United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between Alex Chalk and Nick Thomas-Symonds

Friday 29th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Let me finish this section.

The Prime Minister went on:

“The EU has been clear that they come as a package. Bad faith by either side in negotiating the legal instruments that will deliver the future relationship laid out in the political declaration would be a breach of their legal obligations under the withdrawal agreement.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 826.]

How many times have I heard the Attorney General argue from the Dispatch Box, when we have spoken about the backstop and the future relationship, about the importance of reasonable endeavours and good faith in ensuring that we secure a future trade agreement in good time? Yet the Government have now decided to remove from our consideration in the motion today one of the documents against which we can judge bad faith.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The fact is that the withdrawal agreement would be accepted by the European Union—that is the first point. The second point is that it sorts out the implementation period and the money and, crucially, that it guarantees citizens’ rights for my constituents, EU nationals and Brits abroad. Which of those factors does the hon. Gentleman actually disagree with? The answer is none.

Human Rights in the UK

Debate between Alex Chalk and Nick Thomas-Symonds

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) for leading this debate.

I want to say a few words about the European convention on human rights, which I very much support. It is important to emphasise that the values that we see in the European convention are British values. Let us look, for example, at some of the rights contained within it: the right to life, which sounds fairly British to me; the right to avoid torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, article 3—we could probably sign up to that; the right not to be subject to slavery, article 4; the right to liberty and security, article 5; and the right to a fair trial and so on. All too often this debate has been tainted by a misunderstanding of what the actual rights are, as though they are a foreign import that do not reflect some of the cultural norms in our country, but nothing could be further from the truth. That is emphasised by the fact that, certainly in my experience in court, and I dare say in the experience of plenty of the other distinguished practitioners in this room today, it is overwhelmingly the case that any submission that is supported by, for the sake of argument, article 6 is often buttressed by domestic legislation as well.

In the criminal courts, if someone seeks to exclude evidence that is relied upon by the prosecution on the grounds that it would deny their client the right to a fair trial, it might be that, in tandem with invoking article 6, they will rely on section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Although the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was absolutely right to highlight individual cases where rights had been asserted in order to achieve a remedy, in the overwhelming majority of cases in our country the domestic legislation does perfectly well and may be supported to some extent. As I say, it is rare that the right itself would found the claim or application for a remedy.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right in his assessment of the criminal law. The one area where the Human Rights Act, in the sense of the incorporation of the ECHR into UK law, has made a big difference is in family law, particularly in rights to see children.

[Alex Chalk]

That is right, and there are areas where there has been a greater role for it. However, I want to slay the myth that people are routinely invoking Human Rights Act points to seek remedies that are not otherwise available in the legislation. There are examples of that, but they are by no means the norm. The convention is important because it provides an important safety net at a time particularly of national stress and crisis. We know that in the case of a terrorist atrocity, the cry immediately goes up that the state must act ever more robustly, often impinging upon individual liberties. Sometimes that is the right judgment to make, but equally it is critically important that any measures that the state proposes are viewed through the prism of what we see as keenly won liberties. It is not just a British phenomenon.

If one thinks of the United States in the second world war, one of the episodes of which it has now the most shame was the internment of Japanese Americans at a time of national stress. But our country is not immune to it. In the aftermath of September 11, there was legislation in the UK that people will remember: part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which was used by the then Government to effectively hold people without charge. That ultimately was challenged in the European Court of Human Rights and the Court ruled that that was unlawful because it breached article 5. Again, it seems that that provides a useful safety net.

Equalities Legislation: Guide Dogs

Debate between Alex Chalk and Nick Thomas-Symonds

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the enforcement of equalities legislation relating to guide dogs.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Enforcement of the laws we enact in this place matters. Without a robust and credible enforcement system, statutes risk becoming dead letters and the whole legislative process turns into a cosmetic exercise. There are practical steps we can take to support better enforcement of equalities legislation relating to guide dogs, and to improve the lives of people with disabilities.

I sought the debate because of the troubling experience of one of my constituents. The more I drilled into what he told me, the more I discovered that his experience was not isolated but symptomatic of a wider issue. My constituent, who prefers to remain nameless, is blind. In March, he tried to walk into a restaurant in Cheltenham with his guide dog, but the owner refused him entry, citing health and safety regulations. Those objections were entirely spurious. That was, prima facie, a clear breach of the Equality Act 2010.

A video of the incident was posted to the internet and carried on the GloucestershireLive website. The response was enormous, reflecting deep and proper concern about the injustice among people in my constituency and beyond. In fairness to the owner of the restaurant, I should say that the subsequent apology was suitably full and apparently sincere. It is important to note that neither I nor my constituent are calling for disproportionate retribution. In some ways, I am calling for quite the opposite: a system of process-driven enforcement, without the need for trial by social media.

My constituent’s story is not unusual. There are more than 5,000 active guide dog partnerships and approximately 2,000 assistance dogs of other varieties—dogs other than guide dogs—working in the UK. A survey of more than 1,000 assistance dog owners conducted by Guide Dogs in spring 2015 found that 75% had been refused access at some point because they had an assistance dog with them; 49%—nearly half—had been refused access in the past 12 months; and 37% had been refused access to a restaurant in the past year. Those are sobering statistics. It is hard to communicate the impact of that to the extent it deserves. People affected feel humiliated, dehumanised and rejected by society. One guide dog owner in Hove said he felt “useless and…inadequate”.

What is the law? The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person with a disability and requires service providers to make “reasonable adjustments” to accommodate people. Taxis and minicabs are often cited as the most frequent offenders for turning guide dog owners away, but such a breach by a taxi owner is a criminal offence, so police and local authorities are better able to take action. For non-criminal breaches of the Equality Act—where someone is refused entry to a café or restaurant, for example—the options are very different, and none of them is terribly attractive.

What are those options? The gov.uk website states:

“If you find it difficult to access a local service—for example, you cannot use a local takeaway or sandwich shop because the counter is too high—you should contact the organisation and let them know. It is in their interest to make sure everyone can use their service.”

In effect, the advice is, “Tell the perpetrator.” That is one option. The second is to issue proceedings in the county court. Not everyone will want to go through the hassle, expense and rigmarole of litigation in the county court. True, there is an equality advisory service, a legal advice helpline and help from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. None the less, given all the stress that comes with it, issuing legal proceedings is a daunting step, particularly where the breach is isolated. The third option is to report the breach on social media. However, in so doing, the victim loses control and may unleash a kind of digital vigilantism that they feel is disproportionate and inappropriate. The net result is that all too often justice is not done, and the options for the injured party are not palatable and not always appropriate.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I concur with what he says about the expense of litigation and the other options available. Is not raising awareness about the Equality Act 2010 a far better option in trying to ensure that the law is enforced?

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Raising awareness is crucial, but where efforts to raise awareness have been unsuccessful, we need a process that is proportionate, streamlined and victim centred to ensure that justice is done in a way that is not as hit-and-miss and patchy as it is now.

The other problem is that local authorities usually do not keep records. For example, in the case of an individual transgression on the door by an 18-year-old who has not been properly trained, one might understand that there are mitigating circumstances and that what is required is better training, but what if the same thing happens six months later? Surely, a record should be kept so that the excuses that were advanced first time around start to ring a little hollower.

The burden to enforce the Equality Act should pass to local authorities. They have the power to bring trading standards prosecutions for breach of copyright. If someone is selling dodgy DVDs on the Promenade in Cheltenham or perpetrating blue badge fraud, the local authority can intervene to take action, so why can it not bring proceedings for breach of the Equality Act as part of its licensing duties, thereby at least sharing the burden with the complainant? There should be a duty on local authorities to keep records of breaches so that those breaches can be put before the licensing committee when decisions are made about license grants or extensions. In that way, repeat offenders would be found out and such breaches could be taken into account when they applied for a new or extended licence.

The bottom line is that the Equality Act 2010 is a good piece of legislation, particularly in relation to disabled people, but it needs to be given more teeth if it is to fulfil its true potential.

Crown Prosecution Service: Funding

Debate between Alex Chalk and Nick Thomas-Symonds

Wednesday 11th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Gentleman draws attention, quite properly, to a very salient figure, but how can one be absolutely clear that that is to do with the Crown Prosecution Service as against the list office, the offence or the actions of the court? Why focus specifically on the CPS?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I hoped I had made it clear that this is about the performance of the system. The Conservative party, in one way or another, has been responsible for that system for seven years. Wherever in the system we isolate the cause, the Conservative party cannot escape blame for the performance of the system. That is the point I have been seeking to make.

When we talk about money, we have to be extremely careful about false economies, because things can seem as if they will save money. Let me give an example. I drew attention to the staffing budget, which I asked a specific written question about, and the Solicitor General was kind enough to answer very directly. It has been substantially reduced, but at the same time the Crown Prosecution Service is spending substantial amounts of money on agency staff. The response to my written question showed that in 2015-16, more than £7.8 million was spent on agency staff.

When we look at this in the round, we have to do so in two senses. First, of course this is not purely about money, but when money is cut from certain budgets, we have to be conscious of the effect on the system and whether false economies are causing problems further down the line or mean that we have to hire agency staff instead. The second point is about the whole system of which the Crown Prosecution Service is a part. I hope that all of us across this House want to see these measures improve. The responsibility is on the Government for these measures to improve. I am sure they accept that responsibility, but they have to act, and act quickly, because the performance of the system clearly needs to improve rapidly.