Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): Our amendments to Lords amendments 40B and 40C are designed to protect patients, improve transparency and decision making, and ensure that health service reconfigurations

12 May 2014 : Column 440

do not result in a restriction of access to services for patients. I give notice that I wish to press amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment 40B to a vote.

This is probably the final piece of health legislation that will come before this Parliament. To date, this Bill marks four years of chaos and confusion in the NHS—chaos inflicted on the service by the Prime Minister and his two Secretaries of State for Health. What a four years it has been! The Prime Minister promised no top-down reorganisation of the national health service, then introduced the biggest and most chaotic, expensive and wasteful reorganisation that the service has seen in its entire history. He promised a bare-knuckle fight against hospital closures—a fight that not only never appeared, but was knowingly untrue from the outset. We have seen Ministers admit that the 111 service was not ready to be rolled out, but who went ahead, scrapped NHS Direct and rolled it out anyway. We have seen one of the most important schemes for the future of the country and the NHS in the shape of the care.data scheme being bungled, botched and brought to the brink of collapse by ministerial incompetence. We have seen military hospital field tents outside accident and emergency units and police cars being used as makeshift ambulances, queuing outside hospitals for hours on end.

Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab): My hon. Friend mentions the supposed attack on bureaucracy by the Conservatives. Is he aware that since their reorganisation there is actually more bureaucracy? Many of the people who have been sacked, and who received redundancy payments, are now working in the commissioning support organisations.

Mr Reed: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and the Lords amendments will only make that situation worse.

Now, as this zombie Parliament limps towards the finishing line, we are asked to consider a Frankenstein Bill—a badly stitched together Bill—which began with good intentions, but which, for the most part, will not end well. The Care Bill should have remained just that. On the face of it, part 1, building on the work of the last Labour Government, makes some modest improvements which we welcome, but let us be under no illusions. For all the Government’s bold claims, this Bill is a modest Bill. We support the rights for carers and many of the provisions and principles contained in part 1. Even though we believe that these could have gone much further towards the creation of a properly integrated model of whole person care, the real issue is that the Government have hijacked the Bill to push through a back-door reconfiguration tool that undermines the principle of local commissioning by centralising hospital closure and service removal decisions. It exposes as a sham the Government’s rhetoric about local clinical commissioning over the last four years.

Before I address the trust special administrator clause in more detail, let me touch on Lords amendment 11B, relating to human rights. Hon. Members may remember this issue from our debates on Report. The amendment will ensure that all users of publicly funded or arranged care have direct protection under the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the law as it stands, the fundamental protection and access to individual redress offered by the Act are not applied equally in all care settings.

12 May 2014 : Column 441

This measure has a long history. In the other place, Lord Low tabled and passed a new clause which sought to close the loophole. But the Government removed it in Committee in this House, and then voted down an Opposition amendment on Report that would have restored it. The Minister did, however, say that he would go away and look at the issue again. The result is the amendment that we have before us today. For our part, we welcome the Government’s U-turn on this. It is good that Ministers have seen the light, having voted against this kind of protection at every previous stage of the Bill’s passage.

The amendment is clear that any care that is paid for out of public money

“directly or indirectly, in whole or in part”,

or which is arranged by a public authority, will now be covered by the Human Rights Act. However, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, he knows that personal budgets are absolutely critical in giving people greater choice and control over their lives, and enabling people to make their own decisions about how their care is delivered. It is important that personal budgets are covered by the amendment. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case, and that social care provided by a regulated provider and paid for by direct payments is included?

Secondly, it would be good if the Minister could clarify for the House whether so-called non-personal care is covered by the amendment. The definition of care used in the Lords amendment is that used in the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This is quite a narrow definition, and it is possible that it could exclude some very important types of care for people with learning disabilities or mental health problems, such as assisting them to participate in activities or to get to appointments. The Opposition amendment tabled on Report, which was drafted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, would have covered this non-personal care, but as the Government’s amendment contains a narrower definition, we are concerned that they may be excluding quite broad categories of publicly provided social care services that may not be defined as personal care. We would be grateful if the Minister could allay our fears on that point, and confirm that those extremely important types of care for some very vulnerable people will be covered by this amendment. I look forward to his reply.

Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): This is an important point for disabled adults in residential care, for example, who may receive care from one private provider, but access other services and facilities through another provider. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that all activities, including going out to participate in social and learning activities, need to be covered by the Lords amendment?

Mr Reed: Indeed. My hon. Friend knows about these issues in detail. That is why we have asked the questions that we asked and tabled our amendment on Report.

With reference to parts 2 and 3 of the Bill, the insertion of the hospital closure clause—the Lewisham clause, clause 119, formerly clause 118, call it what you like—is extremely regrettable. It is because of this that the comparison with Frankenstein’s monster has been

12 May 2014 : Column 442

made, and because of this that we have tabled further amendments today. This House, the people of this country and every hospital league of friends, local hospital action group or other such groups working for the benefit of health services local to their area—and I include in that the magnificent campaigners in Millom and around the West Cumberland hospital in Whitehaven —will never forget the genesis of the major policy change that this clause represents, namely Ministers’ attempts to close good services at a well performing hospital against the wishes of the locally affected public, patients and local clinical commissioners.

On attaining office, the Government made a series of grand promises about future changes to hospital services. The coalition agreement stated:

“We will stop the centrally dictated closure of A&E and maternity wards, so that people have better access to local services.”

GPs were meant to be placed in decision-making roles and given the power to shape local services. As with so much that this Government do, the rhetoric could not be further from the reality, and far from stopping centrally dictated closures, they are now legislating to make it easier to close local hospitals and remove hospital services.

Clearly, a failure regime is essential and when things go wrong, they must be put right, but to attempt to short-circuit the existing reconfiguration framework, and to actively seek to disfranchise patients and the public, is not the way to improve services. Riding roughshod over local commissioning in order to reconfigure an area’s health services is not the way to build support for change. Deliberately ignoring the voices of local patients is a recipe for more expense, uncertainty and delay.

Take the example of Lewisham. Much has been said in this place about the process, the legal judgments and the amazing work undertaken by local campaigners there, so I shall not go into too much detail. Suffice to say that the Government’s attempts to use the law for a purpose for which it was never designed were described as “strained and unnatural” by Lord Justice Sullivan when dismissing the Government’s appeal against their original defeat. I would be grateful if the Government could explain why they believe the most effective way to deal with a failing trust is to alienate local commissioners, the local community and local health professionals. Rather than bringing stakeholders to the table to form a solution with regard to Lewisham, the Secretary of State dragged them through the courts and lost, twice.

Having been beaten by the law, the Secretary of State has decided to change it. The simple truth of the Government’s hospital closure clause is that a successful local hospital, the type that the Secretary of State enjoys getting his photograph taken in, can be closed without due process, simply because the one down the road is in trouble. It is as logical as removing a patient’s leg to cure a headache. Despite their valiant defence of the clause as it stood on Second Reading, the Government have been forced to make what they call major concessions, which are in reality very minor concessions.

Lords amendments 40B to 40E seek to ensure that “essential services” are not harmed. We are told this would mean that if a local commissioner believed that the trust special administrator’s recommendations would harm essential services, they would not be implemented—unless, of course, NHS England overruled

12 May 2014 : Column 443

the local commissioner. Our amendments to Lords amendments 40B and 40C would ensure that any recommendations would not be able to go ahead if they in any way restricted access to services, and that all correspondence between commissioners and the trust special administrator would be made public. Making it harder to use services is the very antithesis of the principles underpinning the NHS, which the Government claim to support—but only when it suits them.

We should judge this Government not by their words, but by their actions. They promised no top-down reorganisation. They delivered the biggest, most wasteful, most expensive and chaotic reorganisation in the history of the service. They promised a bare knuckle fight to protect local services. They delivered a back-door reconfiguration tool that could facilitate the largest ever hospital closure programme. They promised that local decisions would be made by local commissioners. They delivered a power for the Secretary of State and NHS England to overrule local commissioner vetoes. All this was done against the advice of medical professionals, against the wishes of the public and against every pre-election promise, and therefore without a shred of legitimacy.

The TSA process was introduced in 2009 and was intended, as the High Court ruled, to be used to make quick changes to management structures in order to address financial failures, not to make widespread service reconfigurations possible without public input.

Paul Burstow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

4.45 pm

Mr Reed: I will make some progress.

The only way to build sustainable services is to have widespread ownership of changes and a robust process of community engagement. The Government’s disfigurement of the TSA process will mean that they have to give no regard to patients’ wishes, and in practice it will mean that they can disregard the views of local commissioners. If the Secretary of State wants to close a hospital, it will be done. It is as simple as that.

In 2003 Labour created the independent reconfiguration panel, a non-departmental body to advise on service change. The IRP’s terms of reference when reconfigurations are proposed state:

“The panel will consider whether the proposals will provide safe, sustainable and accessible services for the local population, taking account of:

1) Clinical and service quality

2) The current or likely impact of patients’ choices and the rigour of public involvement in consultation processes, and

3) The views and future referral needs of local GPs who commission services, the wider configuration of the NHS and other services locally, including likely future plans.”

Why does the Minister think reconfigurations of whole health economies should not be subject to independent scrutiny by the IRP? Why does he think that this should be bypassed without local agreement? Given that quality issues are subject to a number of investigations before a TSA would be appointed, such as Care Quality Commission investigations and being placed in special measures, why cannot a thorough investigation of reconfiguration options be put to the IRP and the public?

12 May 2014 : Column 444

If the point of centralising a reconfiguration decision is to provide a quick solution, why are not the Government open to consultation with the public on the future of their local health services during the process of inspection by the CQC or the extended period of time during which a trust is in special measures? Speedy resolution of care failures is essential, but to go along with the Government’s proposals would be to suggest this sense of urgency appears only after months of work trying to address the problem. That is wrong, and it is little wonder that so many hospitals and so many communities believe that this legislation is setting them up to fail.

The Government’s position on this is intellectually dishonest. In reaching the conclusion that the TSA process should be hijacked to provide a back-door reconfiguration tool, they have wilfully ignored professional, legal and medical advice, and have disregarded existing procedure. They have cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds in defending their decision in the courts and they have added to the chaos into which they have already plunged the NHS. On Report we offered to work with the Government on a cross-party basis to produce a reconfiguration process and a TSA process that would have commanded broad public and political support. This offer was rejected.

The Opposition’s amendments seek to make a bad law slightly better, but the truth is that more lifeboats on the Titanic would not have stopped it sinking. In case any Government Members ever actually believed the coalition agreement, a vote against our amendments today is a vote against that agreement. At their heart, our amendments are an attempt to help the Government to help themselves, but more importantly, to help all of those communities who expect to have a say in the future commissioning of their local hospital services. The next Labour Government will ensure that their voice is heard.

Paul Burstow: Listening to the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), it struck me that the Care Bill could be described as a Bill that was full of ideas that were proposed by the Labour party when it was in government, but was a modest measure. In some ways, I find those two positions contradictory, unless of course the last Government were not the bold, revolutionary Administration whom they often told us they were when they were in office. If we are indeed in a zombie Parliament, that is characteristic of the languid nature of opposition offered by the Labour party.

Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) rose—

Paul Burstow: I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me, but I will make some progress, just as the hon. Gentleman did earlier.

Amendment 11B concerns the Human Rights Act, and I thank Ministers for keeping an open mind and for listening seriously to the concerns raised by Lord Low and others, and to me and other hon. Members who were concerned that an opportunity was being missed to close a gap. Legislation under the previous Government partially but not completely closed the gap, as a result of which those cared for in their own homes did not have the benefit of Human Rights Act protection. The amendment, which was agreed without a vote in the

12 May 2014 : Column 445

other place, gives that protection. It is the end of a story of seven years of dealing with a gap in the law that was opened by a court judgment. I am grateful that, notwithstanding the difficulties of our bicameral parliamentary process, it has worked at its best on this occasion, because it has meant that concerns raised through the Joint Committee that I chaired, through the Joint Human Rights Committee’s report and by Members in the other place, have now been comprehensively addressed.

Having said that, will the Minister confirm that a person who avails themselves of provisions in the Bill that allow them, as a self-funder, to ask their local authority to arrange their care at the point at which they start to benefit from the means-testing arrangements, and therefore have some support from the local authority, will then be covered by the Human Rights Act?

I would also like to thank the Minister for listening carefully to what has been said at each stage in the passage of the Bill, in both Houses, in respect of the trust special administration regime. It is important to emphasise that the approach set out by the previous Labour Government recognised that trust special administration was a last resort. Earl Howe has emphasised that in the other place. He was very clear that there are powers available to the Trust Development Authority and to Monitor to intervene as necessary in order to avoid trust special administration ever being triggered in the first place. I commend to Members the passage in House of Lords Hansard in which he sets out clearly all the steps that would need to be taken:

“Trust special administrators would be appointed—and I make this point emphatically—only when all other suitable processes to develop sustainable, good healthcare have been exhausted.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 May 2014; Vol. 753, c. 1496.]

It is worth picking up on the point made by the hon. Member for Copeland. Having been given the opportunity to chair a committee looking at the guidance, I think that some of the points he made in his amendments today are exactly the sort that ought to be given proper consideration in the guidance. I hope that he, other Front Benchers, and indeed other hon. Members who have experience of the only two trust special administration processes that have taken place to date, will offer the committee their views and insights so that we can ensure that the advice we give the Government on guidance is as good and as clear as possible.

As was made very clear in the other place, we are not talking about a power that will effectively enable a wholesale reorganisation of the health economy. The Bill is very clear that this is about those matters that might require necessary and consequential changes. The amendments that were agreed in the other place, without a vote, make it clear that the essential services of trusts that find themselves drawn into a trust special administration process will be a proper consideration in the decision-making process.

It is curious that the Labour party now seems to want us to look at access in a different way from the way in which the trust special administration process that it put in place provided for. In other words, why was there no test on access with regard to the trust that was in special administration under its arrangements? Why did that not matter then but does matter now?

12 May 2014 : Column 446

I think that the Government have listened very closely to what has been said and changed the Bill in a way that reflects the concerns that I described on Report. We will have the chance to comment further on the guidance—I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and others will offer input into that—which will give us another opportunity to ensure that it is as tight and effective as possible on those very rare occasions when it is used.

I hope that consideration of the Bill will be concluded today and that it will make the difference to well-being, as a central principle, and to parity between those who receive care and those who give it. That is what the Bill does, and they are great things, and it is about time that they were on the statute book.

Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab): My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) has already set out the case for the Opposition’s amendment in lieu of their lordships’ amendments regarding the TSA regime, and I wholeheartedly agree with all that he said.

I would like to focus my remarks on why I believe that their lordships’ amendments do not undo the damage that lies at the heart of clause 119. While some people—I would probably include the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) in this—seem to think that their lordships’ amendments are something of a cause for celebration, in my view the changes fall far short of what is really needed, which is the complete deletion of clause 119. Even with these latest amendments, clause 119 removes the legal protection for hospitals that face the axe because they happen to be located next to a failing trust that has been placed into administration. We know that this legal protection was vital in the case of Lewisham. The Government, having been told by the courts that they broke the law, are now simply changing the law so that in future they can close much-needed services in successful hospitals to deal with financial problems in others.

It has been suggested that the Lords amendments to clause 119 arose from discussions sparked off during debate on Report in this place. Yet the new clause we discussed then, which was tabled by, but then not supported by, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam was very different from what is before us today. Of course, we all remember what happened last time: the Lib Dems were simply bought off with the offer of chairing a committee. It is therefore worth comparing what we discussed on Report and what we are debating now. If I recall correctly, the new clause that the right hon. Gentleman had in his name a month or so ago proposed that the commissioners of services in hospitals that fall outside a trust in administration should have, in effect, a power of veto over recommendations put forward by an administrator.

Paul Burstow: No, it did not. It provided for parity of esteem between commissioners of affected trusts compared with the commissioner of the service that was failing.

Heidi Alexander: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I pressed him on this very point on 11 March, when I asked whether his new clause

“would provide a direct veto to commissioners of services at a hospital located outside the trust to which an administrator has been appointed.”

12 May 2014 : Column 447

He responded:

“That is the intention, so the new clause has been drafted to have that effect.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 244.]

The new clause proposed in March—we had a full debate and discussion about it—suggested that if the commissioners were content with the proposals put forward by a TSA, full public and patient consultation would kick in, whereas if the commissioners were not content, they would call a halt to the process. As I said, I pressed the right hon. Gentleman on that, and he was clear in the remarks that he made at the time.

That is not what we are debating now. The amendment that was passed in the other place last week gives statutory consultation rights to commissioners of services in hospitals that fall outside the trust to which an administrator has been appointed. It suggests that changes to essential services that are proposed by the administrator but delivered outside the failing trust should not be caused harm, while seemingly leaving the definitions of “harm” and “essential services” to NHS England. The amended clause states that, should there be a difference of opinion between commissioners, NHS England will act as some sort of referee and have the final say.

I contend that what we have before us today is very, very different from what was mooted in this place on Report. The changes to the Bill that the Government have introduced in the Lords are minor at best, and confusing and irrelevant at worst.

Paul Burstow indicated dissent.

Heidi Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, and I can see that he disagrees with me about this, so let us look at the committee which has been set up and which he is chairing. Is it actually going to make any difference? My fear is that it is just camouflage for the fundamental damage that will be caused by clause 119. The committee will supposedly look at the rules that govern the use of the trust special administration regime. The most important rules that govern the use of the TSA regime are being set today, in this House and by this Bill.

5 pm

Paul Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very gracious. The reason the Lords amendment is important is that it makes it clear that essential services in other trusts are now relevant to the guidance at which my committee will be looking.

Heidi Alexander: One person’s definition of “essential” might not be the same as that of another person.

The Lords amendment tinkers at the edges of clause 119. Although it offers some marginal improvement on the Government’s original clause, it does not go far enough. I would vote for deletion again if I could, but parliamentary procedure does not afford me that opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind that this clause, even with the latest amendment, will allow more fast-track hospital closures in future. It removes the protection that existed in law, which allowed Lewisham council and the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign to take a case against the Government and win.

The latest amendment may guarantee another layer of consultation, but it contains no overall guarantee that services will not be closed at successful hospitals to

12 May 2014 : Column 448

balance the books elsewhere. Is the Minister or the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam able to say unequivocally that had this amended clause been on the statute book at the time of the TSA regime in south London, the future of Lewisham’s A and E and maternity service would have been secure? They cannot, because it is not the case.

In conclusion, I do not accept that their lordships’ amendment provides the protection that some believe it provides. The amended clause still extends and augments powers for TSAs and NHS bureaucrats. Even with the increased checks and balances contained within their lordships’ amendments, the TSA process is still a chaotic and rushed mechanism for closing hospital services. It plunges local health economies into desperate uncertainty and takes power away from the public and clinicians.

I do not believe this is the way to make the sorts of changes our health service requires to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I have maintained that position throughout the passage of the Bill and I make no apology for sticking to my convictions to the end. The public do not want more fast-tracked hospital closures, but this Bill legislates for them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter): Before I turn to the amendments, I want to put on record my thanks to hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I also want to express my thanks once again for all the contributions made by hon. and right hon. Members throughout the passage of the Care Bill and, indeed, for the contributions made by noble Members of the other place.

The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) made a characteristically robust contribution in standing up for her local health care services. I also pay tribute once again to the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), not only today, but at the Bill’s inception, during its scrutiny by the Joint Committee and throughout its passage through this House and the other place. He has done a tremendous amount of work to ensure that the Bill is much better than it used to be. He deserves considerable praise for what he has done and the help he has given the Government in securing a Bill that is not just fit for purpose, but which will make significant changes and improvements to our health care system.

It is worth bearing in mind that the Bill represents the most significant reform of care and support in more than 60 years, putting people and their carers in control of their care and support for the first time. The Bill will also put a limit on the amount that anyone will have to pay towards the costs of their care. It is a very big step forward and one that was long overdue. The Bill also delivers key elements of this Government’s response to the terrible events that took place in Mid Staffordshire and the recommendations of the Francis report by increasing transparency and openness and helping to drive up the quality of care across our NHS and social care system. I am pleased that the Government were able to table amendments that have been accepted in the other place, and I hope that those amendments will enjoy support in this House today.

Before I turn to the substantive amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), I want briefly to address the points made about human rights

12 May 2014 : Column 449

legislation and the issue of direct payments. It is important to highlight that like clause 48 of the Bill, as originally drafted, and section 145 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, which was the preceding provision, Lords amendment 11B relates to providers of social care registered with the Care Quality Commission, covering personal care provided at home and in residential care settings. The amendment covers physical assistance—for example, prompting someone to take their medication, dress, eat, drink and perform activities of daily living—but not non-personal care. To answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, I am happy to confirm that when self-funders start to receive support from the local authority, they will indeed be covered by the Human Rights Act 1998.

To turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Copeland, it is worth highlighting to the House that, contrary to what he asserted, the TSA regime—let us remember that the regime was laid down by the previous Labour Government—has been substantively improved by the amendments made to the Bill. In particular, clause 118, which has been debated as clause 119 at various points, will extend the requirements on the trust special administrator to consult not just the public, staff of the failing trust and its commissioners, but other provider trusts, their staff and their commissioners, local authorities and local healthwatch organisations. There is therefore a comprehensive duty of consultation and engagement in the TSA regime, and that will be further strengthened by the amendments we are now discussing.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 40B and amendment (c) to Lords 40C amount to wrecking amendments and, as I shall outline, amendment (b) to Lords amendment 40B is unnecessary and unworkable. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 40B and amendment (c) to Lords 40C would mean that the recommendations of a trust special administrator could not restrict access to any services of another affected trust. Like previous ones, they are in effect wrecking amendments that would make it impossible for the administrator to do their job.

Both Houses recognise that the NHS is a network and that no hospital is an island, and have already agreed that clause 118 must allow the administrator to take a holistic view of the local health and care economy to find the very best solution for a failing trust. That is of course in the best interests of local patients. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam outlined in Committee, it is right that a trust and its patients in particular are not thrown to the wolves when the quality of care is unsustainable or letting patients down, but that a holistic and broader view of the local health care economy can be taken. That was the previous Government’s intention in setting up the TSA regime, and it is our intention now. The previous Government were not the first Government who did not necessarily make their legislation accord perfectly with the intentions they outlined in impact assessments for the TSA regime. That is why we are now in the position of having to correct and improve the regime through the Bill.

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Copeland would undo the effects in relation to the trust special administrator’s regard to the wider health economy, and they would reverse the effect of clause 118, such

12 May 2014 : Column 450

that the administration regime would not be able to create a complete and workable solution to intractable problems or failures of patient care in the NHS. I am sure hon. Members will agree that that would be entirely undesirable, and that it would not be in the best interests of NHS patients, who must be protected where a hospital cannot deliver safe or sustainable care.

Amendment (b) to Lords amendment 40B would give the trust special administrator significantly less time to finalise his or her draft recommendations about the future of a failing trust by requiring the publication of all correspondence between the administrator and commissioners at least 10 working days before publication of the draft report. Hon. Members will be aware that we have extended the time for the trust special administrator to draw up the report from 45 to 65 days and for the consultation from 30 to 40 days, because those processes need to be done properly.

I remind hon. Members that transparency is already built into such processes at every stage. The administrator is required to publish the draft report submitted to Monitor and is expected to include in it the commissioners’ statement in agreement or disagreement to the report. Following consultation, the administrator’s final report is submitted to Monitor for a decision. That report, which Monitor must publish and lay before Parliament, again needs to present to the regulator the views of all affected commissioners. The administrator is required to attach to the final report a summary of all responses to its draft report that were received during the statutory consultation. That would include the views of all affected commissioners as respondents and explain what consideration was given to those responses. There is full transparency at every stage of the process. Quite apart from being wrecking amendments, the Labour amendments are therefore completely unnecessary.

Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab): Wrecking amendments? They are saving you from yourselves!

Dr Poulter: The administrator, working closely with all affected commissioners and providers, may need to communicate in writing in the 10 working days before the draft report is published and submitted. Amendment (b) would therefore significantly reduce the time available to the administrator to develop and finalise the draft report and seek commissioners’ agreement. The hon. Member for Copeland said that he was concerned about that process, but his amendment would make it more difficult.

Clause 118 will extend the time that is available to the TSA to develop the draft report. Amendment (b) would reverse that. That is irrational, undesirable and goes against the very point the hon. Member for Copeland made about having time to consider the best interests of commissioners and the local health economy. I thought that that was an unintended and unwanted consequence of the amendment, but having heard the comments of the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), I am not so sure. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendments.

In conclusion, the Government are committed to a TSA regime that is workable, transparent and in the best interests of patients. In cases of exceptional and significant care failure, lives are put at risk if a problem is not dealt with swiftly and effectively. It is for that

12 May 2014 : Column 451

reason that we are strengthening the regime in the Bill. I am very proud of the Bill and the opportunity that it offers to improve the health of and, the quality of care for, many people, particularly the frail elderly, those with disabilities and those with long-term care needs. It represents the most important step forward in integrating and better joining together health and social care for well over a generation. I hope that hon. Friends and hon. Members will support the Bill and the amendments that have been made to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments 11B and 11C in lieu of words left out by Commons amendment 11 agreed to..

Lords amendment 32A to Commons amendment 32 and consequential Lords amendments 32C and 32D agreed to.

Clause 118

Powers of administrator etc.

Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 40B.—(Mr Jamie Reed.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided:

Ayes 195, Noes 294.

Division No. 269]

[

5.13 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob

Ali, Rushanara

Allen, Mr Graham

Ashworth, Jonathan

Austin, Ian

Bailey, Mr Adrian

Bain, Mr William

Balls, rh Ed

Barron, rh Kevin

Beckett, rh Margaret

Benn, rh Hilary

Benton, Mr Joe

Betts, Mr Clive

Blackman-Woods, Roberta

Blenkinsop, Tom

Blomfield, Paul

Blunkett, rh Mr David

Brennan, Kevin

Brown, Lyn

Brown, rh Mr Nicholas

Brown, Mr Russell

Buck, Ms Karen

Burden, Richard

Byrne, rh Mr Liam

Campbell, rh Mr Alan

Campbell, Mr Ronnie

Caton, Martin

Champion, Sarah

Chapman, Jenny

Clark, Katy

Clarke, rh Mr Tom

Clwyd, rh Ann

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ann

Connarty, Michael

Cooper, Rosie

Cooper, rh Yvette

Corbyn, Jeremy

Crausby, Mr David

Creasy, Stella

Cruddas, Jon

Cryer, John

Cunningham, Alex

Cunningham, Mr Jim

Cunningham, Sir Tony

Dakin, Nic

Danczuk, Simon

Davies, Geraint

Dobson, rh Frank

Docherty, Thomas

Donohoe, Mr Brian H.

Doran, Mr Frank

Doughty, Stephen

Dowd, Jim

Doyle, Gemma

Dromey, Jack

Durkan, Mark

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eagle, Maria

Efford, Clive

Elliott, Julie

Engel, Natascha

Esterson, Bill

Evans, Chris

Field, rh Mr Frank

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Flello, Robert

Flynn, Paul

Fovargue, Yvonne

Francis, Dr Hywel

Gapes, Mike

Gardiner, Barry

Glindon, Mrs Mary

Goodman, Helen

Greatrex, Tom

Green, Kate

Greenwood, Lilian

Griffith, Nia

Hain, rh Mr Peter

Hamilton, Mr David

Hamilton, Fabian

Hanson, rh Mr David

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Harris, Mr Tom

Havard, Mr Dai

Healey, rh John

Hepburn, Mr Stephen

Hermon, Lady

Heyes, David

Hillier, Meg

Hilling, Julie

Hodge, rh Margaret

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon

Hood, Mr Jim

Hopkins, Kelvin

Howarth, rh Mr George

Hunt, Tristram

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Jackson, Glenda

James, Mrs Siân C.

Jamieson, Cathy

Jarvis, Dan

Johnson, rh Alan

Johnson, Diana

Jones, Helen

Jones, Mr Kevan

Jones, Susan Elan

Kane, Mike

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Keeley, Barbara

Kendall, Liz

Khan, rh Sadiq

Lammy, rh Mr David

Lavery, Ian

Lazarowicz, Mark

Leslie, Chris

Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma

Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn

Lucas, Caroline

Lucas, Ian

Mactaggart, Fiona

Mahmood, Shabana

Malhotra, Seema

Marsden, Mr Gordon

McCabe, Steve

McCann, Mr Michael

McCarthy, Kerry

McClymont, Gregg

McDonagh, Siobhain

McDonald, Andy

McDonnell, John

McGovern, Alison

McGovern, Jim

McGuire, rh Mrs Anne

McKechin, Ann

McKenzie, Mr Iain

McKinnell, Catherine

Mearns, Ian

Miller, Andrew

Mitchell, Austin

Moon, Mrs Madeleine

Morden, Jessica

Morris, Grahame M.

(Easington)

Munn, Meg

Murphy, rh Paul

Nandy, Lisa

Onwurah, Chi

Osborne, Sandra

Perkins, Toby

Phillipson, Bridget

Pound, Stephen

Qureshi, Yasmin

Raynsford, rh Mr Nick

Reed, Mr Jamie

Reed, Mr Steve

Reeves, Rachel

Robertson, John

Robinson, Mr Geoffrey

Ruane, Chris

Ruddock, rh Dame Joan

Sawford, Andy

Seabeck, Alison

Sharma, Mr Virendra

Sheerman, Mr Barry

Skinner, Mr Dennis

Slaughter, Mr Andy

Smith, Angela

Smith, Nick

Smith, Owen

Spellar, rh Mr John

Straw, rh Mr Jack

Stringer, Graham

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Tami, Mark

Thomas, Mr Gareth

Timms, rh Stephen

Trickett, Jon

Turner, Karl

Twigg, Derek

Twigg, Stephen

Umunna, Mr Chuka

Vaz, rh Keith

Vaz, Valerie

Walley, Joan

Watts, Mr Dave

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Williams, Hywel

Williamson, Chris

Wilson, Phil

Winnick, Mr David

Winterton, rh Ms Rosie

Woodcock, John

Wright, David

Wright, Mr Iain

Tellers for the Ayes:

Heidi Alexander

and

Graham Jones

NOES

Adams, Nigel

Afriyie, Adam

Aldous, Peter

Alexander, rh Danny

Amess, Mr David

Andrew, Stuart

Arbuthnot, rh Mr James

Bacon, Mr Richard

Baker, Norman

Baker, Steve

Baldry, rh Sir Tony

Baldwin, Harriett

Barclay, Stephen

Barwell, Gavin

Bebb, Guto

Beith, rh Sir Alan

Bellingham, Mr Henry

Benyon, Richard

Beresford, Sir Paul

Berry, Jake

Bingham, Andrew

Binley, Mr Brian

Blackman, Bob

Blackwood, Nicola

Blunt, Crispin

Boles, Nick

Bone, Mr Peter

Bottomley, Sir Peter

Bradley, Karen

Brady, Mr Graham

Brake, rh Tom

Brazier, Mr Julian

Bridgen, Andrew

Brine, Steve

Brokenshire, James

Brooke, Annette

Browne, Mr Jeremy

Bruce, Fiona

Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm

Buckland, Mr Robert

Burns, rh Mr Simon

Burstow, rh Paul

Burt, Lorely

Byles, Dan

Cable, rh Vince

Cairns, Alun

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies

Carmichael, Neil

Carswell, Mr Douglas

Cash, Mr William

Chishti, Rehman

Clark, rh Greg

Clegg, rh Mr Nick

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coffey, Dr Thérèse

Collins, Damian

Colvile, Oliver

Cox, Mr Geoffrey

Crabb, Stephen

Davey, rh Mr Edward

Davies, David T. C.

(Monmouth)

Davies, Philip

Davis, rh Mr David

de Bois, Nick

Dinenage, Caroline

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Drax, Richard

Duddridge, James

Duncan, rh Mr Alan

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Dunne, Mr Philip

Ellis, Michael

Ellison, Jane

Ellwood, Mr Tobias

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Jonathan

Evans, Mr Nigel

Evennett, Mr David

Fabricant, Michael

Fallon, rh Michael

Farron, Tim

Featherstone, Lynne

Field, Mark

Foster, rh Mr Don

Francois, rh Mr Mark

Freer, Mike

Fullbrook, Lorraine

Fuller, Richard

Gauke, Mr David

Gibb, Mr Nick

Gilbert, Stephen

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl

Glen, John

Goldsmith, Zac

Goodwill, Mr Robert

Graham, Richard

Gray, Mr James

Green, rh Damian

Greening, rh Justine

Grieve, rh Mr Dominic

Gummer, Ben

Halfon, Robert

Hames, Duncan

Hammond, rh Mr Philip

Hammond, Stephen

Hancock, Matthew

Hands, rh Greg

Harper, Mr Mark

Harrington, Richard

Harris, Rebecca

Harvey, Sir Nick

Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan

Hayes, rh Mr John

Heald, Oliver

Heath, Mr David

Heaton-Harris, Chris

Hemming, John

Henderson, Gordon

Hendry, Charles

Hinds, Damian

Hoban, Mr Mark

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Holloway, Mr Adam

Hopkins, Kris

Horwood, Martin

Howarth, Sir Gerald

Howell, John

Hughes, rh Simon

Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy

Huppert, Dr Julian

Hurd, Mr Nick

Jackson, Mr Stewart

James, Margot

Javid, rh Sajid

Jenkin, Mr Bernard

Johnson, Gareth

Johnson, Joseph

Jones, Andrew

Jones, rh Mr David

Jones, Mr Marcus

Kawczynski, Daniel

Kelly, Chris

Kirby, Simon

Knight, rh Sir Greg

Kwarteng, Kwasi

Lamb, Norman

Lancaster, Mark

Lansley, rh Mr Andrew

Latham, Pauline

Laws, rh Mr David

Leadsom, Andrea

Lee, Jessica

Lee, Dr Phillip

Leech, Mr John

Lefroy, Jeremy

Leigh, Sir Edward

Leslie, Charlotte

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver

Lewis, Brandon

Lewis, Dr Julian

Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian

Lidington, rh Mr David

Lilley, rh Mr Peter

Lloyd, Stephen

Lopresti, Jack

Loughton, Tim

Luff, Sir Peter

Lumley, Karen

Macleod, Mary

Main, Mrs Anne

Maude, rh Mr Francis

May, rh Mrs Theresa

Maynard, Paul

McCartney, Jason

McCartney, Karl

McIntosh, Miss Anne

McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick

McPartland, Stephen

Menzies, Mark

Metcalfe, Stephen

Miller, rh Maria

Milton, Anne

Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew

Mordaunt, Penny

Morgan, Nicky

Morris, Anne Marie

Morris, James

Mosley, Stephen

Mowat, David

Mundell, rh David

Munt, Tessa

Murray, Sheryll

Neill, Robert

Newton, Sarah

Nokes, Caroline

Nuttall, Mr David

O'Brien, rh Mr Stephen

Offord, Dr Matthew

Ollerenshaw, Eric

Opperman, Guy

Paice, rh Sir James

Parish, Neil

Patel, Priti

Pawsey, Mark

Penning, rh Mike

Penrose, John

Percy, Andrew

Perry, Claire

Phillips, Stephen

Pickles, rh Mr Eric

Poulter, Dr Daniel

Prisk, Mr Mark

Raab, Mr Dominic

Randall, rh Sir John

Reckless, Mark

Redwood, rh Mr John

Rees-Mogg, Jacob

Reevell, Simon

Reid, Mr Alan

Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm

Robertson, rh Hugh

Robertson, Mr Laurence

Rogerson, Dan

Rosindell, Andrew

Russell, Sir Bob

Rutley, David

Sanders, Mr Adrian

Sandys, Laura

Scott, Mr Lee

Selous, Andrew

Shapps, rh Grant

Sharma, Alok

Shelbrooke, Alec

Shepherd, Sir Richard

Simpson, Mr Keith

Skidmore, Chris

Smith, Chloe

Smith, Henry

Smith, Julian

Smith, Sir Robert

Soames, rh Nicholas

Soubry, Anna

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline

Stanley, rh Sir John

Stephenson, Andrew

Stevenson, John

Stewart, Bob

Stewart, Iain

Stewart, Rory

Streeter, Mr Gary

Stride, Mel

Stuart, Mr Graham

Sturdy, Julian

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond

Swire, rh Mr Hugo

Syms, Mr Robert

Tapsell, rh Sir Peter

Teather, Sarah

Thornton, Mike

Thurso, John

Tomlinson, Justin

Tredinnick, David

Truss, Elizabeth

Turner, Mr Andrew

Uppal, Paul

Vaizey, Mr Edward

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Vickers, Martin

Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa

Walker, Mr Charles

Walker, Mr Robin

Wallace, Mr Ben

Walter, Mr Robert

Weatherley, Mike

Webb, Steve

Wharton, James

Wheeler, Heather

White, Chris

Whittaker, Craig

Wiggin, Bill

Willetts, rh Mr David

Williams, Mr Mark

Williams, Roger

Williams, Stephen

Williamson, Gavin

Wilson, Mr Rob

Wollaston, Dr Sarah

Wright, Jeremy

Wright, Simon

Yeo, Mr Tim

Young, rh Sir George

Zahawi, Nadhim

Tellers for the Noes:

Amber Rudd

and

Mr Sam Gyimah

Question accordingly negatived.

12 May 2014 : Column 452

12 May 2014 : Column 453

12 May 2014 : Column 454

12 May 2014 : Column 455

5.28 pm

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83G).

Lords amendments 40B to 40E in lieu of Commons amendment 40 agreed to.

Lords amendments 42B and 42C in lieu of Commons amendment 42 agreed to.

Lords amendments 46B to 46E in lieu of Commons amendment 46 agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): Order. Will Members who have no interest in the forthcoming debate and are leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly? Not to do so is a gross discourtesy to those who wish to speak.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (Programme) No. 2

Ordered,

That the Order of 24 February 2014 (Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:

(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.

(3) Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

12 May 2014 : Column 456

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.—(Mr Vara.)

12 May 2014 : Column 457

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

[1st Allocated Day]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 14

Offences committed by disqualified drivers

‘(1) After section 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988 insert—

“3ZC Causing death by driving: disqualified drivers

A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he or she—

(a) causes the death of another person by driving a motor vehicle on a road, and

12 May 2014 : Column 458

(b) at that time, is committing an offence under section 103(1)(b) of this Act (driving while disqualified).

3ZD Causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers

‘(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he or she—

(a) causes serious injury to another person by driving a motor vehicle on a road, and

(b) at that time, is committing an offence under section 103(1)(b) of this Act (driving while disqualified).

(2) In this section “serious injury” means—

(a) in England and Wales, physical harm which amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and

(b) in Scotland, severe physical injury.”

(2) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences under the Traffic Acts) at the appropriate place insert—

(3) In the entries in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 relating to an offence under section 3ZD of the Road Traffic Act 1988—

(a) in relation to an offence committed before section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference in column 4 to 12 months on summary conviction in England and Wales is to be read as a reference to 6 months, and

(b) in relation to an offence committed before section 85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 comes into force, the reference in column 4 to a fine on summary conviction in England and Wales is to be read as a reference to the statutory maximum.

(4) Schedule(Offences committed by disqualified drivers: further amendments)contains further amendments relating to the offences under sections 3ZC and 3ZD of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

(5) The amendments made by this section and Schedule(Offences committed by disqualified drivers: further amendments)have effect only in relation to driving which occurs after they come into force.’..—(Jeremy Wright.)

This amendment makes the offence of causing death by driving while disqualified an indictable only offence and increases the maximum penalty for such conduct to 10 years’ imprisonment. It also creates an offence of causing serious injury by driving while disqualified - an either way offence with a maximum penalty of 4 years’ imprisonment

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.32 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 22—Penalty for driving while disqualified—

‘(1) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences under the Traffic Acts) in the entry relating to the offence of obtaining licence, or driving, while disqualified, section 103(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988—

(a) in column 3 leave out “6 months” and insert “12 months”;

(b) in column 2 below “(c) On indictment, in Scotland”, insert “(d) On indictment, in England and Wales”; and

(c) in column 3 below “(c) 12 months or a fine or both” insert “(d) 2 years or a fine or both”.

(2) In relation to an offence committed before section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference to 12 months is to be read as reference to six months.

(3) The amendment made by this section applies only in relation to an offence committed on or after the day on which it comes into force.’.

Makes the offence of driving while disqualified triable either way, with a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment for conviction on indictment.

Government new schedule 2—‘Offences committed by disqualified drivers: further amendments.

Amendment 9, in clause 28, page 26, line 31, at end insert—

‘(c) a submission from the DVLA to inform the court of any penalty points endorsed on the driver’s record.’.

Amendment 8, page 26, line 35, at end insert—

‘(3A) For cases involving driving offences, where the accused has 12 or more penalty points currently on their drivers’ record, any exceptional hardship plea previously made by the accused must be disclosed to the court.’.

Government amendment 7.

Government new clause 10—Term of imprisonment for murder of a police or prison officer.

Government new clause 11—Committal for sentence of young offenders convicted of certain serious offences.

Jeremy Wright: Over a period of months, we have listened to concerns raised by the families of victims and hon. Members acting on their behalf about disqualified

12 May 2014 : Column 459

drivers. They have said that the current maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment for causing death by driving when disqualified does not adequately reflect the tragic consequences of the offending. I am particularly grateful to, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), and for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for keeping the issue firmly on the agenda. In our view, disqualified drivers who flout court bans, continue to drive badly and cause death should be treated far more seriously by the courts than they are at present, and I am pleased to say that new clause 14 and new schedule 2 will effect that change.

We should also concern ourselves with disqualified drivers who cause serious injury. It is, after all, often a matter of chance whether the victim lives or dies. If there is no evidence that the offender was driving dangerously, the most with which he or she can be charged under the current law is driving while disqualified, which incurs a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment. That is plainly inadequate. It does not reflect some of the horrific and life-changing injuries that can be suffered by road traffic victims, or the terrible toll that this can take on their families. That is why we are also introducing a new offence of causing serious injury by disqualified driving, which will incur a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment.

We thought carefully about whether these changes should apply to unlicensed and uninsured drivers as well. We decided to limit the changes to disqualified drivers, because we think that they have a higher level of culpability than other illegal drivers. A driving ban would only be imposed on an offender following the commission of a series of motoring offences or a single serious offence. If such an offender flouts a ban imposed by the court, continues to drive badly and causes a death or serious injury, it is right that he should feel the full force of our proposed new provisions.

Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): One of the areas that cause me concern is to do with drivers from other EU countries who may have been banned or disqualified in those countries but who come here and are allowed to drive in the United Kingdom. Is there anything in the Government proposals to stop them doing that?

Jeremy Wright: I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern and I will come on to talk about the proposal we have for a wider review of sentencing in driving cases. He may well wish to make further submissions on the points he has made for inclusion in that review. A number of issues have already been raised which we think can sensibly be discussed in the course of that review, and I am sure there are some yet to be raised.

Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab): Can the Minister explain why being unlicensed was not included in this proposal? If one is unlicensed, one undoubtedly knows one is unlicensed, so why were such people taken out of this?

Jeremy Wright: I appreciate that this is a matter of judgment in all cases, but the distinction we have made is between those who have been disqualified by a court—in other words, they are subject to a court order—and have none the less gone on to drive, and those who are

12 May 2014 : Column 460

driving unlicensed, and, as the hon. Lady says, doing so knowingly, but not as a consequence of a court’s decision. That is the distinction we make, but I know she takes a considerable interest in driving offences and their consequences, and I am sure she will wish to engage with the review we will begin.

Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): The Minister will be aware of the Road Justice campaign by the CTC and others. I and they very much welcome this review. Will he give us an idea of the time scale of the review and when we can expect the conclusions, because many of us would like to feed into them?

Jeremy Wright: We hope to conduct the review over the next few months and I hope that will give my hon. Friend and others the opportunity to contribute to it, but let me just finish what I am saying in relation to the specific proposals in new clause 14. I hope the House will agree that there is a need for these proposals. First and foremost the measures should give families of victims a greater sense that justice has been done. More generally, tougher sentences for convicted offenders should improve public confidence in the justice system. Amendment 7 changes the long title of the Bill to include driving. I commend these provisions to the House.

I know that Members might like to see reform of other aspects of the road offence framework. Some have already been mentioned in the course of this debate. Indeed, new clause 22 seeks to make the offence of driving while disqualified an either-way offence and increase its maximum penalty; and we have, as I have indicated, been giving serious consideration to all representations made on this subject, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham, who has a ten-minute rule Bill on repeat offences of driving while disqualified. He and others rightly hold strong views and we are committed to ensuring that maximum penalties reflect the seriousness and culpability of offending behaviour. That is why, as we have already mentioned today and as the Justice Secretary made clear in his announcement on 6 May, the Government are committed to carrying out a wider review of the road traffic sentencing framework over the next few months. We are in discussion with the Department for Transport and other interested Departments about the details. We will make a further announcement about the scope of the review in due course.

Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): Could the Minister give us a sense of how this would fit with the legislative timetable? If primary changes are needed as a result of the review, will there definitely be a Bill to do that?

Jeremy Wright: Unless the hon. Gentleman is going to contradict me and vote accordingly, there is broad support for what we have set out in new clause 14, which is a self-contained measure that we do not think will have ramifications across the rest of the sentencing system. That is not true of some of the other changes that Members on both sides of the House may wish to make. As I have said, we have reached no pre-conclusions as to what should or should not be included in a review. However, we think it sensible to make sure that if we are to have a wholesale look at driving offences—which, unless the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter)

12 May 2014 : Column 461

is going to contradict me, there is considerable support for across the House—we should do it in a considered way. We are not talking about years for that to happen, but months.

Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): I thank my hon. Friend and his Department for listening to the victims of crime on the question of increasing sentences for those who commit the offence of killing people on our roads by driving while disqualified. On repeat offenders and the Bill that I introduced, I thank my hon. Friend for including such a provision in the review. However, does he agree that there is no one way of dealing with repeat offenders? Whether they are dealt with through a magistrates court, through an increased sentence in a criminal court, as I have suggested, or by making the offence an either-way offence, as the Opposition have suggested, the right approach is to carry out a comprehensive review, because there is no one way of dealing with the issue.

Jeremy Wright: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to review all the options. He has already made a powerful case for his preferred option in dealing with repeat offences of driving while disqualified, and I know he will continue to do so. I hope the review will give him and others the opportunity to make the case they wish to make. In view of that, I hope the hon. Member for Hammersmith will consider whether it is necessary to press his new clause to a vote.

Amendment 8 relates to cases where a defendant being tried under the single justice procedure has 12 or more penalty points on their record. Subsection (3) of proposed new section 16A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, introduced by clause 28 of the Bill, specifies that a decision under the new single justice procedure must be made “in reliance only” on the documents sent to the accused, along with “any written submission” provided that aims to mitigate the sentence imposed. Under amendment 8, a defendant would additionally have to include in any written submission details of previous exceptional hardship pleas they had made to the court. I know the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) will make her case for the amendment in due course, but I presume that the intention is that the single justice procedure should be able to take that into account when considering any further submissions from the defendant requesting mitigation of their sentence.

The Government share Members’ concerns about drivers who continue to drive when accumulating penalty points that would normally result in disqualification. As I have said, we will conduct a review of the wider sentencing framework for driving offences, and as I said to the hon. Lady during Justice questions last week, it may well be that there is a strong case for the inclusion of such a measure.

James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con): My hon. Friend knows that I am very much in favour of making newly qualified drivers carry a probationary plate on their cars for two years to indicate that they might be a greater risk. Will he consider requiring disqualified drivers who re-qualify to have that probationary plate, partly as a punishment but partly to highlight the potential risk to others?

12 May 2014 : Column 462

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He has a good record of campaigning on these issues, in which he takes considerable interest and has significant expertise, and we will certainly consider what he said. The review will allow new ideas such as his to be considered in the context of the sentencing framework.

Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): I agree with my hon. Friend that the development of the arguments we have heard in respect of other clauses reinforces the need for a more comprehensive look at the issue. In the light of the reassurance he has given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), will he also ensure that the review looks not only at the basic sentencing powers but at the operation of the penalty points system, which we know is complex and sometimes itself creates incongruities?

Jeremy Wright: I think I am in danger of conducting the review this afternoon, but I agree with my hon. Friend, and all these things are worth considering for inclusion in the review. I simply sound this note of caution: if we review everything, we will exceed the proposed time scale and perhaps not deal with the concerns raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). None the less, I am sure that there is a great deal that can sensibly be considered.

I return to amendment 8 and point out that proposed new section 16C of our provisions already provides for cases in which the single justice proposes to disqualify a driver. The single justice must give the accused an opportunity to make representations about the proposed disqualification. If the offender fails to take up the opportunity to make representations, they may be disqualified in their absence. That is, of course, no different from what may occur under the magistrates court process. At present, offenders are disqualified in their absence when, having been warned about the purpose of the hearing, they do not attend court. When the defendant wishes to make representations, however, and that would include representations about exceptional hardship, the single justice must issue a summons to the defendant requiring them to appear at a traditional magistrates court. Any exceptional hardship plea may therefore be dealt with in open court, and the court would have the opportunity to investigate the defendant’s driving history. The Bill therefore already makes appropriate provision for the situation that the hon. Member for Bolton West is concerned about.

5.45 pm

Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab): Does the Minister not accept that magistrates are not told why people have already cited exceptional circumstances? The magistrate has no idea what previous plea of exceptional circumstance was given. My amendment is about that issue, so that magistrates are made aware.

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Lady has just made a wider point than would apply simply to the single justice procedure. The point we are addressing in relation to her amendment is that there should be no significant disadvantage for those who are dealt with under the single justice procedure; nor should there be any disadvantage to the court under that procedure in ascertaining the facts of the case. If someone were wanting to assert particular hardship, which might exclude

12 May 2014 : Column 463

the possibility of disqualification, they would need to come to court and do it themselves. The court should then do the necessary investigations. However, I take her point and will consider carefully whether there are improvements that we can make to more general procedures.

Amendment 9 is also related to the single justice procedure. It would introduce a new requirement that the documents sent to the defendant with the single justice procedure notice should include a submission from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to the court informing the court of any penalty points on the defendant’s driver record. I agree that up-to-date DVLA information is important when deciding the sentence for such offences. The House is aware that that very issue was raised in Committee, and as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), made clear, our intention then was to consider the point further.

Under the existing procedure, when dealing with an offender in their absence, courts are able to check the DVLA position when sentencing for certain road traffic offences—we have discussed that point and, as I said, I accept that it is important that they are able to do the same under the new procedure. We need to ensure that the legislation allows for that in cases dealt with under the new single justice procedure as well. As I said, we have undertaken to look at the matter, and it is still under consideration. We will ensure the necessary consideration. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton West and her colleague the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), whom I do not see here, will be satisfied.

New clause 10 makes an amendment to schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides guidance to the courts in assessing the seriousness of all cases of murder in order to determine the appropriate minimum term to be imposed under the mandatory life sentence. The amendment would raise the starting point for offenders aged 21 and over from 30 years to a whole life order for the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of his or her duty.

I do not need to remind the House of the vital role that those officers play every day in keeping our communities safe and in managing difficult and dangerous offenders. Tragically, some officers have paid the ultimate price while carrying out these duties on our behalf. The Government consider it essential that those officers feel the full weight of the state behind them in the execution of their duties. Changing the starting point to a whole life order for those who murder police and prison officers will send a powerful message of support for the work that those vital public servants do. It will show that we place the highest value on their safety and that we recognise the dangerous job they perform on a daily basis.

Those officers can be distinguished from other public servants by the role they perform in terms of routine contact with dangerous offenders. Their daily duties and risks mean that they stand apart from others. That unique and important status should be recognised, and those who murder police or prison officers on duty should know that they face the most severe sentence possible under the law. I should make it clear that the change in the law does not necessarily mean that a whole life order will be imposed in every case involving the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of

12 May 2014 : Column 464

duty. The court must always have the discretion to impose the appropriate sentence based on all the facts of each case, but offenders should be in no doubt that they face the severest consequences for such murders. I therefore hope that the House will support the new clause.

Finally, new clause 11 is designed to close a gap in the sentencing power of criminal courts that could prevent an adequate sentence being imposed where it turns out that the offending is more serious than it appeared when the case was initially accepted by the youth court. We believe the gap might tend to undermine efforts to encourage youth courts to try grave crimes in suitable cases and might restrict sentencing powers unduly. The category of offences that includes cases such as those that involve allegations of serious sexual offending against under-18s, for example—also known as grave crimes—are serious enough to be capable of being sent to the Crown court for trial, but not all of them necessarily require the highest sentencing powers of the Crown court. It might be possible to deal with some of them satisfactorily using sentencing options available in the youth court, and if so there is an advantage in retaining them in the youth court. The youth court is particularly attuned to inquiries into the alleged activities of children, and serious sexual offences can be tried there by authorised district judges who have been specially trained to deal with them.

A defendant under 18 charged with such an offence is invited to indicate a plea, and when a guilty plea is indicated the youth court may commit him or her to the Crown court for sentence where appropriate. On the other hand, if the indication is not guilty and the youth court decides to retain the case and tries and convicts the defendant, there is no general power to commit the offender to the Crown court for sentence. That means that if information emerges during the trial that suggests that a more severe sentence is appropriate, the youth court will simply have to make do with its own sentencing powers. The only exception is when the conditions for imposing an extended determinate sentence are met, but they are stringent. That is at odds with the position for adults, where there is a general power to commit cases to the Crown court for sentence, not merely after a guilty plea.

It is possible that the absence of a safety net allowing for committal for sentence leads youth courts to be unnecessarily cautious in deciding whether to retain grave sexual crimes. A provision permitting committal to the Crown court for sentence whenever a defendant is convicted of a grave crime in the youth court, as is already possible after a guilty plea indication, might encourage the youth court to retain more cases and ensure adequate sentencing powers are available in every case. I hope that the House will therefore support new clause 11.

Mr Slaughter: We are grateful to the Government for accommodating the topics we want to discuss today and for the overall allocation of time on Report. We do not hear that very often, but it is in part a result of Report running over two days—or at least a day and a half—as a consequence of this being a carry-over Bill.

We anticipate that there will be about 10 hours of debate, including Third Reading, and curiously only half the time will be spent on the Bill as it left Committee. Today, we have three hours on parts 1 to 3 and on day

12 May 2014 : Column 465

two we will have two hours on the important and controversial part 4, which attacks the legal and financial basis of judicial review claims. The rest of the time is for new projects proposed by the Lord Chancellor or by his Back Benchers with his support. He has a common but unwelcome habit of shoehorning new laws into Bills at every stage of their progress through both Houses. A cynic would say that he does so simply to provide another hit with the tabloids or to introduce a stick to beat his coalition partners with. It is certainly a poor way to legislate, and he has surpassed himself by tabling new clauses on driving offences that require him to amend the long title of the Bill through Government amendment 7—I do not think the Minister mentioned that amendment, but I apologise if he did.

Neither the new clauses on driving in the first group for discussion today nor those on offences of possessing offensive weapons have taken the Government by surprise. There was a full debate in the Chamber on the subject of dangerous driving in Back-Bench time on 27 January and, famously, the issue of carrying knives featured in the Tory manifesto.

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Gentleman knows that I hold him in high regard and affection, but he has accused me of rushing into new clause 14. Now he is telling me that it did not catch me by surprise and I should have done it earlier.

Mr Slaughter: If the Minister waits, all will become clear.

We do not quarrel with the seriousness of any of the matters under discussion on Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) will raise our concerns about offences against armed forces personnel—matters that we, unlike the Government, flagged up in Committee. This is a sloppy way of making law and nowhere was that more clear than with last week’s announcement that new offences and new sentences for existing offences on some driving matters would be tabled today. At the same time, as the Minister has conceded, the Secretary of State announced that a full review of all driving offences and penalties would be carried out over the next few months.

Let us pause there for a moment. If the Government are reviewing all offences over the next few months, why do they need to change the law for one offence and introduce a brand-new offence in the Bill? I suspect that my curiosity is shared by the Minister, who replied to the debate on 27 January. We heard nine compelling and moving speeches on that day from Members on both sides of the House explaining how their constituents had been victims of dangerous, careless, drunken or disqualified drivers but how the culprits had escaped with what appeared to be lenient penalties. He carefully and courteously, as is his wont, lowered expectations, saying:

“Having emerged blinking into the daylight from the usual channels into my current job, I know better than to commit parliamentary time for any purpose”.

He added sagely:

“It is important for us to consider these matters in the round, and to do so in a way that does not create discrepancies in the sentencing system.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 731.]

12 May 2014 : Column 466

Four months later, time has been found to do exactly what the Minister warned against.

The Minister might ask whether that matters if we are moving in the right direction. The groundswell of opinion expressed in that debate and outside the House is that the two-year maximum sentence for causing death by disqualified driving is inadequate, as it leads to an average sentence of about nine months in custody. We agree and we will not oppose the new clause, but is 10 years the correct figure? It is double the maximum for causing death by careless driving, arguably a more serious offence as the quality of driving is an issue. Equally, it seems anomalous to create an offence of causing serious injury by disqualified driving when no equivalent is proposed of causing serious injury by careless driving or even causing serious injury by careless driving while under the influence of drink and drugs—an offence with a maximum sentence of 14 years when it causes death.

Why has causing death by disqualified driving been singled out? As the Minister said, the current offence brackets causing disqualified driving with driving without insurance and driving without a licence. Will causing death by driving in those two circumstances remain punishable with a two-year maximum sentence? I am afraid that this bears all the hallmarks of the Secretary of State’s penchant for plucking new offences out of the air and pushing them forward to show what a tough guy he is. There were only 13 convictions in the last year for which figures are available for all offences of causing death while disqualified, uninsured or without a licence. How many cases will the change in the law affect?

Perhaps the Secretary of State will say that the change is intended as a deterrent to others, but how many disqualified drivers will be put off by the thought that they might kill or cause serious injury? There is no evidence of careless or dangerous driving in their cases, because they would then be charged with those offences. That brings me to new clause 22, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central, which we believe is a more effective way of tackling the problem that the Secretary of State and the Minister have rightly identified.

More than 7,000 people were convicted of driving while disqualified in 2012, a substantial reduction since 10 years previously but still a great number of people who wilfully defied an order of the court and carried on driving while banned. Our answer is to make the offence of driving while disqualified triable either way, with a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment for conviction on indictment, which the Magistrates Association has been calling for for some time. Currently, the maximum penalty for driving while disqualified is six months and it is a summary only offence. Although that might be sufficient for a first or even second-time offender, it does not address the minority of recidivist offenders who have multiple disqualifications on their record and carry on driving oblivious to the courts.

Robert Neill: I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, although I do not totally agree with it. Limiting the penalty to two years might reflect some aggravation that arises in instances of disqualified driving which give rise to injury. Does he not concede, however, that even if we allow for aggravation in respect of sentencing, a two-year sentence probably would not be

12 May 2014 : Column 467

enough to reflect justice for an injury that might be life-changing but which stops short of involving the offence of causing death by dangerous driving? The person’s life would be ruined for keeps, which would not be captured adequately by a two-year sentence, as under his proposal—four years might be nearer the mark.

6 pm

Mr Slaughter: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but he is misunderstanding me slightly. We do not oppose new clause 14. I would wish to have seen it remain part of the review, because of the arguments I have put forward about the substantial overlap with a number of other offences, most of which were introduced by the previous Labour Government in a previous review—I think we are all agreed that that was necessary. We do not disagree that a review is needed now, but our new offence is of a different type and serves a different and, we say, a more effective purpose in discouraging drivers who are tempted to drive while disqualified. What the Government are doing—it may be right, but let us see it “in the round”, as the Minister would say—is looking at the more serious offences, where there has to be a balance between the nature of the offence and the maximum penalty.

Rehman Chishti: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the six-month sentence for repeat offenders who drive while disqualified is completely wrong, and I put that view forward in a private Member’s Bill in December. There was a reason why driving while disqualified was moved away from being an “either way” offence to being a summary offence: these cases may have taken up a lot of court time. Does he agree that a way to overcome that is to have the matter tried and dealt with at the magistrates court, and for the magistrate to have the discretion to refer repeat offences to the Crown court for a sentence of up to two years? That would deal with the problem. If those repeat offenders are not dealt with at an early stage, we should not then say, “Tough sentence at the end”; they can be dealt with at the lower end.

Mr Slaughter: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman needs to make a speech now. I do not disagree with him—there is a strong measure of agreement here—but he is proposing a complicated resolution whereas we are proposing something more straightforward. It will certainly be a help if the Government get their act together and implement the part of the 2003 Act which will allow magistrates to sentence for 12 months for a single offence, although we still think that that is insufficient for this offence. If repeat offenders plead guilty and are released at the halfway point of sentence, they are likely to serve no more than eight weeks, however many times they have previously been disqualified. Tougher sentences for this offence will act as a deterrent, warning others that driving while disqualified is unacceptable; stamping out driving while disqualified before death or serious injury is caused is Labour’s priority.

A two-year maximum sentence for those serial offenders means that they can expect to spend up to four times longer in prison than is the case now—and of course they would be off the road for all that time. There should not be much difference between the parties on these issues. As I say, we do not oppose the Secretary of

12 May 2014 : Column 468

State’s new clause 14, despite our reservations, but we would like the Government to support our new clause 22. If they do not, we will put it to a vote of the House; unless the Secretary of State can give me some assurance that they will either support that or at least push those views forward in the review he is doing, we would wish to vote on that matter.

Rehman Chishti: I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He said that what I put forward in a private Member’s Bill is complicated. How is it complicated, given that we both agree about repeat offenders? In 2012, 42% of the 7,000 who were sentenced were repeat offenders, with 23% having offended more than three times. It is repeat offenders who pose the risk and who are likely to get two years. Why can we not trust the magistrates to deal with this and then send it to the Crown court? That would stop the Crown court being clogged up. Let us trust the magistrates.

Mr Slaughter: With respect, I do not think the Crown court is going to be clogged up. We are talking about different ways of skinning the same cat, so if we do go to a vote, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman joining us in the Lobby.

Let me briefly deal with the other matters in this group. I commend the amendments standing in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). They were discussed in Committee—the Opposition are very disciplined about these matters—and I remain hopeful that the Government will see fit to accept them at some stage. They deal with the egregious issue of multiple offenders escaping “totting up” bans because the courts either do not have the requisite information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in front of them or are, unknown to them, being told the same sob story for the fourth or fifth time. As a result, there are still people driving with two or three times the 12 points that should have seen them banned. There is no connection between those matters and new clauses 10 and 11. Both deal with serious matters, but it is puzzling that, once again, they have been shoehorned into the Bill at this stage. However, let me deal with them briefly.

The murder of a police officer is a heinous crime, and 13 police officers have been killed in the line of duty since 2000. The courts already take their sentencing powers very seriously, and the starting point for this is 30 years. The killers of Sharon Beshenivsky received 35 years each, the murderer of PC Ian Broadhurst received 37 years and the murderer of PCs Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes received a whole life sentence. The courts are already effectively exerting these powers, but we have no objection to the clarification, if I may put it that way, that the Government wish to introduce, particularly, as the Minister has said, as judicial discretion will remain in these cases. Thankfully, this proposal is not going to affect many cases, but it deals with the most serious crimes that are committed.

Finally, new clause 11 is a sensible tidying measure. As the Minister says, it already applies to adult offences, so, although I am always puzzled to read the headlines in The Daily Telegraph, I was particularly puzzled to see a headline where the Secretary of State was saying, “We will toughen sentences for youth crime”. The new clause

12 May 2014 : Column 469

is sensible and we support it, but it is about giving more discretion to magistrates. It is about empowering magistrates courts to try cases where they might previously have felt that they had to second-guess the decision and commit the case to the Crown court; it is not about inflicting additional burdens on the Crown court, and I just wish the Government would not spin at every opportunity.

We have a good degree of consensus on this part of the debate and it would perhaps be complete consensus if the Government see reason and adopt our new clause 22. I know that the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) will agree with us, because his private Member’s Bill proposes much the same thing, but so would the Secretary of State, were he to grace us with his presence, because he has said:

“I want to make our roads safer and ensure people who cause harm face tough penalties. Disqualified drivers should not be on our roads for good reason. Those who chose to defy a ban imposed by a court and go on to destroy innocent lives must face serious consequences for the terrible impact of their actions.”

Let us take action against disqualified drivers at an early stage. I urge the Government to support new clause 22.

Several hon. Members rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): I call Robin Walker. Sorry, I mean Chris Skidmore. I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon.

Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con): You would not be the first person to make that genuine mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker. I entirely forgive you for it, and thank you ever so much for calling me.

I rise to speak in support of new clause 14, and I thank the Minister and the Department for including it in the Bill. It seems like only yesterday when, on 27 January 2013, I received a telephone call and discovered that two of my constituents, Ross and Clare Simons, had been killed that evening while riding a tandem bike down Lower Hanham road in Kingswood. They had been struck by a driver who had been driving, in a police chase, at 70 mph in a 30 mph zone. Obviously, this was devastating for all the families, and when I went to the vigil a week later, I said to Ross’s father, Edwin Simons, that I would do everything in my power as the local Member of Parliament to stand up for the families and for victims. That is what this clause is about: making sure we send out a message that it is unacceptable to cause death by driving while disqualified. For people watching this debate it is simply common sense to say that people who kill through driving while disqualified should never have been in the car in the first place. People wondering why the law has never been toughened up will see that it makes perfect sense to introduce this new clause.

After that fateful day on 27 January 2013, I set up, with the families, the petition “Justice for Ross and Clare”, which called for far tougher penalties for disqualified drivers, especially those who kill by dangerous driving. The perpetrator, Nicholas Lovell, who went to jail, had 69 previous convictions, 11 of which were for driving offences, and he had been disqualified four times. We can only imagine the families’ grief when they found

12 May 2014 : Column 470

out in court that this person had not only taken away these innocent young lives but done so while he was disqualified. For more than a decade and a half, he had shown a complete disregard for the law.

Our petition gathered 15,000 signatures, and we took it to No.10 Downing street. As part of the campaign, I led the Backbench Business debate on 27 January 2014, which the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) mentioned, and 30 Members took part. It was clear then, and a testament to the power of Backbench Business debates, that we had cross-party consensus for changing the law. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for introducing a ten-minute rule Bill on the matter. I am glad that this discussion is taking place today.

Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work that he has done in relation to this matter. Does he agree that what we should be doing is punishing people who drive while disqualified per se? The higher-end penalty should be for driving while disqualified. The maximum two years, as I think it is now, should be increased, so that we might avoid at a later stage the terrible incident of death while driving disqualified.

Chris Skidmore: The important thing to recognise in new clause 14 is that it sends out a message and hope for future legislation. When I first began the campaign, many families were fairly sceptical that there would be any change, particularly this side of the general election. There was a concern that politicians would sit on their hands and not do anything. By passing this new clause we would be opening up future debate. I have great sympathy with new clause 22, but I have not had the time to study the implications of it in detail. If that could be part of the overall review that is taking place, I would absolutely welcome that.

When considering this review, I want to make a pitch for the families of Ross and Clare Simons that we look again at causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified. At the moment, the crime is just death by driving. Nicholas Lovell, who killed Ross and Clare Simons, was given the maximum sentence of 14 years—it is one of the only times that such a sentence has been delivered by the judge. As Lovell pleaded guilty, he was given 10 years and six months. The judge at the time said that had he the legal power, he would have given out a far tougher sentence. He gave the maximum, but he recognised that, because Lovell had been disqualified, there should have been an additional aggravating factor, or that an additional maximum tariff should have been added to the sentence. I would therefore welcome the review looking at death by dangerous driving while disqualified and upping that sentence.

Karl Turner: What the hon. Gentleman is saying, in my respectful submission, is that the judiciary and the courts should have more discretion over sentencing. New clause 22 does just that, does it not?

Chris Skidmore: We need to look again at the maximum tariff for causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified. The judge at the time wished for that power. I do not know the precise implications, which is why we need a review in the round. We need uniformity

12 May 2014 : Column 471

across the piece. One thing I realised from the Backbench Business debate was that I was not alone; the families were not alone. We heard about some of the awfully brief sentences that had been handed out, and the unequal nature of those sentences. It is very hard for a grieving family to find out that, in what seems to be an almost identical case, the sentence handed out in one area is entirely different from that handed out in another area. I would like to ensure that we put in place a rigid framework. Obviously, judges should have discretion as well, but victims need to understand—I am not a lawyer and I struggle at times to follow the complicated processes of the law—that if someone is disqualified, they should not be in a car in the first place; that is common sense. Nicholas Lovell should never have been in that car when he ploughed into Ross and Clare Simons’s tandem. It is for those families that new clause 14 has been introduced. For me and for the local families, it is Ross and Clare’s law.

6.15 pm

I would love it if we could get things on the statute book before the general election. I understand that the processes of law are very slow, but I hope that we can have cross-party consensus for this part of the review. Knowing that all three parties are signed up to change will be a great comfort for the families.

Julie Hilling: I wish to talk specifically to amendments 8 and 9 that are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). There is something very strange happening with driving penalties. The law says that a driver should be banned if they receive 12 points on their licence, unless they would face exceptional hardship. It also says that the same plea for exceptional hardship should be used only once. I would not be surprised if there were a few people driving legally with 15 points, but I would not expect there to be 8,000 people frequently driving with many more points. I would not expect a person in Liverpool to be driving with 47 points on their licence, or a woman in Bolton to be driving with 27 points on her licence. I wonder how many pleas of exceptional hardship they have made. I am not sure I could even think up that many pleas to put before the courts.

Exceptional hardship is not about losing one’s job, but it could be about losing one’s home or about other people losing their job. The terms of exceptional hardship are very narrow, so why did the Squeeze singer Chris Difford escape a driving ban after pleading that it would cause exceptional hardship as he would no longer be able to travel the country playing gigs? The 47-year-old earns up to £100,000 a year performing around the country and was caught doing 88 mph on a 70 mph road.

The son of Tony Christie, famous for his song “Is this the way to Amarillo” claimed exceptional hardship because he would not be able to drive his dad to gigs after he totted up 25 points. The jockey Kieren Fallon escaped a driving ban after he claimed that it would cause exceptional hardship because the state of the racing industry was such that he could not afford a full-time driver. Premiership footballer Zak Whitbread, who admitted speeding at 97 mph with 17 points already on his licence, escaped a ban after saying that he would not be able to find another football job if he could not drive.

12 May 2014 : Column 472

There are many other cases of people who have escaped bans. Not all of those 8,000 people are famous, but often they are rich enough to pay a good barrister to get them off. Alex Williams, the Tory candidate for Stretford and Urmston at the last general election, got off because he said that he would not be able to afford to pay his £2,000 a month mortgage if he could not drive. I do not understand why those people could not pay somebody to drive them around. They could have taken a taxi, train or bus like the rest of us.

As I have already said, drivers cannot use the same exceptional hardship plea each time they are taken to court, but there is no central record of which plea has been used. There is also no record of whether these drivers are involved in later accidents. If a driver can clock up 47, 27 or even just 15 points, they must have a disregard for the law and therefore pose a risk to other road users.

Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaign in her constituency. When the points system was established, it was never intended that so many people would get away with so many sob stories, and that we would have so many thousands of people driving on our roads. Magistrates do not know, because the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has not informed them, that sob stories are repeated and used time and again.

Julie Hilling: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I remember the days of endorsements. We introduced the points system to give us more flexibility, but 12 points was regarded as the threshold for losing one’s licence. If more people are driving around with more than 12 points on their licence, it lessens the effect of the deterrent. It may lead people to think, “Perhaps I can get away with driving around with more than 12 points on my licence.” The whole threat of people losing their licence after 12 points, so therefore driving within the law, has been weakened.

Of course we need to tackle the sentencing of people convicted of causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving or driving while banned, but the whole issue of driving offences—and the way that cars can be used as weapons—needs to be addressed. We need drivers to realise, at every level of offence, that bad behaviour will be punished in order to make our roads safer. TheBolton News, my local daily paper, has been campaigning on this issue for some time. It ran a survey a while ago in which 83% of people agreed that 12 points should mean that drivers are banned. There is real support for that proposition.

We know that young people aged 15 to 24 are more likely to die in road accidents than as a result of any other single cause and, sadly, the number of deaths is increasing. Of course we need justice for those who have lost loved ones, but we also need deterrence. We have to take road safety and driver behaviour seriously, and do everything we can across the spectrum, from the point at which people start offending behaviour in a car to the final catastrophic effect of a terrible accident.

I have been trying to raise the issue of 12 points in various ways for several years, often with the support of Brake. Transport Ministers told me to speak to Justice Ministers, who told me to talk to the Sentencing Council, which told me to go back and speak to Transport

12 May 2014 : Column 473

Ministers. I am therefore relieved to have a place in which to raise this issue, although I accept—given what the Minister said—that the issue will not be solved in its entirety. I have spoken to magistrates and the Institute of Advanced Motorists about this very issue, and they are very concerned about it. The magistrates raised the issue of the difficulty of getting accurate information from the DVLA about the number of points that a driver has. Secondly, magistrates are concerned that there is no record of the pleas used. Although a driver cannot officially use the same plea of exceptional hardship, the magistrates have no way of knowing whether it has been used before. Thirdly, the magistrates worry about a lack of consistency. Different magistrates accept different pleas of exceptional hardship, so some drivers are allowed to keep their licence in some courts whereas others in other courts are not.

Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con): I am listening with great interest to the hon. Lady’s excellent speech, and I am very sympathetic to the important points that she makes. One other area she might want to consider is whether the police national computer, which records the previous convictions of everybody in England and Wales, should be enhanced so that exceptional circumstance pleas could be set out briefly in a document which would then be put before any court considering a fresh application.

Julie Hilling: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and important point. However we capture such information, it needs to be made available to magistrates, and that is an excellent suggestion.

I accept that the amendments would not solve all of the problems that I want to address of people driving with more than 12 points on their licences, of consistency of sentencing and of magistrates having the correct information. If the Minister will specifically commit to looking at the issue of 12 points and sentencing, I will not press my amendment to a vote.

Dr Huppert: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) who spoke so clearly on this issue. I agreed with much of what she said about this huge problem. It is astonishing how many people get off time after time. Some law firms even advertise their incredible success rates in achieving that, which we do not want to see.

There may be extenuating circumstances or special cases occasionally, but once someone has said they know they should be banned, and then makes a desperate plea, they should be more careful afterwards. It is not impossible to drive for quite a long time without breaking any rules or getting any points on your licence—some people have clean driving licences. Certainly if I had nine points, or even 12 points, I would try very hard indeed not to speed or drive dangerously. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the review.

I have a couple of pedantic points about the hon. Lady’s amendment, as I do not think it covers everything that it needs to. However, that is not the point for today. I hope that we can get the right changes that most of the House would want to see. I welcome the Government’s announcement of a review, and I hope that it will be

12 May 2014 : Column 474

a substantial review. I also hope that the Minister is successful in obtaining parliamentary time to ensure that the results of the review become law. A review will not solve the problem on its own.

I pay tribute to the work done by the CTC’s road justice campaign, which produced an excellent report called “Road Justice: the role of the police”—I know that the Minister has had some discussions with that organisation—which looked not only at the legal aspects, but at the role of the police and the prosecution. The law is not the only issue. Too often, especially when pedestrians or cyclists are the victims of collisions, the police do not investigate sufficiently to allow charges to be brought. In several cases, people have come to my surgery having been involved in a collision in which someone else behaved very dangerously and the police simply were not interested in doing the basic groundwork, such as taking photographs of the scene at the time. There is very little point us getting the law right if the police do not investigate and prosecutors do not take action. I know that the Minister is not responsible for the police, but I hope the review will look more broadly at the issue to ensure that its proposals will make a difference.

The campaign has had some 12,000 signatures, so we need some action in response. Some of the cases are astonishing. In one case, a gentleman had been drinking and smoking cannabis and then was speeding, with his girlfriend riding pillion, and crashed and killed a pedestrian. He had 45 previous traffic offences but apparently there was not enough evidence to charge him with causing death by dangerous driving, even though there was a clear cause of death—dangerous driving—and he had a long track record. He did get 18 months in jail, but the fact that prosecutors did not even feel able to bring a charge of death by dangerous driving is a problem.

Karl Turner: Prosecutions are made on whether there is enough evidence to bring the charge and, secondly, whether it is in the public interest. I do not mean to criticise the hon. Gentleman, but it may be a little unfair to say that a prosecution for dangerous driving should have been brought in that particular case. Perhaps there was good reason why it was not.

Dr Huppert: The hon. Gentleman is right: I have not been through all the court transcripts in that case. But it is not an isolated case. It is a similar story in literally hundreds of cases—we have heard some today and many others have been collected in various places. I am sure he is not trying to suggest that he would agree with the action taken in every one of those cases.

One problem—and having spoken with many people about this, I cannot see an easy resolution to it—is that juries are often not prepared to convict on offences that perhaps they should be. Prosecutors can have a tendency to low-ball the charge to ensure a conviction. I hope that the review will address that issue, because none of us want to see charges being brought that juries feel are simply too serious to convict.

Susan Elan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are also looking for a cultural change here? In the same way that the present generation does not talk about “having a drink for the road” as might have

12 May 2014 : Column 475

happened 30 or 40 years ago, we seek a cultural change in attitudes to the offences for which people should serve prison terms.

Dr Huppert: I think we have seen a cultural change. The sentencing aspect is a very small part of that, as I am sure the hon. Lady would agree. The success of the drink-driving law is not the number of people prosecuted: it is the number of people who do not drink and drive. We need a cultural change that suggests that dangerous behaviour, whether it is driving too fast or cutting people up, is simply not acceptable.

We are seeing other changes that are making driving safer, such as the introduction of 20 mph speed limits. That is happening very successfully in my constituency in Cambridge, where we are seeing some driver behaviour changes, but it is still early days. The changes will start to get across the idea that driving or travelling in any form of transport carries a risk of doing incredibly serious harm to other people.

6.30 pm

I am sure that for many Members, the most dangerous activity that we do—the thing that has the most chance of killing another person—is driving. The vast majority of us will never kill anyone, but it is still a risk. So sensible speed limits and the enforcement of them, as well as the sanctions available in the extreme cases, are helpful. What we want to avoid is sanctioning people when there is a death or serious injury; we want to change behaviour. Drink-driving is not acceptable, regardless of whether or not it ends up killing somebody. The risk is simply too large. There is largely agreement about that and considerable expectation from the House that the Ministers’ review will make a large difference. That will help drivers to be safer on the roads. It will reduce collisions and make pedestrians and cyclists a lot safer, which I welcome.

I turn briefly to new clause 10 about the term of imprisonment for the murder of a police or prison officer. When the Minister winds up, I would be grateful if he could clarify the role of judicial discretion in this area. It is always helpful for us to set out what the base should be, but I would like to hear confirmation from him that he believes in the principle of judicial discretion and that judges will be able to look at the details of almost any offence.

Jeremy Wright: With the leave of the House, I shall try to respond to some of the points made in the debate which, as we came to expect in the course of Committee, was instructive and well balanced. I start with the remarks of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who made his case for new clause 22. He kindly indicated that he has no objection to new clause 14, which I welcome, and he made it clear that he has little objection to some of the other measures in this group, and I am grateful for that.

As I said in my earlier remarks, we intend to consider a number of aspects of the criminal law in connection with driving offences in the course of the review that I described. I can certainly undertake to the hon. Gentleman that the issue of driving while disqualified, particularly where it involves repeat offending, which is the type of offending highly likely to lead to sentencing at the top end of the scale, whatever that scale may look like in the

12 May 2014 : Column 476

future, is something that we are highly likely to want to consider as part of the review. I am sure he will maintain his case for the inclusion of that.

The difference between the circumstances we are considering in relation to new clause 14 and the circumstances we are considering in relation to new clause 22 was conveyed very movingly, as we have heard before, by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). New clause 14 is designed to address what we perceive to be some egregious cases in which sentencing powers were not adequate. It was clear to us from those cases that we should plug that gap in the sentencing regime. There are other questions that we have to ask about driving offences and how those offences are punished, which are about whether we have pitched properly the sentencing powers of the judiciary. But we have not yet had the opportunity to consider in detail the implications of the change set out in new clause 22, and I doubt very much that the hon. Gentleman has, either.

Mr Slaughter: With all due respect to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), the tragic case of Clare and Ross Simons that he described was a very serious case of causing death by dangerous driving. Even though the driver was disqualified, it was not a case of disqualified driving. It would not in any way be affected by new clause 14. The Minister has made the case against himself. It is clear why new clause 22 has been canvassed over a long period by practitioners, the Magistrates Association and others. There is an overwhelming case for increasing that nugatory summary only sentence. The position is far more complicated, as shown by some of the tensions that have come out in the debate, which is why new clause 14 is a little precipitate, even if it is going in the right direction. Will the Minister give a clear undertaking that there will be an increase in the sentence for driving while disqualified? If not, we will press the new clause to the vote this evening.

Jeremy Wright: I will come back to the point about how much we know about the implications of new clause 22. To deal with the case of specific examples, the point that I am making in relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said is that where it is brought to our attention that there are particular gaps in the sentencing regime, it is appropriate that we look very carefully at those. The case that precipitated the decision to table new clause 14 was the case of Mr Stock, who was killed in precisely the circumstances that new clause 14 would address.

It is important that when such cases are brought to our attention, we look carefully at whether there is a gap in the law, and we then look at how that gap might best be remedied and what the consequences of doing so might be. The reason that we did not respond immediately to such cases, and the reason that I did not respond to the Back-Bench debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred by saying straight away, “Yes, of course, we will change the law immediately and we will do so in the following way,” is that it is important to consider all the ramifications of making changes.

We have had the opportunity to do that in relation to what we now propose as new clause 14. We have a good idea, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of how many cases might be affected, and what effect that would have

12 May 2014 : Column 477

on the work load of the Crown court and of the Prison Service. I wonder whether he has any idea what the ramifications for the Court Service or for the Prison Service would be of the change that would be made by new clause 22. That does not mean to say that after we have considered those ramifications properly and carefully, we would not come to the conclusion that it is the right thing to do, but we are not going to do so today, for the reasons that I have set out.

If the hon. Gentleman reflects, and given that he hopes to be in government himself in less than a year—[Interruption.] I am not saying that he will, just that he hopes to. If that eventuality ever came to pass, I do not think he would wish to make policy any differently from the way I am suggesting we should do so. If that is right, I cannot, as he would understand, accept new clause 22 today. I have gone as far as I think I sensibly can, which is to say that it will certainly form part of the review that we intend to undertake, and if we conclude as a result of the review that it is the right thing to do, we shall do it.

Mr Slaughter: I think the Minister is playing with me a little. I have used the best evidence I can and as I said, I have spoken to practitioners and to the Magistrates Association about the matter. I am advised that the clause is likely to affect only a small minority of cases, which are the recidivist cases. The Minister has access to that degree of detail and that information. Perhaps he could tell us how many cases he thinks would be affected.

Jeremy Wright: As I have tried to indicate to the hon. Gentleman, I would want to look at all those things. He is right—I do not know. We have to look at the matter carefully and I am sure he would want us to do that. Between the point at which he decided to table new clause 22 and this debate taking place, there has not been an opportunity to do that work, which we would want to do. He is welcome to continue looking a gift horse in the mouth if he so wishes, but what I am saying to him, I hope very clearly, is that we are certainly not shutting the door on what he is proposing, but neither are we going to accept it today without doing the proper work. No responsible Government could do otherwise. He may or may not want to be part of a responsible Government, and if it is not a responsible Government, he may want to do things differently, but that is the way we do things for as long as we are in government.

Let me move on to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood. Again, he spoke movingly, as he has before, of justice for Ross and Clare Simons. He also made the case for including in the review the issues of death by dangerous driving by those who are disqualified, and we will certainly consider that matter also.

The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) made, as she has done before, a good case in relation to those who have multiple points on their licence and are somehow not yet disqualified. She is right to be concerned about that, as are we. We would want to consider that matter, too, at greater length. There is, as she knows and as I have said to her before, an issue in relation to how much we can sensibly trespass on judicial discretion. In

12 May 2014 : Column 478

each and every case a bench of magistrates would have to have concluded that the exceptional hardship case was made out, such that they thought it appropriate not to disqualify in those cases. There will always be exceptional cases, but her argument is that those cases should, indeed, be exceptional; they should not be regular, and I have a good deal of sympathy for that view. The specific point around exceptional hardship claims—

Julie Hilling: Does the Minister therefore think that perhaps a stronger direction should be given to magistrates on what should be exceptional hardship?

Jeremy Wright: I would be wary of doing that, but we can look at how we ensure that magistrates are doing all necessary due diligence on the nature of past exceptional hardship claims, perhaps before other benches. That was the hon. Lady’s second point that I was just coming on to. There is something in that. We need to consider how to ensure that benches take the opportunity to look carefully at what has been said to their brethren in other cases involving the same defendant, who may be running the same argument on exceptional hardship multiple times and continually avoiding disqualification. We will need to look carefully at that.

That does not mean that running the same argument cannot necessarily amount to exceptional hardship more than once—again, that is a matter for each bench to determine—but they should do so, as she says, with their eyes open and in possession of all the relevant facts. We will look at whether there are ways in which we can ensure that they do more to get those facts. However, it is not the case that they do not have access to those facts now. The DVLA already retains the information on whether an exceptional hardship claim has been made by the same defendant in a previous case. It is there to be looked at, but further inquiries may then be necessary to find out exactly what was said in the making of that exceptional hardship claim. We will take that away and look at it. As I have already said, there is a good case for including in the review the hon. Lady’s point about multiple points on a licence and the totting-up offences.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) made a number of points around the vulnerability of cyclists, with which, of course, I agree. We must always be conscious of that, not just in the Ministry of Justice but in other Departments too, as I know colleagues in the Department for Transport in particular are. He is right to say that this is not simply about sanctions, but also about changing behaviour. He will recognise that in the Ministry of Justice we are pretty much all about sanctions, so there is a limited amount that can be done by this Department, but certainly in conjunction with other Departments there may be a great deal more that can be done. He will understand, too, that the review will be into the penalties available to the judiciary under the criminal law. It will not, of course, sensibly be able to reach wider than that, although he will wish to take advantage of his opportunities to make submissions to it none the less.

My hon. Friend will recognise that new clause 10 deals with the starting point for decisions on the appropriate tariff for a life sentence. We think it appropriate for the reasons that I set out earlier that the starting point for murders of police officers and prison officers should be

12 May 2014 : Column 479

a whole life tariff, but sentencing judges can move up or down from that starting point as they think fit, and that applies in both directions. If one starts with the murder of a police officer and believes for particular reasons that it is appropriate to go below a whole life tariff, the sentencing judge can do that, and will want to set out why they choose to do that. I anticipate, following this change, that that will be very much the exception, and that as a matter of course, those who are sentenced for murder of a police or prison officer in the performance of their duties should expect to receive a whole life tariff. That is the purpose of this change. But the reason I say that it operates in both directions is that if somebody were to be convicted of murder, not necessarily of a police or prison officer attracting a whole life tariff starting point but a lower starting point, that may still result in a whole life tariff if the judge thought it appropriate to revise that sentence upwards from the starting point. I hope that is helpful to my hon. Friend. With those remarks, again I invite the House to support the Government new clauses, and not the Opposition’s new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 14 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

Penalty for driving while disqualified

‘(1) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences under the Traffic Acts) in the entry relating to the offence of obtaining licence, or driving, while disqualified, section 103(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988—

(a) in column 3 leave out “6 months” and insert “12 months”;

(b) in column 2 below “(c) On indictment, in Scotland”, insert “(d) On indictment, in England and Wales”; and

(c) in column 3 below “(c) 12 months or a fine or both” insert “(d) 2 years or a fine or both”.

(2) In relation to an offence committed before section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference to 12 months is to be read as reference to six months.

(3) The amendment made by this section applies only in relation to an offence committed on or after the day on which it comes into force.’.

Makes the offence of driving while disqualified triable either way, with a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment for conviction on indictment.

—

(Mr Slaughter.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided:

Ayes 196, Noes 291.

Division No. 270]

[

6.44 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob

Alexander, Heidi

Ali, Rushanara

Allen, Mr Graham

Ashworth, Jonathan

Austin, Ian

Bailey, Mr Adrian

Bain, Mr William

Balls, rh Ed

Barron, rh Kevin

Bayley, Hugh

Beckett, rh Margaret

Benn, rh Hilary

Benton, Mr Joe

Betts, Mr Clive

Blackman-Woods, Roberta

Blears, rh Hazel

Blomfield, Paul

Blunkett, rh Mr David

Brennan, Kevin

Brown, Lyn

Brown, rh Mr Nicholas

Brown, Mr Russell

Buck, Ms Karen

Burden, Richard

Byrne, rh Mr Liam

Campbell, rh Mr Alan

Campbell, Mr Ronnie

Caton, Martin

Champion, Sarah

Chapman, Jenny

Clark, Katy

Clarke, rh Mr Tom

Clwyd, rh Ann

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ann

Connarty, Michael

Cooper, Rosie

Cooper, rh Yvette

Corbyn, Jeremy

Creagh, Mary

Creasy, Stella

Cruddas, Jon

Cryer, John

Cunningham, Alex

Cunningham, Mr Jim

Cunningham, Sir Tony

Dakin, Nic

Danczuk, Simon

Davies, Geraint

De Piero, Gloria

Denham, rh Mr John

Dobson, rh Frank

Docherty, Thomas

Donohoe, Mr Brian H.

Doran, Mr Frank

Doughty, Stephen

Dowd, Jim

Doyle, Gemma

Dromey, Jack

Durkan, Mark

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eagle, Maria

Elliott, Julie

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Engel, Natascha

Esterson, Bill

Evans, Chris

Field, rh Mr Frank

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Flello, Robert

Flynn, Paul

Fovargue, Yvonne

Francis, Dr Hywel

Gapes, Mike

Glass, Pat

Glindon, Mrs Mary

Godsiff, Mr Roger

Goodman, Helen

Greatrex, Tom

Green, Kate

Greenwood, Lilian

Griffith, Nia

Hain, rh Mr Peter

Hamilton, Mr David

Hamilton, Fabian

Hanson, rh Mr David

Harris, Mr Tom

Havard, Mr Dai

Healey, rh John

Hendrick, Mark

Hepburn, Mr Stephen

Hermon, Lady

Heyes, David

Hillier, Meg

Hilling, Julie

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon

Hood, Mr Jim

Hopkins, Kelvin

Howarth, rh Mr George

Hunt, Tristram

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Jackson, Glenda

James, Mrs Siân C.

Jamieson, Cathy

Jarvis, Dan

Johnson, rh Alan

Johnson, Diana

Jones, Graham

Jones, Helen

Jones, Mr Kevan

Kane, Mike

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Keeley, Barbara

Kendall, Liz

Khan, rh Sadiq

Lavery, Ian

Lazarowicz, Mark

Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma

Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn

Lucas, Caroline

Lucas, Ian

Mactaggart, Fiona

Mahmood, Shabana

Malhotra, Seema

Marsden, Mr Gordon

McCabe, Steve

McCann, Mr Michael

McCarthy, Kerry

McClymont, Gregg

McDonagh, Siobhain

McDonald, Andy

McDonnell, John

McGovern, Alison

McGovern, Jim

McGuire, rh Mrs Anne

McKechin, Ann

McKenzie, Mr Iain

McKinnell, Catherine

Meacher, rh Mr Michael

Mearns, Ian

Miller, Andrew

Mitchell, Austin

Moon, Mrs Madeleine

Morden, Jessica

Morris, Grahame M.

(Easington)

Munn, Meg

Murphy, rh Paul

Murray, Ian

Nandy, Lisa

O'Donnell, Fiona

Onwurah, Chi

Osborne, Sandra

Pound, Stephen

Qureshi, Yasmin

Raynsford, rh Mr Nick

Reed, Mr Jamie

Reed, Mr Steve

Reeves, Rachel

Robertson, John

Robinson, Mr Geoffrey

Ruane, Chris

Ruddock, rh Dame Joan

Sawford, Andy

Seabeck, Alison

Sharma, Mr Virendra

Sheerman, Mr Barry

Shuker, Gavin

Skinner, Mr Dennis

Slaughter, Mr Andy

Smith, Angela

Smith, Nick

Smith, Owen

Spellar, rh Mr John

Straw, rh Mr Jack

Stringer, Graham

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Tami, Mark

Thomas, Mr Gareth

Timms, rh Stephen

Turner, Karl

Twigg, Derek

Twigg, Stephen

Umunna, Mr Chuka

Vaz, Valerie

Watts, Mr Dave

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Williams, Hywel

Williamson, Chris

Wilson, Phil

Winnick, Mr David

Winterton, rh Ms Rosie

Woodcock, John

Wright, David

Wright, Mr Iain

Tellers for the Ayes:

Susan Elan Jones

and

Tom Blenkinsop

NOES

Adams, Nigel

Afriyie, Adam

Aldous, Peter

Alexander, rh Danny

Amess, Mr David

Andrew, Stuart

Arbuthnot, rh Mr James

Bacon, Mr Richard

Baker, Norman

Baker, Steve

Baldry, rh Sir Tony

Baldwin, Harriett

Barclay, Stephen

Barwell, Gavin

Bebb, Guto

Beith, rh Sir Alan

Bellingham, Mr Henry

Benyon, Richard

Beresford, Sir Paul

Berry, Jake

Bingham, Andrew

Binley, Mr Brian

Blackwood, Nicola

Blunt, Crispin

Boles, Nick

Bone, Mr Peter

Bradley, Karen

Brady, Mr Graham

Brake, rh Tom

Bray, Angie

Brazier, Mr Julian

Bridgen, Andrew

Brine, Steve

Brokenshire, James

Brooke, Annette

Browne, Mr Jeremy

Bruce, Fiona

Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm

Buckland, Mr Robert

Burns, rh Mr Simon

Burstow, rh Paul

Burt, Lorely

Byles, Dan

Cable, rh Vince

Cairns, Alun

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies

Carmichael, Neil

Carswell, Mr Douglas

Cash, Mr William

Chishti, Rehman

Clark, rh Greg

Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth

Clegg, rh Mr Nick

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coffey, Dr Thérèse

Collins, Damian

Colvile, Oliver

Cox, Mr Geoffrey

Crockart, Mike

Davey, rh Mr Edward

Davies, David T. C.

(Monmouth)

de Bois, Nick

Dinenage, Caroline

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan

Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Drax, Richard

Duddridge, James

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Ellis, Michael

Ellison, Jane

Ellwood, Mr Tobias

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Jonathan

Evans, Mr Nigel

Evennett, Mr David

Fabricant, Michael

Fallon, rh Michael

Farron, Tim

Featherstone, Lynne

Field, Mark

Foster, rh Mr Don

Fox, rh Dr Liam

Francois, rh Mr Mark

Freeman, George

Freer, Mike

Fullbrook, Lorraine

Fuller, Richard

Garnier, Sir Edward

Gauke, Mr David

Gibb, Mr Nick

Gilbert, Stephen

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl

Glen, John

Goldsmith, Zac

Goodwill, Mr Robert

Graham, Richard

Gray, Mr James

Green, rh Damian

Grieve, rh Mr Dominic

Gummer, Ben

Gyimah, Mr Sam

Halfon, Robert

Hames, Duncan

Hammond, Stephen

Hancock, Matthew

Hands, rh Greg

Harper, Mr Mark

Harrington, Richard

Harris, Rebecca

Harvey, Sir Nick

Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan

Hayes, rh Mr John

Heald, Oliver

Heath, Mr David

Heaton-Harris, Chris

Hemming, John

Henderson, Gordon

Hendry, Charles

Herbert, rh Nick

Hinds, Damian

Hoban, Mr Mark

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Holloway, Mr Adam

Hopkins, Kris

Horwood, Martin

Howarth, Sir Gerald

Howell, John

Hughes, rh Simon

Huppert, Dr Julian

Hurd, Mr Nick

Jackson, Mr Stewart

James, Margot

Javid, rh Sajid

Jenkin, Mr Bernard

Johnson, Gareth

Johnson, Joseph

Jones, Andrew

Jones, rh Mr David

Jones, Mr Marcus

Kawczynski, Daniel

Kelly, Chris

Kennedy, rh Mr Charles

Kirby, Simon

Knight, rh Sir Greg

Kwarteng, Kwasi

Lamb, Norman

Lansley, rh Mr Andrew

Latham, Pauline

Laws, rh Mr David

Leadsom, Andrea

Lee, Dr Phillip

Leech, Mr John

Lefroy, Jeremy

Leigh, Sir Edward

Leslie, Charlotte

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver

Lewis, Brandon

Lewis, Dr Julian

Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian

Lidington, rh Mr David

Lilley, rh Mr Peter

Lloyd, Stephen

Lopresti, Jack

Loughton, Tim

Luff, Sir Peter

Lumley, Karen

Main, Mrs Anne

Maude, rh Mr Francis

May, rh Mrs Theresa

Maynard, Paul

McCartney, Jason

McCartney, Karl

McIntosh, Miss Anne

McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick

McPartland, Stephen

McVey, rh Esther

Menzies, Mark

Metcalfe, Stephen

Miller, rh Maria

Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew

Mordaunt, Penny

Morgan, Nicky

Morris, Anne Marie

Morris, David

Morris, James

Mosley, Stephen

Mowat, David

Mundell, rh David

Munt, Tessa

Murray, Sheryll

Neill, Robert

Newton, Sarah

Nokes, Caroline

O'Brien, rh Mr Stephen

Offord, Dr Matthew

Ollerenshaw, Eric

Opperman, Guy

Paice, rh Sir James

Parish, Neil

Patel, Priti

Pawsey, Mark

Penning, rh Mike

Penrose, John

Percy, Andrew

Perry, Claire

Phillips, Stephen

Pickles, rh Mr Eric

Pincher, Christopher

Poulter, Dr Daniel

Prisk, Mr Mark

Pugh, John

Raab, Mr Dominic

Randall, rh Sir John

Reckless, Mark

Redwood, rh Mr John

Rees-Mogg, Jacob

Reevell, Simon

Reid, Mr Alan

Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm

Robertson, rh Hugh

Robertson, Mr Laurence

Rogerson, Dan

Rosindell, Andrew

Russell, Sir Bob

Rutley, David

Sanders, Mr Adrian

Sandys, Laura

Scott, Mr Lee

Selous, Andrew

Shapps, rh Grant

Sharma, Alok

Shelbrooke, Alec

Shepherd, Sir Richard

Simpson, Mr Keith

Smith, Chloe

Smith, Henry

Smith, Julian

Smith, Sir Robert

Soames, rh Nicholas

Soubry, Anna

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline

Stanley, rh Sir John

Stephenson, Andrew

Stevenson, John

Stewart, Bob

Stewart, Iain

Stewart, Rory

Streeter, Mr Gary

Stride, Mel

Stuart, Mr Graham

Sturdy, Julian

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond

Swire, rh Mr Hugo

Syms, Mr Robert

Tapsell, rh Sir Peter

Teather, Sarah

Thornton, Mike

Thurso, John

Tomlinson, Justin

Tredinnick, David

Turner, Mr Andrew

Uppal, Paul

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Vickers, Martin

Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa

Walker, Mr Charles

Walker, Mr Robin

Wallace, Mr Ben

Walter, Mr Robert

Weatherley, Mike

Webb, Steve

Wharton, James

Wheeler, Heather

White, Chris

Whittaker, Craig

Wiggin, Bill

Willetts, rh Mr David

Williams, Mr Mark

Williams, Roger

Williams, Stephen

Williamson, Gavin

Willott, Jenny

Wilson, Mr Rob

Wollaston, Dr Sarah

Wright, Jeremy

Wright, Simon

Yeo, Mr Tim

Young, rh Sir George

Zahawi, Nadhim

Tellers for the Noes:

Anne Milton

and

Amber Rudd

Question accordingly negatived.