House of Lords (Exclusion of Hereditary Peers) Bill - 2nd reading – David Hanson.
David Hanson: The most expensive way to fund policing is through the mechanism of overtime, which is now at its highest-ever level. Would it not be sensible for the Government, rather than allowing hard-working police officers to work longer hours and cost the taxpayer more, to revisit the issue of police funding and revert to the figures that obtained in 2009-10, when Labour was in office?
David Hanson: What assessment he has made of the merits of the by-election system used to elect hereditary peers in the House of Lords.
David Hanson: It should be a priority. Forty-three hereditary peers just elected another hereditary peer to a seat in Parliament with 43 votes. That is nonsense on sticks. It should be scrapped and the Government should bring forward proposals.
David Hanson: If the Bill comes into effect in 2020 and we add three years, that is 2023. However, new clause 2(7) says: “Before the end of a period of one year beginning with 1 April 2024”. That means that the report may not be done until the end of March or April 2025. It may be published by the Government after that, and then there will be discussion. Therefore, even on the Minister’s...
David Hanson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point; it is one I had not thought of and I am grateful to him for bringing that to the Committee’s attention. If this saving is going to be made, it would be sensible to say whether it is made early on, because downstream, as my hon. Friend indicated, there will no doubt be a tapering. To be honest with the Committee, the Minister is only proposing new...
David Hanson: With respect to the Minister, in this case the Labour party is just asking for confirmation of what the Government want to do. They said that they want to save £1.3 billion, and in November 2015 said that they would give back £50 as premiums. That figure has changed. All I am asking is this: what is their estimate of the figure today? The Minister should be able to give an estimate...
David Hanson: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Henry.
David Hanson: Before the Minister sits down, can he give some further detail about how he intends to consult the Lord Chief Justice on making the regulations? How much notice will he give the Lord Chief Justice? Will the Lord Chief Justice’s comments be public? Will they be published so that other hon. Members can see them prior to any decision being taken? What happens if the Lord Chief Justice...
David Hanson: Will the Lord Chief Justice’s comments on the consultation be public? Will other people apart from those two parties be able to see both their comments?
David Hanson: In Committee, it is normal to take interventions. As a Minister I never refused an intervention in Committee. I hope the Minister will accept this intervention. He mentioned the increase in claims being made. How many of those claims does he expect are fraudulent? That is the key. If they are not fraudulent, they are genuine claims, whether they are through a claims management company or from...
David Hanson: The Minister still has not answered the question. How many of those additional claims does he suggest are fraudulent? If a claims management company takes forward a claim, there might be issues about the claims management company but, ultimately, if the claim is not correct it will not be approved. Therefore, how many of those extra claims are fraudulent? He needs to tell the Committee.
David Hanson: We heard a number times in the Justice Committee, when taking evidence from the Minister’s colleague, Lord Keen, the question of the word “fraudulent”. Can the Minister quantify for this Committee how many fraudulent claims he expects there to be on an annual basis?
David Hanson: Could the record show, Mr Stringer, that the Minister, like his colleague in the House of Lords, could not indicate how many claims per annum are fraudulent?
David Hanson: Just to be on the safe side, I am sponsored by the union USDAW, which has made representations to the Committee, and which I may speak on in due course.
David Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Government's news story, Around one million public sector workers to get pay rise, published on 24 July 2018, whether probation officers will receive a pay increase; and if he will make a statement.
David Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what financial penalties his Department plans to impose upon G4S following the Government takeover of HMP Birmingham.
David Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment his Department has made of ability of G4S to maintain Government contracts as a result of that company's contract to manage HMP Birmingham.
David Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans his Department has to return HMP Birmingham to a private sector body when it has reached the standards required by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons.
David Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the Government’s takeover of HMP Birmingham after the termination of the contractual arrangements with G4S.