Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords]

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Labour welcomes the principle of the Bill to maintain and enhance our legal co-operation across jurisdictions and to provide certainty and fairness for those involved in cross-border litigation. In a post-Brexit world, this is essential in attempting to maintain a prosperous economy, protecting our legal system, and providing for families and individual claimants engaged in cross-border disputes. International agreements provide clear and reciprocal mechanisms for dealing with international disputes. In doing so, they are crucial in protecting our country’s proud reputation as the world centre for resolving complex disputes, while offering us a competitive advantage in finance, business and trade.

However, this Bill, and the Chancellor talked about this, will also affect human stories. A wide range of family law issues can lead to cross-border disputes, including when one partner takes a child abroad and there is a disagreement about parenting arrangements—I have had such cases in my own surgeries—as well as when making arrangements for divorce in similar circumstances and, of course, issues relating to abduction and adoption. To keep our citizens safe, we must ensure we have robust international agreements so that justice can be done. Clause 1, which gives effect to international treaties in domestic law through primary legislation, is therefore both necessary and welcome. It is hoped that the provisions affecting the rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments overseas will play a crucial role in building a strong economy and provide some certainty for families in often desperately difficult circumstances.

Although we welcome the principle of the Bill as it currently stands, it must be noted that this is largely due to the successful efforts in the other place of my noble and learned Friend Lord Falconer and others to remove clause 2 of the Bill—[Laughter.] I am glad the Lord Chancellor finds that amusing. I will touch on that in due course, but, first, let us come to the specific points of the Bill on which we agree.

Clause 1 gives effect to key international conventions in our domestic law, which is welcomed on the Opposition Benches. The Lord Chancellor spoke of these issues. The 1996 Hague convention on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and co-operation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children is critical to improve the protection of children in cross-border disputes. The 2005 Hague convention on choice of court agreements aims to ensure the efficacy of exclusive choice of court agreements between parties to international commercial transactions. We support this incorporation into domestic law, as such clauses are commonly provided for in high-value commercial disputes.

The 2007 Hague convention on the international recovery of child support and other forms of family maintenance provides for the international recovery of child support and spousal maintenance. It is abundantly clear that this is a positive move, which will help to ensure that parents pay their fair share when providing for their children. We welcome these provisions and hope most certainly that we can offer that certainty in other areas of cross-jurisdictional disputes—I have just managed to tie my tongue in knots.

Labour will not, however, support any attempt by the Government to reintroduce clause 2, which would allow for the future agreements to be implemented via secondary legislation only. As we heard in the other place, this provision would be of profound constitutional significance. Labour is concerned that the reintroduction of clause 2 would represent an extension of the power of the Executive into uncharted territory, amending the convention that international legal agreements that change our domestic law can only be given force by an Act of Parliament.

[Robert Buckland]

I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Would he care to comment on the involvement of the noble Lord Falconer as a Minister in the passage of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which did precisely what the hon. Gentleman complains of with regard to the incorporation of important international agreements on mental capacity? I would be very interested in his view.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Lord Chancellor has an advantage over me; he has expertise in this particular area. I accept that we may have dealt with things quite differently in the past, but it is important that we recognise that this is a matter of international law.

I was rather surprised to hear the Lord Chancellor effectively rubbish the concerns of those in the other place, particularly given their comprehensive arguments. The House of Lords Constitution Committee said that this change would represent a

“significant new power that would change the way this type of international agreement is implemented in UK law and how Parliament scrutinises them.”

The House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee both considered whether the secondary legislating power should be granted, and both were very clear that it should not. The Constitution Committee stated:

“If the balance between the executive and Parliament is to be altered in respect of international agreements, it should be in favour of greater parliamentary scrutiny and not more executive power.”

As his lordship, Lord Mance—the chair of the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Private International Law and perhaps the pre-eminent expert in this area of law—told the other place:

“Opinion is almost universally against Clause 2. The two committees that have reported have categorically condemned it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 2020; Vol. 803, c. 2228.]

Lord Pannick, another pre-eminent constitutional lawyer, argued in the debate that there is

“no justification for allowing the law of this country to be changed by statutory instrument in this context without full parliamentary debate. That is because important policy decisions might arise in this context both on whether to implement an international agreement in domestic law and on the manner in which such an agreement is to be implemented.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 2020; Vol. 803, c. 2224.]

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee also offered a stern warning about the unprecedented nature of the constitutional change, saying:

“For the first time there will exist a general power to implement international agreements on private international law by statutory instrument, thereby obviating the need for an Act of Parliament. This will be so regardless of the nature or importance of the agreement.”

In its briefing, the Bar Council was also highly critical of this new constitutional grab, stating:

“The Bar Council is…somewhat concerned that the power in section 2”—

that is, clause 2—

“to proceed by delegated legislation is very broad. For instance, it enables the appropriate national authority…to make regulations ‘for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing any international agreement’”.

The power could extend to matters in our criminal law, such as increasing or, indeed, reducing the penalties for criminal offences.

To give effect to international treaties in domestic law is not a rubber-stamping exercise. The effect, implementation and enforcement of such provisions requires robust parliamentary debate; we must protect the parliamentary scrutiny of such important legal provisions at all costs. The Government have attempted to make arguments as to why the new constitutional measure would be necessary, but all have failed to convince. Their first argument was that the new provision would allow the Government to implement each new international agreement without unnecessary delay, yet there is no evidence to suggest that fast-track legislation is required. In the past, the implementation of international agreements has often taken years, and there is nothing to suggest that implementing them by primary legislation would cause any difficulties beyond the Government’s having to put legislation through normal parliamentary scrutiny.

The Government raised the 2007 Lugano convention, which deals with the jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments between members of the European Union. The Government’s argument appears to be that there may be only a short period during which to legislate to give effect to the Lugano provision at the end of the transition period. Of course, that is not an argument for developing the new executive power more generally. The Government have not considered providing for clause 2 only in relation to Lugano, which might be more amenable—why not? That question has already been posed this afternoon. The Lord Chancellor said that is the main reason that the Government want to have the delegated powers; if that is so, why does he not just put that on the face of the Bill and recognise the issues that have been raised in the other place?

The Government claimed that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 allows for sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. Once more, that argument does not carry much weight. As a result of clause 2, the Government would be able to give force to model law without being subject to the scrutiny mechanism under the 2010 Act. That Act does not allow for the amendment of treaties or the consideration of measures to implement treaties. It is a red herring and the argument has unravelled when subjected to expert scrutiny.

This is an issue of constitutional propriety for a Government with a reputation for constitutional vandalism. The Conservative peer Lord Garnier stated:

“Unquestionably, the provisions in Clause 2, which gave the Executive the extensive future law-making powers originally in the Bill, have been shown to be constitutionally awkward and unwelcome, by the Constitution Committee, the Delegated Powers Committee and contributors to these debates. When the Bill goes to the other place, I trust that the Government will not use their large majority there to restore the Bill to its original form.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2020; Vol. 804, c. 483.]

Unfortunately, we on the Labour Benches fear that that is the very intention of the Government, who on so many occasions have shown themselves to be keen to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

As Members of Parliament, we have a duty to tread with real care when reforming our constitution, especially when the Executive is empowered and the power of Parliament is undermined. There is no evidence before us as to why the reintroduction of clause 2 would be necessary or right; with that in mind, Labour will support the Bill as it currently stands but wholeheartedly oppose any attempts to reintroduce clause 2 as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I welcome the approach to the Bill that the Lord Chancellor has adopted and I support the Bill. I support it without hesitation, because it is necessary, but also with a measure of sadness, because I wish it were not necessary. It is a consequence of a decision that was taken that some of us continue to regret and is perhaps an example of the price that is paid in respect of an issue that some thought was technical and dry but that in fact affected people’s everyday lives and the prosperity of the business community of this country but was perhaps not given enough attention in the course of the debates that preceded our decision to leave the EU. Perhaps that caused us not to value enough the system of connections and regulation that we were party to.

The reality is that we are doing our level best—the Lord Chancellor and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) are doing precisely that—to put in place the best possible scheme that we can have and that is available to us when, at the end of the year, we leave the most comprehensive set of private international law agreements that exist. We just have to accept that that is the reality, but let us not kid ourselves that we will get any improvement: we will end up with something that is less good than we had and that we are leaving behind—ironically, when the Brussels IIa recast, particularly in its relation to the strengthening of the provisions in relation to jurisdiction-of-choice clauses, is something that Britain has succeeded in having changed and improved specifically to advance and protect the interests of the British-jurisdiction and English-law clauses that greatly advantage the City of London and our broader national financial services sector. I put that on the record as a matter of context and to get it off my chest, but it needs to be said, because it ought to influence the way and the speed with which we now move on this.

I welcome the fact that the Government have picked up, on this and the preceding measures, a number of the Justice Committee’s recommendations on how we might best deal with the situation that we find ourselves in. For example, bringing the Rome regulations on family and other matters, which did not require reciprocity, into domestic law, and implementing the Hague convention, as set out on the face of the Bill, are desirable. The ambition to join Lugano is, for reasons that we have already debated, very important. The Hague conventions are worthwhile but are not as good as what we had before, so moving to Lugano, which would be an improvement, would be a step forward.

I hope, too, that we swiftly deal with the other two conventions referred to in the helpful letter that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, sent to all Members of Parliament: the 2019 Singapore convention and the future Hague convention agreements. There has been some debate in the other place, particularly from Lord Mance, about which order they shall come in. On balance, I am persuaded by the evidence that we have heard over the years and the arguments made by the Law Society of England and Wales—I think the Law Society of Scotland finds itself in the same place—that the more important thing is not to have any gap in the recognition and enforcement of judgments and recognition of international public clauses. That is why the Law Society favours pressing ahead with entry to Lugano as soon as we can, rather than waiting for what may develop with the Hague arrangements. The Government are right not to delay in that regard; we must press ahead.

That is, of course, the means by which we should deal with the Italian torpedo. I mention it not because this is like when we were doing trials in long, boring fraud cases, and there was sometimes a bit of a side bet to make an unlikely comment in one’s closing speech to the jury. The truth is, as we all know, that the Italian torpedo—the delaying tactic of seeking to thwart an exclusive jurisdiction clause, very often operating in favour of the UK, by commencing unmeritorious and almost abusive proceedings in another jurisdiction, which would then hold up the process—has caused a problem in commercial matters and real hardship in many family law cases. Getting the family law issues right is particularly important. The Government’s objective of ensuring that, for example, the partner of a finished relationship is able to enforce her maintenance payments from the other partner, who may be in one of the EU or other contracting states, is critical for ordinary individuals—not just businesses. Having in place a means of protecting the English and Scots law jurisdiction clauses, which are very important for financial services contracts, is critical too.

It is perhaps not the time to go into this in detail, but when we get to Committee, may I ask Ministers to reflect on the matter of asymmetrical jurisdiction, which was raised by Lord Mance, who has massive experience in this field? I tend to agree with him on that, whereas I am not persuaded about the sequencing of Lugano and Hague. He referred to it in some detail in his speech in the Lords. I will not repeat what he said, as he is much more experienced than me, the Lord Chancellor and the Under-Secretary of State, who did not have the fortune—literally or otherwise—to practise in that field. Lord Mance’s wise words are important, because this issue relates to derivative swaps and other financial instruments, which, for reasons that he set out well, are of particular importance to the UK financial services sector. As things stand at the moment, the provisions in the Bill do not sufficiently address that.

That is a technical but important matter for our business interests that we ought perhaps to reflect on as the Bill makes progress in Committee.

The other thing I want to say at this stage is that while I know the Lord Chancellor wishes to be ambitious in scope, I am not saying that this is necessarily a Henry VIII power or that all wide-ranging powers to amend by delegation are always wrong. Lord Garnier, who has been referred to as a mutual friend of all those on this side of the House and elsewhere, put it rather well when he said—I paraphrase him—that essentially all parties when in opposition oppose clauses of this type, but all parties when in government make use of them. He said that he had done so himself, and I did so myself when I was a Minister. Those on the Treasury Bench have done so at various times, so it is not a question of haloes in that regard—

[Alex Cunningham]

But on this occasion, Lord Garnier was actually in support of the Opposition’s position.

[Sir Robert Neill]

He was indeed, and if the hon. Gentleman allows me to develop it, I will suggest a nuanced way around this. It is not to say that we should not have delegated powers, but that we should perhaps look again at the way in which they are cast. I do not think it would necessarily be needed to bring back clause 2, as it was before it was removed by the other House—and I understand Lord Chancellor’s point about not bringing in pre-emptive legislation—but there was some merit and a genuine concern to assist in the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) about putting the power on the face of the Bill with a provision to exercise it at such time as the application was approved. That might remove the sting from it.

I know that the Under-Secretary has examples of instances when delegated legislation is used to create criminal offences. Those of us who have much more experience in that field, as the Lord Chancellor and others have, know it happens. It is not an objection in principle, but it might be possible to redraw the provisions more tightly to make sure that that is not unduly widened. Perhaps there are things that can be done to speed up the process without bringing ourselves into what might be quite a significant conflict given the size of the majority by which clause 2 was rejected in the other place; I think it was 320 to 233, so it was not a marginal matter. I hope, therefore, if we are to ensure the swift passage of the Bill, which is the one thing that we absolutely must have for the sake of avoiding a lacuna on 31 December this year, perhaps some imagination can be given to how that potential difficulty with the other place might be overcome.

I hope that we will be able to proceed with the Bill swiftly. We do not perhaps always give sufficient value and attention to these matters. The status of our civil law and the status of private international law are not talked about enough—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

With the leave of the House, I will sum up on behalf of the Opposition.

When I was preparing my closing remarks, I thought I was following the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) and I was going to remind him that he has the privilege to represent what was my home town for a large part of my life. He also has the privilege of following in the footsteps of great MPs such as Ted Fletcher, who was himself an internationalist and would have been interested in today’s proceedings. He was a person who believed very much in action rather than words, and he put his life in the line of fire when he fought in the trenches in Spain against the fascists in the civil war. I am pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to Ted, the first MP I was honoured to knock doors for. He inspired me and I would never have been here if it had not been for him.

As I said in my opening speech, Labour recognises the importance of private international law, particularly in a post-Brexit setting. Without the framework that private international law provides, UK businesses, families and individuals would face greater difficulty in seeking to resolve conflicts arising from cross-border disputes. As we get closer to the new year and the great and growing uncertainty posed by Brexit, the need for a clear and fair framework to settle cross-border disputes becomes ever more urgent. Without this framework, businesses and individuals would face great uncertainty. That is why Labour fully supports clause 1, which gives effect in domestic law to three important international agreements to improve the protection of children involved in cross-border disputes, regulate court arrangements relating to high-value international transactions, and allow for the recovery of child support and spousal maintenance.

Not only will each of those three agreements make a significant and positive change to domestic law; they will be incorporated in domestic law in the proper way, by primary legislation debated before the House. That is why we support them. This is the exact opposite of what the original clause 2 sought to do, and it is regrettable that the Government seek to bring it back in Committee. The Lord Chancellor would be wise to take the counsel of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). They have outlined specific issues, and if the Government were to concentrate on those areas, they might find themselves with a little more support for their proposals. Also, the Government should do that because it would recognise the concerns of those in the other place. I hope that when the Minister winds up in a few minutes he addresses that good advice given by Members on his own side, because we know that clause 2 represents a very concerning extension of Executive power in any other circumstances, allowing the Government to bypass parliamentary scrutiny and implement private international law agreements by the back door by utilising statutory instruments. That would represent a dangerous break with past parliamentary practice, which so far requires all public international law treaties to be implemented by Act of Parliament. Instead, it would represent a permanent shift of power from Parliament to the Executive, with little reasoning provided for why such a shift is needed. Sadly, it appears that this shift is very much the approach of this Government and it must be challenged. That is why the Bill was amended in the other place. As we have heard, distinguished lawyers and constitutional experts across the political divide voted against the inclusion of this clause because it so offends the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty that requires proper scrutiny of international agreements before they have effect in domestic law.

When the Government were asked to explain the need for the powers contained in clause 2 they provided three basic arguments. I spoke of them in my opening speech, so suffice it to say now that not one of those arguments held under expert scrutiny in the other place.

It is not only those of us on the Labour Benches who have been far from convinced by the case put forward by the Government for the need for clause 2. As we have heard, when the Constitution Committee considered whether this legislative power should be granted, it made it clear it should not. The Committee went on to say:

“It is inappropriate for a whole category of international agreements to be made purely by delegated legislation”.

It went on to say that that is not only because it reduces parliamentary scrutiny but because

“Such an approach risks undermining legal certainty.”

Why would the Government seek to reintroduce clause 2 at a later stage in the Bill’s passage if each of the arguments for its inclusion have been shown to be false? The Government currently have a perfectly reasonable and necessary Bill, which I imagine would receive wide cross-party support; we have seen examples of that this afternoon.

In conclusion, as we leave what is arguably the world’s most comprehensive network of private international law agreements in the new year, it is vital that we have a framework in place that fills that void. Labour recognises that, and it is our collective responsibility to defend parliamentary scrutiny, irrespective of procedural ease or expediency. For that reason, we will support this Bill in its current form but will reject any attempts to reintroduce clause 2 or any other clause that allows for the implementation of international agreements in domestic law by secondary legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the tragic incidents that we have seen over recent months. She rightly highlights de-radicalisation programmes. Twenty-two trained imams are doing de-radicalisation programmes in our prisons, but those are not the only measures that we are introducing. We have increased our training for prison and probation officers to deal with terrorism and we are bringing in new national standards for managing terrorists on licence. We want more counter-terrorism specialist staff and we want more places in approved premises as a transition from prison to the community. In addition to that, counter-terrorism police funding is increased this year by £19 million.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

There was much discussion around the inadequacy of de-radicalisation work in prison during the Committee stage of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, both in evidence and in debate. We heard that these programmes are not entirely fit for purpose and not always readily available. Clearly, they need a good overhaul—perhaps even more so given the new, longer minimum sentences. The hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) certainly seems to agree with that. Sadly, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). rejected our amendment in Committee to undertake a review to examine the effectiveness and availability of de-radicalisation programmes in prison. Will today’s Minister accept that they do need to be improved and launch the review that is needed?

[Lucy Frazer]

We have increased the number of imams operating the de-radicalisation programmes. We are looked at, and looked towards, by others internationally in relation to the programmes that we operate. Of course, we continually evaluate the programmes that we operate within our prisons.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce]

In my view, it is important to ensure that service is recorded. Service can be made by someone who professionally serves notice and then registers that fact at court. At present, the process of service has to be evidenced before the divorce proceeding process continues any further. All I am asking is that we have the same regulations now.

Even the Law Society, which supports the broad principles of the Bill—to my regret, as I am a member—is supportive of both parties having the same minimum period, so this is a very serious point, which needs to be addressed. As it stands, the 20-week period starting on application is, I believe, defended by Ministers because it makes the process simple. However, in this Bill’s simplicity lies its harshness or, as the noble and learned Baroness Deech has said in another place, its brutality. The shock for many people of being divorced within six months will be hard enough. The shock of being divorced in little over six weeks would be wholly unjust.

The Lord Chancellor has said that he will work with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to address this point. I await the Minister’s reassurance on this, which will need to be very strong to counter my view that this amendment to protect vulnerable respondents needs to be on the face of the Bill.

I now turn briefly to amendments 3 and 5 and new clause 2. Amendments 3 and 5 would ensure that there are no discussions about financial settlements in the 20-week period— or ideally, a longer period if amendment 1 is passed—unless both parties agree, or there is an application to court for interim maintenance and financial injunctions. The point of these amendments is that they give a breathing space for the parties to dialogue. Sadly, there is no requirement for this in the Bill—a litigation- free period in which it is hoped the parties may take counsel and try to establish whether they could be reconciled.

New clause 2 would require the Government to report annually on the impact of this Bill on divorce applications and marriage support. It would require them to report to this place on the impact of the Bill and, importantly, on those who are vulnerable, whether financially or otherwise, including children, and, equally importantly, on the availability and take-up of counselling and support services for those involved in divorce proceedings across the country.

In conclusion, as I am sure colleagues will now be aware, I fundamentally oppose this Bill. It does not promote fairness or justice, as I have sought to explain. What is fair or just about someone being able to just walk swiftly away from their relationship responsibilities, especially if children are involved, with no dialogue and without being held to account? Nothing in this Bill will help to reduce the inherent pain of the ending of so many relationships—of the rejection, the loss, the severance of a relationship that started with so many high hopes. This is a sad day for this House and my saddest in 10 years here.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Put simply, Labour supports this Bill. It is in line with Labour party policy. It sends the right message, we believe, many years later than it should have arrived in this place.

We support reforming some of the archaic and outdated hoops that people have to jump through if they want their marriage to end. People who may never have sought or needed a divorce may not know that there is currently no such thing as a no-fault divorce and that one of the parties must be “to blame” for a relationship ending. They may not know that if there is no blame to be laid, people must spend two years separated before they can file for divorce. They may not know that if one of the parties objects to divorce, the other must remain married to them for five years. That is why we hope that Ministers will reject amendment 1. I will turn specifically to that soon.

Marriage is supposed to be a happy and special occasion where two people come together in front of their loved ones and commit themselves to each other, and then set up their lives together. But we would be naive to think that all marriages will last forever. People change and life changes. Something that may have once seemed perfect will not necessarily be that way forever. There is no reason why, in situations where there is no fault, two people should be forced into a hostile situation where they have to find blame, keeping them married for long periods and preventing them from moving on with their lives.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Of course what the hon. Gentleman says is entirely reasonable—that where there is no fault it is right that that should be acknowledged. Where there is fault, should that be acknowledged, or ignored or concealed, or what?

[Alex Cunningham]

I think that is a matter for the individuals involved. Adults who are embarking on divorce are supposedly mature people and they should be able to sort these things out for themselves. If they want to blame somebody for some reason, that is very much a matter for them.

It is right that this Parliament is taking action to bring divorce law into the 21st century and recognise that in many cases there is no blame—there is just no desire to be together any more. We should be facilitating peaceful endings of marriages where that is possible. I am pleased that this Bill makes excellent moves towards achieving that.

Yet the Opposition have identified several related matters that we felt needed to be heard and considered. From the list of amendments, I see that some Conservative Members also felt that some changes were needed. I plan to address these in turn. Amendment 1 would extend the minimum legal period for a divorce from the six months in the Bill to a year. Wo did not see what value or benefit this would provide; it would simply force two people together for longer than they need to be.

[Fiona Bruce]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman listened to my speech when I was talking about the opportunity for more time to discuss potential reconciliation.

[Alex Cunningham]

I think that when people embark on divorce proceedings, it is not because they have just changed their mind overnight—relationships break down over a long period and they get to that point. So extending the period anywhere beyond six months does not serve any great further purpose.

I know that it is up to the Government to defend their Bill, but we hope that Ministers will not give way on this issue. Amendment 1 is not within the spirit of the Bill, and it fails to recognise that, by the time a married couple reach the stage of deciding to file for a divorce, they have already made their decision. It is highly unlikely that they will change their minds simply because they have to wait longer for the divorce to be finalised. We are talking about adults—adults who were deemed to have the ability to consent to get married in the first place, and adults who still have the capacity to consent to end that marriage.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

What does the hon. Gentleman make of the surveys that show that up to 50% of people who divorce come to regret it? Does he think that they are merely deluded, or are those surveys wrong? What is his assessment of that?

[Alex Cunningham]

I will address that later in my speech, but I am in favour of greater support for people who want to see whether they can reconcile their relationship.

Let us not prolong the hurt and difficulty that people inevitably go through when they decide that their marriage is no longer what either of them wants. As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, a minimum period of six months provides

“an equality of approach that will no longer discriminate in favour of those couples who perhaps have the means and the wherewithal to either separate and live separately”—[Official Report, 8 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 97.]

We must take into consideration the impact of our decisions on people’s lives. I see no reason why six months would be too short a time for this process to take place. Dragging out the proceedings would not be fair to either party, and it certainly would not be fair on any children involved; we have a duty to take their welfare into consideration too. It would be infinitely better for children to have two parents who separated and divorced quickly and quietly, rather than those children enduring years of something that can be very traumatic and have a lasting impact on them and their future relationships.

On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said:

“We have all experienced in our surgeries those parents who continue to use their children as weapons in prosecuting a continuing war against their former partners. The removal of fault will not remove that entirely, but I am confident that it will certainly diminish it.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 113.]

He was right. Why should anyone’s children be used as weapons for years on end, causing more pain, distress and doubtless illness as well? Let us not delay proceedings even further. Let us acknowledge that, by the time a divorce has been filed, the parties have already made up their mind and should be allowed to dissolve their marriage without having the legal period extended to a year.

Amendments 3, 4 and 5 appear to be an attempt to frustrate the process of a speedy resolution to divorce proceedings. Amendments 3 and 5 would strengthen the hand of the person who has control of the financial resources in situations where there is financial abuse. Maybe I have missed something, but it seems to me that it would do nothing to help the party who does not have the financial upper hand. Financial settlements are needed as quickly as possible to enable a divorcing couple to live apart. If the intent is for divorcing couples to remain living together during the period of the divorce due to financial restrictions on one party preventing them from moving out, this would be ill-advised. It would not lead to some miraculous reconciliation, but will allow for even greater friction, and it would be counterproductive to the aims of the Bill to encourage amicable divorce and separation. The Law Society has said:

“There can be severe, sometimes irretrievable, financial prejudice to an applicant if final divorce is granted before a financial settlement is reached.”

It is important for discussions on financial settlements not to be delayed, which would only delay divorce proceedings and cause further hurt and frustration.

I turn to new clause 1. I do not think anyone can fail to agree that increased support for marriages is a good thing, but we need much more clarity on how it would work and how it would be funded. I certainly do not think it is something that could or should be made mandatory for couples who are petitioning for divorce. The availability of support for people who wished to access it would be welcome, and I am mindful that couples who would like support may not have the resources that others are able to pay for. If the Government are not minded to adopt this new clause, perhaps the Minister could commit to bringing his own plan to the House designed to provide more support for couples petitioning for a divorce, as well as support for couples who want help to try to put things right before they petition for a divorce.

On new clause 2, we would be in favour of a report on the impact on divorce applications and marriage support. This House works best when it is informed by facts and the reality of people’s lives, and the hope is that this report would give us a true insight into the impact of the Bill. I hope the Minister will comment on that.

[Jim Shannon]

I probably have a different opinion on this from the hon. Gentleman, but if we are dealing with facts, I understand that there is an evidential base of facts that shows that 50% of people who have divorced, as the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) referred to earlier, wish to have had the opportunity not to have divorced. If there is an evidential base and the facts are there, why not take those on board?

[Alex Cunningham]

We do take the facts on board. People may feel that they have got it wrong, and we have all seen examples of people who get married, get divorced and get remarried. We have seen examples where people have done that more than once, which is remarkable. People have the choice, but that does not mean we should lengthen the period that people have to wait before they can divorce. It will be particularly interesting to see how many couples opt for no-fault divorces as an alternative to laying the blame at the feet of one person in the relationship.

Some of the impact of this Bill may be unmeasurable, but it does not make that impact less important. For example, we might not know the true impact of quicker and more amicable divorces on children and how that affects their wellbeing and future lives, but I am confident in saying that having two parents apart but happy is infinitely better for a child than having parents stuck in an unhappy marriage for years on end. I hope the Minister will comment on that.

That leads me to new clause 3, which would reduce the time period to allow a divorce with consent from two years to one. I do not believe the new clause is needed, as the provisions within the Bill are better than what the new clause would achieve. It would still require couples to stay married for a year before they can petition for divorce, and it completely ignores the reality in which people live their lives. To be separated, people have to live apart and at least sleep apart, which simply is not possible for many people. Many homes do not have the luxury of extra bedrooms, and I doubt that 12 months on a sofa is very acceptable. Many couples do not have the disposable income for them to live separately and they have nowhere else to go, so I am not sure what benefit the new clause is supposed to have. Allowing a no-fault divorce is infinitely preferable to forcing an unhappy couple to stay married for a year before they can divorce.

New clause 4, which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, me and other hon. and right hon. Members, relates to funds and income. It is undeniable that there is a problem with access to legal aid, not just in divorce, but across a wide spectrum of areas. The huge cuts made to funding over the past 10 years have led to unfairness and a lack of justice across our nation. Without adequate legal aid for divorce proceedings, we have a situation where some people cannot afford to petition for divorce. We are essentially forcing people to stay married to someone they do not want to be married to simply because they do not have enough money to take legal action.

If the Minister agreed to act, he would have the support of the Law Society. In a briefing, it told me that respondents should have sufficient time to respond to a petition and seek advice. It also stated:

“In our evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in regard to the human rights implications of the Bill, we highlighted that there is the potential for issues under article 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 due to its potential to have a particularly detrimental impact on women, who due to a range of societal issues are more likely to be less resilient to financial risks…While divorce affords some protections to women at the end of a marriage, they can only make best use of these legal safeguards if they can participate in the proceedings fully.”

It is right and just that we extend legal aid to divorce, dissolution and separation proceedings to allow people to escape unhappy marriages and civil partnerships. While we welcome the provisions in the Bill to make divorce easier, will the Government acknowledge that without legal aid, we are simply making divorce easier for those who have the funds to petition, while little change will be made for those who do not have such funds? I hope the Minister will go away and consider that, as we must do better for those who do not have the resources to use the legal system.

New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review within six months on the impact of extending legal aid for divorce proceedings. We on this side of the House are particularly interested in the disproportionate impact that an absence of legal aid has on women and how Government can help put a stop to that. Does the Minister agree that we should be conducting research to collect facts about the impacts of decisions made by this House and the potential impacts that decisions made by this House could have? With this in mind, I hope the Minister will accept that we must actively seek out areas where a group of people are being disproportionately negatively impacted, and make the necessary changes to fix that.

We know that legal aid is available in some circumstances, but, as we say in new clause 6, we would like to see financial abuse listed as a specific condition under which civil legal aid may be provided in matters arising out of family relationship. If a person is being financially abused, they simply do not have the funds to petition for a divorce. Does the Minister accept and acknowledge this fact? If he does, perhaps we can make some progress. This could be transformational change for those who have been essentially kept from having their freedom by their partners because they do not have the resources to pursue a divorce. Can the Minister tell me now whether he will seek to introduce financial abuse as a part of the domestic abuse conditions that allow access to legal aid? If not, is it the case that the Government do not wish to provide real and tangible assistance to those who are being financially abused and cannot escape an abusive relationship without that assistance?

There are other areas of family law that I would like to be addressed in the Bill, such as the out-of-date, archaic approach which means that families are entitled to bereavement support only if the parents are married. Not only does this fail to recognise that many families have happy and secure lives without the need for marriage, but it means unhappy couples may be discouraged from petitioning for a divorce because of the potential financial consequences. However, it goes much wider than that.

I have a constituent who when living with her partner had a child with him. Sadly, the relationship was not sustained but her partner, who left, kept up regular maintenance payments for his child until his death. Despite having those regular payments, my constituent is denied bereavement support. When I wrote to the Government seeking clarity on this, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Baroness Stedman-Scott, responded by simply saying that marriage was a key part of benefit entitlement. This is an outdated approach, and we must reframe our public policy on it. We live in a society where families come in all shapes and sizes, and we should not be deeming one shape or size as preferable to another.

The chief executive of Child Bereavement UK said:

“The inequality that unmarried parents face in the bereavement system denies them access to this financial support at a time of great distress and anxiety on many levels following the death of a partner…It is a gross injustice that the current system ultimately disadvantages bereaved children, who have no influence over their parents’ marital status.”

For bereavement support when one parent dies to be permitted only if the parents were married is backwards, and I hope the Government recognise that and will take action to right this wrong.

New clause 9, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and in mine, is an important one. I will not steal my hon. Friend’s thunder, but it is absolutely right that the Secretary of State publish by the end of this year a report on how this legislation will affect the financial status of children and families where benefit entitlement is linked to the civil partnership or marriage status of one or both parents. As I have said, basing benefit entitlement on marital status is outdated and not representative of the modern society in which we live.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the YouGov poll commissioned by Resolution, which represents more than 6,000 family lawyers and family law professionals? It shows that 71% of the population agrees that no-fault divorce is urgently needed to protect the long-term interests of children.

[Alex Cunningham]

I have seen that particular information. It cuts to the very core of what this is about. It is not just about the two partners in a relationship; it is about the children. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke about the extended family and the need for grandparents to be involved with their grandchildren. It would absolutely break my heart if I were to lose contact with my grandson. It is very important that we recognise that this will actually make life easier for children, which is why we support it.

As I was saying, basing benefit entitlement on marital status is outdated, so I hope the Minister will go away and collect the information to share with the House. The Government have acknowledged that we need to make divorce easier and more straightforward, which this Bill does, but the Government cannot and should not ignore the negative repercussions of the positive changes being brought in with this Bill.

In conclusion, this is a good Bill that will change people’s lives for the better. But there is always room for improvement, especially changes in the spirit of this Bill recognising modern relationships and families as well as legal aid. I hope the Minister will agree that there is much more change needed in this area of family law, but this is a good first step.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

Would the hon. Gentleman support the idea that information relating to financial abuse should be specifically categorised in the law so that people get legal aid in those circumstances?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I thank colleagues who contributed to the robust debates we have had on Second Reading and in Committee. The Opposition are pleased to support the Bill at its final stage. We are correcting an outdated notion that the only reason two people should get divorced is if there is some blame to be laid. We know that that is not always the case in every relationship. Sometimes marriages break down over time—not always because one great wrong has been committed by one party, but because people change, situations change, and compatibility at one time is not always permanent.

It will always be a difficult time in any relationship for two people to acknowledge that the marriage is over, but it is still best for them to part ways. The best role that we as law makers can play in such a situation is to make sure that they are able to part quickly and amicably. This is not just in the best interests of the spouses; it is crucial in limiting the emotional pain felt by children left in the middle as their parents’ marriage is split apart. The Bill will help to limit the turmoil of divorce because it acknowledges that sometimes there just is no fault.

I have enjoyed the specific discussions on the amendments and new clauses and on how the Bill could be improved. Although the proposed changes did not make it into the final Bill, I hope Members will agree that there was real merit in many if not all the issues raised. On some cases, such as families in which the parents are unmarried not getting benefit payments, I hope that the Government will go away and reconsider their position.

I was a little disappointed that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), did not have sufficient time when he summed up to address the issue of legal aid. I hope the Government will take that away and look particularly at the issues when there is financial abuse in a relationship.

As I have said, we have made great progress with the Bill in recognising how modern marriages, relationships and families are; it would be a great shame if we failed to recognise that across other policy areas. We do not oppose Bills for the sake of it; we want to do what is right. Today, we have achieved real progress that will have a real and positive effect on people at one of the most vulnerable points in their lives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the use of remote technology not just in the current circumstances but long into the future to help the quick administration of justice. We are now in the middle of rolling out the cloud video platform, which is the technology enabling court proceedings to happen remotely. That will be fully rolled out in the Crown court jurisdiction and the magistrates court jurisdiction by the end of this month, we hope.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

We agree that with a backlog of over 1 million cases outstanding in courts and tribunals at the end of last year, before the coronavirus, virtual courts are part of the answer to tackle this particular crisis. There is, however, evidence of cases being halted because judges have felt that justice was not being properly served and of defendants in virtual courts being likely to get a more severe sentence than if they appeared in person. I also understand that the vast majority of cases have been opened just to be immediately adjourned. What assessment has the Minister made of the effect of these things on people’s lives, and will he agree to publish the number of cases simply opened and adjourned over the last five months?

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Having listened intently to the contributions made by colleagues today, I can say that this Bill has proved to be a little more contentious that I personally was expecting. It is clear that the Government have more problems with their own Back Benchers than they have with ours. We agree that this is a good Bill. It must be, because it is directly in line with Labour party policy.

We have had a good debate with some really excellent interventions and speeches. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), who was concerned about court delays, the Secretary of State spoke of expanding capacity. Given the current backlog, I would be interested to hear a little more about that, so that the benefits of this Bill can be realised. My hon. Friend also spoke about his pride in his grandfather, A. P. Herbert, author of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1937. I am sure that his grandfather would be as proud of him today.

The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) spoke about the values of marriage and expressed concerns about the timing of the Bill, given the potential for lockdown break-ups. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, spoke as an Anglican, a person of faith, who was supporting the Bill because he believes in marriage. He spoke of other organisations, church and secular, that do likewise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) talked about how the last thing that families need is the state being a barrier. She went on to speak about children, as many others did—in her case, children who lost a parent but, because of our current system, lose out on the support available to those whose parents were married. I will come back to that subject later. Several Members spoke at great length about children and the impact of divorce on children, but it was the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) who spoke of children being used as weapons by their parents in a war against each other. He felt that making divorce easier would lead to more poverty in our society.

This Parliament has a duty to ensure that the decisions we make here and the laws that we create are laws of the real world. In an ideal world, marriage would be the result of two people falling in love and wanting to be together forever and to have that recognised in law. It is a lovely image and it does happen. My own parents have already been married for 66 years, and Evaline and I for 43. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the shadow Secretary of State, could have been a four-year-old page boy at our wedding. However, it would be naive of the House to think that it happens like this all the time, and it would be ignorant of the House to assume there is always a fault when it comes to the breakdown of a marriage. People change over time and can be very different, apart from the physical signs of older age, from how they were 10, 20 or more years ago. There should not have to be blame on one of the two consenting adults wishing to end their marriage, and as we have heard, it is significantly better for any children involved that their parents are not embroiled in a nasty split.

This Bill is a common-sense approach to the reality of people’s lives and how they choose to live them. The option of not having to lay the blame at the door of one of the parties also means that obtaining a divorce can be simpler for those who are vulnerable or the victims of abuse. Many married couples are close friends and can continue to be friends after a divorce, but a divorce process that requires pointing fingers and blame can cause irreparable damage and prevent a co-operative and constructive relationship that could have been a positive thing, particularly where children are involved.

It is also not good enough that the current law says that, if a couple agree mutually to have a divorce, they have to be separated for a minimum of two years. As others have said, the very fact that one person can lock the other person in a marriage against their wishes for five years from separation by prolonging the process is nonsense. I do not believe that the decision to divorce comes lightly for either spouse. I do not believe that people simply wake up one day and both parties opt for a divorce. This is a deliberate, delicate and difficult decision, born out of months, perhaps years, of anguish before they decide to take the route to divorce.

Yes, I agree with people who have stood up today and said that they think support and counselling services should be stronger, and I believe that, but the law simply should not be forcing people to remain tied to each other for two years just to make sure that divorce is what they really want. If a couple do want to reconcile, that is their private business to do so, and I would certainly wish them well in their search for happiness. However, reconciliation is made even more difficult if they have to blame each other in order to start the divorce process. What must run through our divorce procedures is the aim of encouraging co-operation, and what we have now is a system that encourages conflict. When there are issues to do with financial support and childcare, the last thing we should want for that family is more conflict and unnecessary hurt.

The academic study called “Finding Fault?” found that 43% of those identified by their spouse as being at fault for the marriage breakdown disagreed with the reasons cited in the divorce petition. This is not a fair system and it is certainly not a decent one either. It can also be costly, with thousands of pounds spent on legal costs that could have been retained by the individuals and used to help them to get on with their lives. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham outlined in great detail other financial issues that show disadvantage for people at the lower end of the income scale and, of course, the lack of legal aid.

The changes made in the Bill are ones backed by policy makers, judges, stakeholders and the public, but there is more the Government can do to ensure protection for families that are modern in their image. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow spoke in detail about bereavement support for children where one parent dies and the parents were not married. When I wrote to the Government about this, I received a reply saying that

“A key principle of the National Insurance system is that all rights to benefits derived from another person’s contributions are based on the concept of legal marriage or civil partnership.”

But why? Can the Government explain their rationale further? What impact does this have on families where the parents are divorced? If they are no longer married, is that support lost? I would appreciate it if the Minister who winds up clarified the Government’s position on financial support for families where the parents are divorced, to which they would be entitled were they married.

Families do not look like they did 50 or even 10 years ago. We have moved forward in so many ways. People can marry whoever they love, irrespective of gender. Many children have been given permanent, safe and stable homes by same-sex parents; others have been brought up by unmarried parents who then split up. Why does the system not fully recognise modern families when it comes to these relationships ending? The world has changed for the good, but we need to keep going. How are the Government going to change other areas of family law to ensure that reality is reflected in our laws, and we embrace the many ways that a modern family can be? I know the Bill may not be the vehicle to deliver these particular changes, but I think it is time we did the best for our families.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her continuing interest in HMP Bristol. The response to the urgent notification will be issued this week, and I will indeed visit the prison with her in the coming months to ensure that the necessary progress is achieved.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

In his answers to my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), the Minister seemed content with youth offending services, yet every day we see the results of the Government’s neglect of those services. Assuming that he has learned from that failure, what advice will he offer his successor to sort it out?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question—I am not yet sure whether that will be a matter for me or for a successor, but I assume he meant it kindly. He is right that the central Government grant has been reduced, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), and so too has that contributed by local authorities. It is important also to recognise the reducing statutory case load to set alongside that, although that is in no way to diminish the absolutely vital work that youth offending teams do. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that. I share his concern and will continue to work closely with the Youth Justice Board on it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that we need to speed up the hearing times for people’s welfare claims. There are two aspects to that: the first is that we need to work with the Department for Work and Pensions, which we are doing, and I am doing with my counterpart in the DWP, to get decisions right first time; and the second is to speed up those hearings.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

T4. Both the prisons Minister and the Secretary of State have heaped praise on the Durham Tees Valley community rehabilitation company when I have asked about the not-for-profit organisation’s future, but will the Minister tell me whether it will survive the next round of reforms or be swallowed up and privatised with the rest of them?

[Rory Stewart]

As the hon. Gentleman says, that is a fantastic organisation. We are, of course, conducting a very detailed consultation on the future of probation, but to reassure him, the principles behind Durham’s CRC and, in particular, the involvement of local authorities and of the voluntary sector and the close co-ordination with the National Probation Service are fundamental to our reforms.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

2. If he will make it his policy to return the probation service to the public sector.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

18. If he will make it his policy to return the probation service to the public sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

We have made it clear that the probation system needs to improve, and we have taken decisive action to end current community rehabilitation company contracts and to develop more robust arrangements to protect the public and tackle reoffending. We have seen examples of good and innovative work from CRCs in Cumbria, where probation is being adapted to a rural setting, and in London, where CRCs are working with the Mayor’s office on programmes to rehabilitate offenders involved in knife crime.

I believe that public, private and voluntary organisations all have a role to play. The reforms that we are making are crucial to integrating the system better so that different providers can work more effectively together, and we will set out our proposals later this year.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful for that comprehensive answer but, in the light of the prisons Minister’s praise at our last session of Justice questions for the not-for-profit Durham Tees Valley CRC—one of the best, if not the best, at inspection, and, according to Napo, also one of the best to work for—may I ask how the Secretary of State will protect this rare success story, given that his own reprivatisation plans are set to allow security giants such as Sodexo to swallow it up?

[Mr Gauke]

I, too, pay tribute to the work of that not-for-profit CRC and its focus on rehabilitating offenders. The expertise and commitment of not-for-profit organisations are vital in helping offenders to turn their lives around, and the changes on which we are working will ensure that the probation system benefits from having a diverse range of providers, while also doing more to deliver operational stability.

Future of Legal Aid

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of legal aid.

It is a pleasure indeed to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I am delighted that we have three hours to debate the important and complex subject of the future of legal aid. Let me begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the time, the many hon. Members in attendance and the cross-party group, More United, which has championed this issue and pressed successfully for this debate.

We are in Justice Week, the aim of which is to show the significance of justice and the rule of law to every citizen in our society and to register the importance of an effective justice system beyond the usual audience of professions and practitioners. That aim is reflected in the many representations and briefings we have received in preparation for this debate. They have come not only, as one might expect, from the Law Society, the Law Centres Federation, LawWorks and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but from Mencap, Mind, Oxfam, Amnesty International, Youth Access and the Refugee Council. The message is that legal aid is important to everyone, but particularly to the poorest and most vulnerable.

I extend my thanks to those organisations not only for their help for today, but for the work that they do every day to support the justice system and those who need to navigate it. Indeed, I extend thanks to all the legal aid lawyers outside the House, not least my own local law centre in Hammersmith and Fulham, which is ably led by Sue James, last year’s legal aid lawyer of the year. I extend thanks also to those in the House who do the same, not least the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck).

My final thanks are as follows. It would not be right to let a debate on this subject pass without acknowledging the work of Carol Storer, the director of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group for the past decade, who is leaving this month. There will be other opportunities to mark her outstanding contribution as an advocate and organiser for the whole legal aid community, but I know that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will have benefited from her skill and knowledge and been on the receiving end of her charm and persuasion.

I am sure that the Minister will have good news for Carol and all those I have mentioned when she responds both today and in the post-implementation review of part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—hereinafter LASPO. It was good to hear the Minister confirm this week at the APPG that the review will be published before the end of the year. I know by that she does not mean, “By way of written ministerial statement on the last sitting day.” Obviously, that will not be the case, because it is going to be good news and the Government will want to boast about it.

This is a complex and many-faceted subject, and I will not be able to cover all areas and concerns, so let me start with my requests to the Minister, because I do not want them to get lost. We have just heard from the Chair of the Select Committee on Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), that cuts to prisons are causing serious deterioration in the health and welfare of prisoners. We should not be surprised. The Ministry of Justice budget will be cut by almost half in little more than a decade of continuing austerity. It is the biggest cut to any Department, and it is a relatively small Department, with only three major areas of spend. Inevitably, all three areas—not only prisons and probation and the courts service, but legal aid—are going through debilitating change. My first request to the Minister is that she tackle the funding issue head on. No one is saying that all the cuts since 2010 will be reversed, or that the clock will be turned back, but if the Government wish to honour their stated objectives for LASPO, and in particular,

“To target legal aid at those who need it most”,

they must put something extra in the pot.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will remember when we sat on the Bill Committee and warned of the intended and potentially unintended consequences of the cuts and changes being made. Does he agree that the nightmare for people desperately in need of legal aid for everything from housing to medical negligence cases has been worse than expected, and that justice has certainly been denied to them?

[Andy Slaughter]

Yes. I will come on to the actual, rather than the predicted, effect of LASPO. Without spoiling the surprise, we will find that the Government have overachieved in cutting budgets and underachieved in every other respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

I absolutely agree. Pre-LASPO, my own law centre employed eight solicitors across a range of, mainly, social welfare law, but now it can afford to employ only two solicitors. It is only through the generosity of the local Labour council—against the backdrop of its own budget cuts—and that of charitable trusts that it is able to top up that number with further practitioners. Even the previous position, however, was insufficient for the need, as I well know, and the current position is almost unsustainable.

[Alex Cunningham]

Mencap mentions very specifically in its briefing the distress faced by people with disabilities who cannot get the support they need, and who drop out of the social security and care system because there is no one to speak for them. Even if they qualify for assistance, they cannot find the specialist lawyers they need. Mencap says that that is happening across the country. Does he agree that the Minister needs to look at increasing provision, and also needs to assess whether the necessary specialist lawyers are available in the system to help people?

[Andy Slaughter]

That is particularly important to my hon. Friend and he makes a very good point. We have been briefed by both Mencap and Mind on today’s debate. It will not surprise anyone that Mind said that people with mental health problems are twice as likely as members of the general population to experience legal problems and four times as likely to experience complex legal problems—in other words, problems that extend across a number of different disciplines. As was predicted, those are the people who are worst affected.

Even as the Bill was being published, alarm bells were being rung, and not only by Opposition Members. I had the pleasure of leading for the Opposition in Committee on LASPO. We heard not only from experts and users of the system but from the Government officials. The impact assessments that accompanied the Bill predicted that people with protected characteristics would be disproportionately affected by the cuts.

The official MOJ line was:

“The wide-ranging availability of legal aid can lead people to assume legal action is their only option, even where early practical advice could be of more help to them and avoid them needing a lawyer at all.”

Gillian Guy, the chief executive of Citizens Advice, said the money available was not enough and that we were losing precisely the swift and practical advice offered by CABs and advice and law centres. She added that Citizens Advice research suggested that every £1 spent on early advice saved around £9 later, partly by avoiding unnecessary and expensive tribunal hearings.

Richard Hawkes, the chief executive of Scope, said:

“To cut legal aid at a time of unprecedented changes to welfare support would mean disabled people who fall foul of poor decision-making, red tape or administrative error being pushed even further into poverty as they struggle to manoeuvre the complicated legal system without the expert support they need…This could result in a ticking timebomb of poorly prepared and lengthy tribunals and appeals, choking the courts and not saving money, but actually costing the government far more in the long term.”

The Government were warned. Did the predictions of doom come to pass? We know that they did. In fact, LASPO has cut far more deeply than had been billed. The stated aim was to reduce the legal aid budget by £350 million, but last year spending was £950 million less than in 2010, at £1.6 billion, as against £2.55 billion in 2010-11, with similar percentage falls in both civil and criminal legal aid.

While waiting for the Government review of LASPO—it was promised for between three and five years post-enactment, but we are now nearer six years post-enactment—we have not been short of expert opinion on its effects. Reports by the Justice Committee, the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Bach Commission and the Low Commission have been consistent in highlighting the serious failings of LASPO. In 2017, the Bach Commission found that

“the justice system is in crisis. Most immediately, people are being denied access to justice because the scope of legal aid has been dramatically reduced and eligibility requirements made excessively stringent. But problems extend very widely through the justice system, from insufficient public legal education and a shrinking information and advice sector to unwieldy and creaking bureaucratic systems and uncertainty about the future viability of the practice of legal aid practitioners.”

In 2015, the Justice Committee published its verdict:

“Our overall conclusion was that, while it had made significant savings in the cost of the scheme, the Ministry had harmed access to justice for some litigants and had not achieved the other three out of four of its stated objectives for the reforms. Since the reforms came into effect there has been an underspend in the civil legal aid budget because the Ministry has not ensured that many people who are eligible for legal aid are able to access it. A lack of public information about the extent and availability of legal aid post-reforms, including about the Civil Legal Advice telephone gateway for debt advice, contributed to this and we recommend the Ministry take prompt steps to redress this.”

Advice officers around the UK began looking for alternative sources of funding so that they could continue working with clients who would soon find themselves ineligible for legal aid. However, with local authority budgets cut, few sources of funding were available. Many agencies closed and private firms found that it was no longer economic to undertake legal aid work. As we have heard, whole areas of help have been removed from scope, leaving millions unable to get advice or representation. There has been an almost complete collapse in early legal advice. That means that cases now escalate and are resolved only after becoming much more complex, traumatic and expensive, if they are resolved at all.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) said, the Government argued that removing legal aid for most private family law matters would increase the uptake of mediation so families could resolve their problems outside court. They predicted an increase of 9,000 mediation assessments and 10,000 mediation cases for the year 2013-14. Instead, there was a decrease of 17,246 mediation assessments in the year after the reforms, and the number of mediation cases fell by 5,177 in the same period. One reason for that was the withdrawal of firms from those areas of law, leaving no one to signpost litigants to mediation.

The removal of legal aid from most areas of family law has had a disproportionate effect on women. In a survey carried out by Rights of Women and Women’s Aid, 53% of respondents took no action in relation to their case because they could not apply for legal aid. It is becoming so difficult for victims of domestic violence to obtain legal aid that last year, the Government were forced urgently to review the criteria for legal aid in such cases. Time limits preventing victims of domestic violence from obtaining legal aid for court hearings were scrapped and rules were relaxed to accept evidence from victim support organisations. Despite that, there are still concerns that too many women are falling through the cracks and not getting the help they need.

A dramatic increase of litigants in person following LASPO has created a severe strain on the court system which, to quote the retiring Director of Public Prosecutions this week, is already “creaking” under the effects of significant cuts and court closures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

What I can guarantee is that we are increasing the numbers—they have gone up by 3,500 in the past two years. That is enabling us to implement a key worker strategy, so that prison officers have the ability to spend more time with prisoners and can build that personal relationship, providing the support and advice necessary. That is an important step forward and I am pleased we are able to do it.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

4. If he will take steps to return all probation services to the public sector.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

We do not believe this is an ideological divide between the private and public sectors. We are looking at the relationship between the community rehabilitation companies and the national probation service, in terms of their geographical spread and how they work together. However, we are finding across the country that having the public sector focus on the highest risk prisoners and the private sector and other, non-profit actors focusing on delivering for the lowest risk offenders is delivering innovation, from Cumbria right the way down to London.

[Alex Cunningham]

In the Committee on the Bill that created the service we have today, many weeks were spent trying to convince the Government that their privatisation experiment with the probation service would fail, and it has. The exception might be the only not-for-profit public sector CRC, which covers the Tees Valley, part of which I represent. It has been singled out in Her Majesty’s inspectorate of probation reports as delivering best practice. What will the Minister do to ensure that the Tees Valley CRC is not subsumed into another privatised contract, to learn from it, and to return the probation service to the public sector?

[Rory Stewart]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s local CRC, which is a good example of how CRCs can work. Durham CRC is a good example of the local authority and the previous probation trust working together. It has met 85% of its targets and is a well-performing CRC. There are also good examples to be followed elsewhere in the country, including in Cumbria, where the CRC is working with rural communities, and in London, where the CRC has improved dramatically and done some very good work with Grenfell survivors. I certainly pay tribute to the work done in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.