Sir Jeremy Wright
MP for Kenilworth and Southam · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I applaud my right hon. Friend’s passion and clarity on this issue. On the subject of democratic accountability, he knows that if, as the hon.”
“I welcome the intent that the Secretary of State has set out this afternoon, and the urgency with which she will require the relevant companies to act.”
“The Electoral Commission has made no formal assessment of this. It would be a matter for Parliament to introduce such legal protections. It is prescribed in law that poll cards and ballot papers must be provided in English or Welsh, but there are no other prescribed language requirements relating to election materials.”
“We can all cynically speculate about the reasons why this sudden about-turn has taken place this week, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who spoke from the Front Bench, said earlier, it is our job to scrutinise this legislation and to ensure that whatever we put in place does justice to the determination o…”
“In today’s version of the amendment paper, for the first time, that amendment has disappeared and been replaced not with the detailed compromise that Intelligence and Security Committee members, who have been engaged with this process, have been working towards, along with many others, but with Government amendment 157.”
“As the House would expect, we engaged with that process as diligently as we could, with no partisan politics, in an effort to make good law in the pursuit of greater state transparency while preserving our national security equities. As the hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,601 lines we hold for Sir Jeremy Wright, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 73.
“That suggests that they will spend somewhere between three and four hours on each. That is not much latitude for further investigation. Amendment 48 proposes that the commissioner should notify a designated authority—the Secretary of State can choose the appropriate one—of an application for a certificate. That authority would then supply to the panel an advocate with the responsibility to raise arguments against the grant of the certificate, which the panel would not otherwise hear. I think that is important, because it would ensure that there was another participant in the panel process who could at least help the panel by prompting consideration of concerns, reservations or grounds for further inquiry before decisions were made. My amendment 49 is about what happens once a panel has reached its conclusion.”
“I accept that, under the Bill as it stands, a panel may hear from and question any other person beyond the person seeking the certificate and the relevant doctors, but as I have sought to address in amendment 47, as things stand those other persons will in all likelihood not know about the panel’s proceedings and therefore will not come forward of their own initiative with the evidence. The panel would have to go out and find them, and how exactly is it to do that? How does the panel know who may have relevant evidence to give, and with what resources will it seek them out? The position on what resources will be available more generally for the process under the Bill remains unclear, but the impact assessment suggests that panels will be expected to deal with two cases a day.”
“That is, by the way, a reference not to the tone of proceedings but to the presentation of both sides of an argument so that the tribunal can reach the right conclusion. That is what our judges and lawyers are used to. That matters here because this quasi-judicial stage in the process of seeking assistance to die is being offered as important reassurance that things will be done safely, but that reassurance cannot be offered if panels are asked to adopt a process for which they are ill-equipped. That is not a criticism of those who will sit on the panels.”
“Paragraph 6 of schedule 2 says: “Panels are to determine referrals in public”. That is the clear presumption, and it is welcome, but paragraph 6(2) says: “The chair of a panel may, at the request of the person to whom a referral relates, decide that the panel is to sit in private.” I can see nothing in the Bill about any grounds on which the panel chair may refuse such a request, so it will occasionally, or perhaps often, be the case that the panel will sit in private, and no one will know what it is doing. The next issue is the way a panel will go about making the judgments it needs to make, which brings me to amendment 48. As we all know, most judicial and quasi-judicial hearings in this country are conducted on an adversarial basis.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I think we can expect that the psychiatrist on the panel will subject the requirement on mental capacity, in particular, to some considerable professional scrutiny, but nobody on the panel, whatever their professional competence may be, is capable of doing the job properly if they do not have access to the necessary evidence, so we must make sure they do. The fact that the panel may sit in public is not a sufficient answer to the problem that I am raising. First, that is because there will be many panels considering many cases, and we cannot expect those who have evidence of coercion, for example, to watch the lists in case the person they know happens to appear in them—when, of course, they have no expectation that they will. Secondly, the panel will not sit in public in every case.”
“Presumably the advice to someone whose application for a certificate has been refused and who has new evidence to present would be to reapply to the commissioner, but what is someone who has new evidence to challenge the basis for an existing certificate to do? Judicial review is no help. That is about the soundness of the decision already taken, which will be assessed using the evidence already presented to the panel that took the original decision.”
“I certainly am, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am doing my best, I hope as briefly as I can, to explain these technical amendments in a hugely important Bill, in a part of the Bill that the promoter has advocated for because she believes it is a safeguard. I think it is important, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we establish whether it is such a safeguard, and if it can be improved, how it can be improved—but I entirely take your strictures on board and I will come as quickly as I can to a conclusion. This is not an equality of arms point—I accept that these are not opposing parties in the traditional sense—but it is really about the presentation of new evidence.”
“I am conscious of the confines of the Minister’s role in the process, but what assessment have the Government made of the capacity of a panel to investigate for itself anything that is not brought before it either by one of the relevant doctors or by the person seeking a certificate? The panel’s capacity to do so is surely important, if any issue that is not raised by either group is relevant to its consideration.”
“The Secretary of State knows that High Speed 2’s central purpose is to deliver economic growth, but she knows, too, that it is taking far longer and costing far more to deliver than anyone expected. Given that projects of the scale of HS2 require parliamentary approval, is it not important that Parliament has accurate estimates of how much the project will cost and how long it will take to deliver? Will she commission a properly independent and thorough review of why the budget for HS2 has increased so often and the timetable has expanded so often?”
“Although the Government should have volunteered to defend their position, I accept, having held ministerial responsibility for the prison estate, that they had no good options at this point. Does the Minister accept that the problem with what he is choosing to do is that the return to prison for breach of important licence conditions is there to be a deterrent, and if we reduce that deterrent, we run the risk of more people breaching licence conditions, which would make the overcrowding problem worse? If he chooses that path, will he consider increasing the deterrent effect by ensuring that, following a 28-day return to prison, there are other restrictions on a prisoner’s freedom, such as electronic tagging?”
“I think it would be fair to say that this is not the first Government who have disregarded this particular provision of the ministerial code, but may I put it to the Leader of the House that if the charge is that the Government, for their own calculated and tactical advantage, have breached the ministerial code by announcing something outside this Chamber, surely the person determining whether such a breach has occurred cannot be the leader of that Government? Is it not time to look again at the recommendations made by, among others, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, of which I was once a member, about how the decision maker as to whether the ministerial code has been breached should be the independent adviser on ministerial standards, not the Prime Minister?”
“Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, I observe that interventions are getting progressively longer. If those who want to speak are going to be able to speak, we will have to have shorter interventions.”
“I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. We will need to move to Front-Bench speeches at just before 10.30 am, so if colleagues can keep their speeches to around three minutes, we might get everybody in.”
“Before the hon. Gentleman gets on to any more churches, I gently pointed out to him that he is well over his three minutes. It is not a formal time limit, but I am trying to get everybody in.”
“I thank all hon. Members for their co-operation and self-discipline. I now call the Front-Bench speakers, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.”
“I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “different personal characteristics of an offender” and insert “an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort.””
“The relevance of that information is not just in forming a fuller picture of the offender to be sentenced, but in assisting a sentencer to know whether that offender is capable of carrying out aspects of a community order, including work in the community, which the sentencer may want to consider as a potential sentencing option. It is worth underlining of course that the ordering of a pre-sentence report—whatever it says when it is produced—does not bind the hands of a sentencer to do as it recommends, but in reality, without one a sentencer’s options are often more limited. That is why guidance on when to ask for a pre-sentence report matters.”
“Let me explain why I think that would be preferable. My starting point is that I do not believe all personal characteristics are inappropriate to consider in a sentencing decision. There is, of course, much more to be considered in a sentencing decision than simply information about the offender, particularly the seriousness of the offence and its consequences, but relevant information about the offender is needed as part of the process. It surely cannot be right, then, to prohibit the Sentencing Council from encouraging sentencers to find out more about some of the personal characteristics that are relevant in reaching a more informed and therefore better sentencing decision—for example, a physical or learning difficulty, or a brain injury from which an offender will not recover.”
“It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort, rather than the particular circumstances of that individual.” Despite that explanation in the explanatory notes, the Bill goes further than that by prohibiting the Sentencing Council from including in a sentencing guideline any “provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender.” That is what clause 1(2) says in inserting language into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. I think that language is significantly wider in impact than reference to membership of particular demographic cohorts—undesirably so, in my view. That is why I have tabled amendment 1, which would adopt the language used in the explanatory notes.”
“That is effectively the impact of amendment 4 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). That is why the Government are right to seek to exclude even from the process of asking for a pre-sentence report—let alone from passing sentence itself—the making of decisions based only on membership of such a group. That is after all what the Government have said this Bill is for. These groups are described in the explanatory notes to the Bill as “particular demographic cohorts”. Paragraph 8 says, “The Bill is intended to ensure that Sentencing Guidelines are drafted in such a way as to prevent differential treatment and maintain equality before the law.”
“Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), in her place, so I will not say unanimity—that an offender’s ethnicity, race, culture or faith are on their own not that sort of information and that the Sentencing Council was wrong to suggest that pre-sentence reports should be awarded on that basis. I would argue that is because, even if there may be points to make about the treatment or experience of members of the ethnic, faith or cultural group to which the offender in question happens to belong, what is relevant to the sentencing of that offender can only be the treatment or experience to which the particular offender has themselves been subject, not whether they have arisen in the cases of other members of the same group who are not before the court.”
“It is worthwhile at the outset of all debates on this Bill to restate that it is about pre-sentence reports that give information to sentencers that may be used in sentencing decisions, not about the passing of sentences themselves. Specifically, the Bill is about the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council to sentencers about the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report should normally be asked for, and about the sort of information about an offender which such a report may provide and which may be appropriate to consider and take into account before deciding on an appropriate sentence in that offender’s case. There has been broad agreement—I see the Mother of the House, the right hon.”
“What we are seeking to do here is respond to a very specific set of circumstances that have arisen as a result of a Sentencing Council decision. As he may have heard me say on Second Reading, I do not think that the Sentencing Council handled this well, and as a result we are having to do something that we would otherwise not have to do. Sentencing offenders is, in all circumstances, a difficult business. The fact that different offenders receive different sentences, even for the same offence, is not necessarily evidence of a defect in sentencing practice as a result of guidelines or otherwise, but is more likely a reflection of the reality that every case and every offender is different. We should not, I suggest, try to stop judges reaching the appropriate conclusion, assisted by Sentencing Council guidelines, in each case before them.”
“My hon. Friend makes a fair point in relation to offenders who hover on the border between community sentences and custodial sentences, but he will know that, in the Crown court at least, the majority of such offenders already have a pre-sentence report. Of course, there are also offenders who come before the courts for sentencing and it is blindingly obvious either that a custodial sentence will follow, or that neither a community sentence nor a custodial sentence is realistically in prospect, so I do not think it right to say that we should have a pre-sentence report in every case, but there is already in law a presumption that pre-sentence reports should be ordered unless it is unnecessary to do so.”
“Yes, I think the right hon. Lady is right that that is what the sentencing guidelines were aiming at, but I am afraid that the way in which they were phrased rather missed the mark, in my view. It is perfectly true to say that it is a good thing in most sentencing cases to get as much information as possible, but the sentencing guidelines have, as she will appreciate, particular influence on sentencers, who are obliged to follow them unless doing so is not in the interests of justice. The tone that is set by the Sentencing Council in the guidelines that it drafts gives a good indication to sentencers about the sorts of things that they ought to take into account in sentencing. As she heard me say—I think this is an important point to make—we are talking about the ordering of pre-sentence reports and not about sentencing itself.”
“I accept that the Minister is trying to give us clarity, so for the purposes of clarity is it the Government’s view that all personal characteristics can also be described as personal circumstances?”
“I take on board the Minister’s warning, and I am not sure whether this will make it any better. I think he is saying that the term demographic cohort is a subset of personal characteristics, but personal characteristics are not the same as personal circumstances. Is that right?”
“I think—in gratitude to all those who have spoken—that we have got to a place where the Minister has told the House that there is some territory, which at the moment is being described as “personal characteristics”, into which the sentencing guidelines may not trespass. That is not the same as specifically referring to someone’s personal circumstances, and is a broader area than the question of whether they are a member of a particular demographic group.”
“I know that the Minister will agree that part of the service that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) has done the House today is that he has given us all the opportunity to make a point that really should not need making, namely that incitement to violence against Members of Parliament is no more acceptable than incitement to violence against any other member of our society. The Minister is entirely right to be cautious about prejudicing an investigation into whether the criminal law has been broken, but does he agree that what we can and should say today is that artistic licence is not a defence to a breach of the criminal law?”
“Order. It will not have escaped anybody’s notice that this is a popular debate, so I remind all Members to continue to stand if they want to be called. The debate can run no later than 4.55 pm, which gives you about two and a half minutes each. I ask you to exercise some discipline, and we will get in as many Members as we can.”
“Order. Ideally, the hon. Gentleman would not sit there because there is no microphone and we are not picking him up. I am sure the hon. Lady heard him and can respond.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for keeping to below two and a half minutes. However, not everybody has, so I am afraid we are going to have to go to sub two and a half minutes each if we are to get everybody in. I am loath to impose a formal time limit, so I ask colleagues to be as disciplined as they can.”
“I thank all Back-Bench colleagues for their co-operation, which is very much appreciated. We move on to the Front-Bench spokesmen, beginning with the Liberal Democrats.”
“I call the Minister. He has until 4.55 pm if he wants it, but if he is feeling generous, he may want to leave the Member in charge a couple of minutes to wind up.”
“I hope that point will also be noted by Ministers.”
“The Lord Chancellor has just given us, very helpfully, the list of matters that might be relevantly considered in a pre-sentence report. As she has said, however, one of the items on that list is “personal circumstances”, and that is what the Bill will remove from the Sentencing Council’s discretion. May I ask her why she has not used in the Bill the language that is included in the explanatory notes? Paragraph 8 states that the Bill will “prevent differential treatment… It does this by preventing the creation of a presumption regarding whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s membership of a particular demographic cohort”. That strikes me as a much narrower exclusion, and perhaps one better targeted at the problem that the Lord Chancellor has, in my view, rightly identified.”
“There is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater: not all personal characteristics should be left out of account in sentencing. I therefore ask Ministers to consider whether they can tighten the wording of clause 1(2) and (3) in particular. If they do so, I think that will avoid some rather arcane discussions about what can be properly described as personal circumstances and personal characteristics. However, I also think there is a danger of losing sight of the good work that the Sentencing Council does. I accept that this will not be a universally popular point of view, but I do think that the Sentencing Council adds something important to the sentencing process. It is important that we do not lose sight of that, or of the fact that the guideline that has been drafted is to replace substantially out-of-date guidance.”
“I mentioned in an intervention on the Lord Chancellor one specific concern, which I will not go over again in view of the time, but which we might return to in the later stages of the Bill. I think it is worth Ministers considering whether the use of the phrase “personal characteristics” is too broad. The Chair of the Justice Committee read out some of the other personal characteristics referred to in the draft guideline, which I do not think are anywhere near as controversial. We need to keep in mind that this is about a process in which a sentencer is given information about an offender in order to determine the appropriate sentence. I do not think that information about faith or ethnic origin would fall into the appropriate category, but information about health conditions or disabilities most certainly might.”
“I accept that the Sentencing Council was trying to do good, but in reality we do not address inequality by replacing it with a different inequality. The Sentencing Council has misjudged this issue, and the Government are entitled to come to that view too. It would have been better if legislation was not needed to resolve this issue, but the Sentencing Council, independent as we know it is, has clearly concluded that it will not do as the Lord Chancellor has asked, and that means that legislation is the only realistic alternative. However, I have concerns about the way in which the Government are going about this, particularly in the breadth of the drafting of the Bill.”
“Without that information, it can be very hard to apply the full range of sentencing options. That might be about whether a rehabilitation activity requirement or a programme requirement might be appropriate, or to assess capacity for unpaid work. If a sentencer does not order a pre-sentence report for a particular offender, they may not be able to impose some of the more demanding community sentences and may find themselves more likely to impose a custodial sentence as the only available and realistic alternative. It does matter whether a sentencer is being encouraged to order such a report for an offender, and any guideline suggesting that this should be more appropriate for someone of one ethnicity, faith or culture, as opposed to another, cannot be right.”
“It is important in this debate to be clear what we are talking about and what we are not. The part of the guideline produced by the Sentencing Council that led to this legislation relates to the circumstances in which a pre-sentence report is produced, not to the passing of a sentence itself. It is also important not to overstate the problem. As we have heard, there is already law that says there should be a pre-sentence report in almost all cases, unless it is unnecessary, and most offenders being considered for either a community or custodial sentence—in the Crown court, at least—already have one. The guidance that the Sentencing Council produces on the ordering of a pre-sentence report, though, does matter. That is because such a report is designed to give sentencers more information about the person they are sentencing.”
“The Secretary of State is taking extremely extensive powers for the Government, and they apply to what he describes in the Bill as “specified assets”. As far as I can see, they are not limited to blast furnaces or assets required for making virgin steel. Does he accept that he is leaving two hands on the tiller, when it comes to the operation of all the steelmaking companies to which the Bill may apply? In other words, he is saying that the Government can direct a company in relation to specified assets, but that company can do other things of its own initiative. Does he recognise that he is creating considerable legal complexity in the operation of those companies going forward? Why is that the right approach?”
“In those circumstances, there will be a further dispute about whether the relevant problem has arisen because of what the Government have told the company to do or because of something it has control over. As I said, the Secretary of State is enabling there to be two hands on the tiller, and that will store up headaches for the Government. I urge him, despite the fact that we have not had the chance to explore the matter today, to think very carefully about how the Government will protect themselves and the taxpayer from the oncoming complexities.”
“First, there is highly likely to be considerable controversy over whether a company in question is complying with a Government instruction. A company is likely to argue that point. As the Secretary of State pointed out, in respect of his particular concern we are dealing with a company that he does not trust and that he believes has acted in bad faith thus far. I have no reason to think, nor does the Secretary of State, that the company might not continue to do so. Secondly, the Secretary of State is making himself responsible for claims against the company that arise from specific instructions given to it by the Government. That is what the indemnity clause means.”
“The Secretary of State can give directions to ask and require a company to do pretty much anything that company could otherwise do, and if the company refuses to do it, the Government have powers to take control of assets, including powers to enter premises by force if necessary, and criminal penalties that can lead to imprisonment. These are very serious powers indeed, and I am afraid that this House is simply not being given the opportunity to scrutinise them as they require. They also look suspiciously, by the way, like nationalisation—so perhaps it would be easier to call this thing what it really is. Let me address one or two specifics before I finish. I hope that the Secretary of State, for whom I have huge respect, will think about—I think he has and will—some of the problems that this legislation will throw up.”
“The Secretary of State will have powers that apply to all steel manufacturers in England and Wales, not just to the particular company over which he has specific concern. There will no doubt be shivers running down the spine at Tata Steel as well, because the Bill applies to that company too. The Secretary of State can act, according to this Bill, in order to instruct those companies to deal in specific ways with what are described as “specified assets”. As I mentioned to him earlier, that does not limit the measure to blast furnaces or to anything else that is specifically required to generate virgin steel.”
“I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can accept that there is broad agreement in this place that we should take action to preserve virgin steelmaking capability in the UK, but quite frankly, it is not enough for this House just to agree that we should do something. It is our responsibility to look at the detail of what the Government are proposing and to decide whether it is properly targeted and appropriate for the task. There is not going to be a Committee stage or a Report stage in this Bill; that is what the clock tells us. This is our only opportunity to look at the detail of the Bill, and I am afraid that precious little of that has been done today. Let us have a look at what powers the Secretary of State is going to be given—by the end of today, as things will probably unfold.”
“I know that the Minister will join me in paying tribute to child sexual abuse specialist prosecutors, who deploy their considerable expertise to put together cases that can be based on complex and—as we have heard—very distressing evidence. Will the Minister make sure that a fair share of resources reach those prosecutors? She will recognise that just as the public expect child sexual abuse to be detected, they also expect it to be effectively prosecuted.”
“I welcome what I think the Secretary of State has announced about smaller luxury vehicle manufacturers such as Aston Martin, which is based in my constituency. I say “I think” because her statement says that “small…manufacturers will be exempt from these new measures.” I would be grateful if she clarified whether that refers to the existing mandate of measures, because she knows that that is what the smaller manufacturers in question have been lobbying to be exempted from, rather than the loosening she has announced today. If she can confirm that, and she is relying on an argument that we can treat smaller luxury manufacturers differently from everyone else, would she commend that argument to her colleague the Trade Secretary in the discussions on tariffs with the United States?”
“There are high levels of compliance with the UK’s political donation laws. The Electoral Commission currently has a range of powers to investigate and sanction suspected breaches of the law, but it has recommended making its enforcement powers more effective. It has also recommended increasing the maximum fine for breaches of the law from £20,000 to £500,000, which would ensure that the prospect of a fine acts as a more proportionate and credible deterrent.”