Prisons and Courts Bill Committee and that she visited Kent police’s video-enabled justice system. I note that she said that she “genuinely welcomed” the move to introduce modern technology into the justice system, so that vulnerable victims can record their evidence just once to save potentially painful and unnecessary repetition; so that we can cut down the time spent by police officers in court; and so that justice can be accessed on an iPad in a front room. She went on to say that such changes would be “fantastic”.
Across the court estate, we have established video link facilities that allow vulnerable victims and witnesses routinely to give evidence without having to be in the same courtroom as the defendant. We have more than 2,000 operational video links, with witness links in magistrates and Crown courts.
On the wider programme of reform, we are making considerable progress. So far, we have delivered high-quality new digital services. For example, the public can now apply for uncontested divorce online; apply for probate online; make pleas online for low- level offences, such as traffic offences or evading their bus fare; and respond to civil money claims. Thousands of people have already used these pilots and received straightforward digital access to the courts for the first time. Public feedback has been extremely positive.
This is not just about efficiency. Offering court and tribunal services online can significantly improve the experience of those using the courts. For example, the rejection rates for paper divorce applications was 40% due to errors and omissions. Since the latest release of the online divorce service, the online application rejection rate is now less than 1%, and surveys show user satisfaction of about 90% for our online services.
The hon. Lady has raised several important and interesting points about the experience in her constituency. She mentioned the particularly important aspect of domestic violence, and I recently held a roundtable with practitioners in the judiciary and those who use the courts to work out how we can improve the court service for those who have experienced domestic violence. She made several points that I am happy to look into.
I am grateful that we have had an opportunity to debate this important topic today. The Government are investing a significant sum to enhance access to justice, and we will work hard to drive forward the transformation of our courts and tribunals to make sure that we continue to have a justice system that we can be proud of.
Question put and agreed to.
Criminal Legal Aid
Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. With so many Members wanting to speak, I suggest that each Member aims to speak for about six minutes.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
We cannot have those with the ability and will to try to enter the criminal law profession impoverished by debt and a lack of basic resources to live, especially those who come from perhaps a more humble background. The new scheme seems to distribute some money from middle or senior junior barristers to the more junior barristers, but I gather the effect on senior junior barristers could be a fall in income of as much as 35%, but the impact on the most junior criminal barristers is simply not very much. The truth is that the system does need more money, which cannot be found simply by switching around payments within it. Criminal barristers are self-employed and they must also meet the unavoidable overheads of practising, which normally range from about 25% to 35% of their income. There is no entitlement to pensions, holiday pay, sick pay or, indeed, maternity or paternity pay. Assuming a junior criminal barrister earned a total of, say, £60,000 annually, after they paid overheads and pension contributions and compensated for holidays, he or she would probably present an income of only around £30,000 to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
A career at the Bar is insecure and financially uncertain: trials can be moved by judges without consultation; witnesses can be taken ill; defendants may accept advice to plead guilty; and charges may be dropped. All can have a significant impact on barristers’ income, without warning. In such an uncertain climate, reasonable fees are necessary. The level of debt with which new criminal law barristers must deal, insufficient fees and increased demands make a social and family life almost impossible. I understand that right now morale is low and dismay universal among junior criminal barrister and, indeed, among some senior junior barristers, too. I very much hope that the Minister can tell me honestly that junior criminal law barristers will have a much better deal than they had in the past.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Sergeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill (Money)
Lindsay Hoyle ExcerptsTuesday 1st May 2018
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2018 View all Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I was about to put the Question, but Mr Hanson wishes to speak.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Who is intervening—I am now beginning to lose even myself at this stage? I think what we should do is hear Maria Caulfield and then we will come back to the Minister to answer. I think that that is the best way to deal with this.