John Hemming: I beg to move amendment 1, in schedule 17, page 147, line 10 at end insert—
John Hemming: I must make it clear I am not an antidisestablishmentarian, but I am also not a republican. I am very happy with the royal family and I think we should remain the United Kingdom—fully united. There is no question about that. However, if somebody were to imagine, for instance, that a Barack Obama was the president of the UK, I do not think it would be appropriate to deport them to Australia...
John Hemming: Yes, the UK Justice Ministry.
John Hemming: Did I? Sorry; I apologise to the Committee. Some people think that Barack Obama is our president, but I apologise for misreading the quote. It is the UK Justice Ministry that announced the abolition of the Act and then was embarrassed by having to say—
John Hemming: That is an interesting point, but the difficulty is the 1689 Bill of Rights, which offered them protections. The Ministry of Justice went on to say: “Section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 has not been repealed. The Ministry of Justice has removed this publication and is reviewing its contents.” We are considering two amendments—1 and 13—because, to be fair, the 1848 Act covers...
John Hemming: No, this is not about an open-door immigration policy, but I am merely saying that advocating having a republic should not be a criminal offence. It is a question of freedom of speech and people’s right to express their views. I disagree with those views, but people should have a right to express them without the fear of life imprisonment. The Guardian, owing to the legislation, did not...
John Hemming: I apologise for not having that information; I have only a short briefing note. One presumes, however, that the fact that the Act has not be used for more than 100 years means that it is of no further use, unless there is somebody who believes that we should resist people arguing for different constitutional structures in this country. Obviously these are probing amendments, but the Act does...
John Hemming: It is interesting that, under the Treason Felony Act, even to imagine the country as a republic would be an offence that could result in transportation. How could 20% of the country be transported to Australia? Would it have those people?
John Hemming: Does the hon. Gentleman find it particularly unusual that the offence is potentially a thought crime, in that imagining something is a crime? Is he aware of any other statute that legislates for a thought crime?
John Hemming: I have always supported nuclear power, as long as the fusion plant rests about 92 million miles away.
John Hemming: The question about clause 44 is this: what does it achieve? My understanding is that section 15A of the Social Security Act 1998 was brought in by statutory instrument in 2008. Obviously, it was not in force during either the first or second Blair Government, and it only came into force during the third Labour Government. If it is such an essential part of justice and transparency, the first...
John Hemming: I was reading something referring to section 15A.
John Hemming: And 15A—[ Interruption. ]
John Hemming: The note I have here says something different from what the hon. Gentleman says. However, whichever way it may be, it is argued—with some force—that the decision making in DWP is not good. The question we then have to ask is whether this process makes it any better or not. I will cite an example. I know of a case where somebody was sanctioned and they appealed it over a period of two...
John Hemming: The danger is that because the legislation looks only at part of the issue, it misdirects people. The issues that I have just mentioned are the misbehaviour of the Department in its handling of cases and the fact that someone can go two years without the cash.
John Hemming: No, because that does not achieve the objective. The objectives are improved decision making and rapid tribunal processes to ensure that if people are entitled to cash, they get it. As it stands, substantial systemic failings have essentially been ignored, so to that extent, the Opposition have not made the case that the legislation delivers what we wish to see.
John Hemming: I note that the hon. Member for Derby North is speaking in the Chamber at the moment, so it is not surprising that he is not here; it is difficult to be in two places at the same time. I thank the Minister for his comments on the cost of school holidays and on the fact that the Department is talking to travel agents. I have written a number of letters to the Department on the issue, but have...
John Hemming: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Westminster Hall debate on flexibility in staggering school terms, which was well attended. It is worth putting it on record that that has worked well in other countries, through terms being staggered on a regional basis. There remains a question about the co-ordination of the process. My view is that some sort of sub-regional strategy would be needed so...
John Hemming: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that justice needs to be seen to be done, but does he not accept that the Minister will be subject to judicial review, and article 5 of the European convention on human rights would mean that there would remain a duty if there were sufficient new evidence? It would merely be that a rehearing would not occur every time there was new evidence.
John Hemming: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will take steps to encourage local authorities to make longer term awards of discretionary housing payments for those people with disabilities.