Lawfare and Investigative Journalism

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

On 20 January, a number of us MPs initiated a debate on the use of lawfare by oligarchs and undemocratic states that seek to suppress free speech and scrutiny of their activity. The Ministry of Justice took up the question and has promised new legislation, and I am glad to see the new Minister about to lose his departmental virginity in this debate—it will not hurt; I will be gentle.

Today, I will speak about another outrageous case of lawfare that centres around the former Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev. He was the autocratic ruler of Kazakhstan for three decades. His time in office was characterised by repression, torture and other human rights abuses. He was ousted from power in 2019, but remains a significant influence in the country. He was more or less able to anoint his successor as president, and met Vladimir Putin even after leaving office.

During his 29-year rule, Nazarbayev won elections with claimed results of more than 90% of votes cast, and the capital city was even renamed after him in 2019. The term “rigged dictatorship” comes to mind. As long ago as 1999, the western press aired concerns about assets held by Nazarbayev and his associates. In that year, The New Yorker reported that Swiss officials had found a bank account worth $85 million that was intended for the Kazakh Treasury, but was in fact held by Nazarbayev—$85 million, which turns out to be small change. Three years later, Nazarbayev’s critics in Kazakhstan accused him of hiding $1 billion in oil revenue in offshore accounts.

Now, the Nazarbayev Fund Private Fund, an ostensibly charitable organisation, and a related firm, Jusan Technologies Ltd, have between them started a lawfare campaign against four news bodies, including three based in Britain, which are the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, The Daily Telegraph and openDemocracy. The supposed provocation for that action was the news bodies’ reports on Nazarbayev and his associates, which revealed several ambiguities and a lack of transparency around his charitable foundations.

First, the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, a non-profit investigative news platform, published an investigation into charitable foundations set up during Nazarbayev’s rule. It revealed that companies connected to those charitable foundations and to his relatives had received bail-out and loan funding from his Government.

One such case involves the St Regis Astana, which is a hotel in the Kazakh capital that opened in 2017. The company that owns the hotel, the Turion Investment Group, has included among its shareholders Nazarbayev’s daughter and son in law. The hotel project was built with the help of a loan of $85 million from a state-owned development bank, which even the current President Tokayev conceded has become

“the personal bank of a select group of people representing financial, industrial, and construction groups.”

Let us remember that that is supposed to be a state bank.

In the early 2000s, Nazarbayev’s Presidential Affairs Department joined two Kazakh firms in developing a resort on the Turkish coast where Nazarbayev reportedly spends his own holidays. One of the private firms involved was owned by three businessmen who had previously handed cash to Nazarbayev’s university fund. In another instance, two of Nazarbayev’s foundations owned a landscaping business that received $6.5 million in Government contracts between 2012 and 2018.

After those revelations, openDemocracy covered the story and asked the simple question of whether an autocrat’s riches were being allowed into this country without due scrutiny. It was talking about Jusan Technologies, a firm that is incorporated in the United Kingdom and has nearly $8 billion in gross assets, yet had only one member of staff in the UK in 2020.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Daily Telegraph then collaborated to investigate Jusan Technologies. It appears that its registered office at the time was a brass-plate address shared with hundreds of other firms. Its assets have been held in several sectors, including banking, telecoms and retail, and in several countries, from Luxembourg and the UK to Kazakhstan itself. Until recently, it was controlled by three organisations, including the Nazarbayev fund via an intermediary organisation.

The Nazarbayev fund is allegedly run for the benefit of educational institutions in Kazakhstan and stipulates in its charter that Nazarbayev cannot benefit personally from the fund. Yet he remains the chairman of its executive body and has the power to change its rules. It is not clear why a fund ostensibly for education and the benefit of the Kazakh population needs assets in banking or retail.

The fund is also connected to senior Kazakh politicians. Nazarbayev’s former Deputy Prime Minister, Yerbol Orynbayev, was a director of Jusan Tech and owned 4.6% of the company. Moreover, the investigation shows that the First Heartland Jusan Bank, the largest asset owned by Jusan Technologies, has received more than $2 billion in bail-outs from the Kazakh Government. This is a company that has paid out $430 million in shareholder dividends in recent years. An oligarch married to one of Nazarbayev’s relatives owns 20% of the bank. It appears to be steeped in Nazarbayev’s influence.

While Jusan Technologies itself has now changed its ownership structure—it did so shortly before the reports were first published—the new structure is, if anything, even more opaque. The new owner is a non-profit organisation based in Nevada, a jurisdiction the secrecy laws of which have been criticised in the past, including in respect of the Pandora papers. That non-profit is owned by another non-profit, whose president is the chief executive of the Nazarbayev fund as well as Nazarbayev’s former Education Minister.

Frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you are confused by this extraordinary cat’s cradle of different and interlocking organisations, you would not be alone. It is designed to be confusing and designed to be difficult to understand and opaque. Creating organisations of this level of opacity and complexity is not easy, but it is always done for a reason. In this case, the most likely reason is to conceal the extent of Nazarbayev’s control of this web of assets and wealth.

To come back to the point about lawfare, all the news outlets did was ask legitimate questions and try to shine a light on some apparent irregularities and the opaque nature of Nazarbayev’s foundations. They did not even make any allegations of impropriety or money laundering in the articles for which they are being attacked, yet they are now facing potential legal censure. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Daily Telegraph alone have received three threatening legal letters in four months telling them to retract their claims and apologise, and a case has now been filed in the High Court.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I noticed that these cases had been filed, though not yet served, and I tabled a written question in this place about their effects on media freedom. I have to tell the House and the right hon. Gentleman that I was then contacted by lawyers for the company asking me to withdraw that question. What is his response to their asking me to withdraw a perfectly innocent parliamentary question?

[Mr Davis]

First, the lawyers clearly do not understand parliamentary privilege. Secondly, what they are doing—I will come back to this in a second—is trying to repress free speech and transparency in this country. This is a clear case of an ultra-wealthy individual using the British legal system to try to scare his critics into silence, and what the hon. Gentleman refers to is their trying to extend that to his actions—proper actions—in this House. The work of those who have been targeted is all the more important considering that Nazarbayev has himself had a law passed in Kazakhstan preventing him from being prosecuted there. What he is doing with this lawfare is trying to extend that protection to this country, which, frankly, is an outrage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

What steps he has taken to help tackle the backlog of criminal cases before the courts.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

What recent estimate he has made of the size of the backlog of cases before the criminal courts.

[Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

What steps he has taken to help tackle the backlog of criminal cases before the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for a very prescient question. We have made a huge investment in IT and technology. We have purchased getting on for 10,000 laptops to enable remote working and video working. We have rolled out the cloud video platform on an expedited basis. As a result of that work, more than 20,000 hearings per week across all jurisdictions are now being held remotely. That is orders of magnitude higher than was the case before, and that is why we have managed to keep getting work done across so many parts of the jurisdiction when in many other countries around the world work has considerably slowed down or even stopped.

[Christian Matheson]

An application for bail to Chester Crown court today will not be listed until February next year. This is not a problem of the pandemic, as there was already a backlog because of court closures and because the Government chose to reduce the number of sitting days at Chester Crown court and others. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) says, how can the Government claim to be the party of law and order when justice is being delayed and justice is being denied?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman talks about sitting days, and the Lord Chancellor has confirmed that there will be no constraint on sitting days at present. The judiciary can list as many cases as they like, and we are anticipating a very considerable increase in sitting days for the next financial year. The hon. Gentleman talks about the justice system prior to the pandemic, and he may be aware that the outstanding Crown court caseload prior to the pandemic was 39,000—considerably lower than 47,000, as it was under the last Labour Administration. He talks about our record on law and order, and he may be aware that the only authoritative source of crime figures, the crime survey, shows a 41% reduction in crime since 2010, from 9.5 million to 5.6 million, so I will certainly be taking no lectures on law and order from the Labour party.

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

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I thank the Chairman of the Justice Committee for his remarks and for the contribution he has made throughout the passage of the Bill. I am quite confident that we are in a better place because we have looked at it constructively. That is, in large part, because of the contributions he has made, together with others. Yes, this is about individuals as well as businesses, and yes, we want to use this as the vehicle to get into Lugano, which will be good for the rule of law, good for individuals, good for certainty and good for businesses.

I was making the point that these agreements mean the path to resolution is clearer and smoother. Just by way of a couple of examples, these agreements can help a family where relationships break down and one spouse moves abroad, and they can help to sort out arrangements for custody, access and maintenance in the best interests of the children. These agreements can provide a framework for a small business to seek redress when left out of pocket by a supplier based in another country.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

The Minister is explaining the scope of the Bill and I am trying to understand it. We all represent constituents and I have a couple of constituents’ cases, for example one where there is a dispute over a property in Cyprus and another where a constituent was involved in an assault in Italy. They both relate to issues that are not cross-border, but relate specifically to incidents or disputes in those countries. Are those kinds of cases covered by the Bill, or does the Bill look at issues only where there are cross-border affairs that need to be resolved?

[Alex Chalk]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. The Bill is more likely to affect the former example, rather than the latter. On the specific issue of a criminal offence, that is likely to fall outwith the Bill. There is, of course, a regime for cross-border co-operation in that regard, but that normally sits outside private international law agreements, which tend to be about family issues—whether you have maintenance and enforcement, and which agreements are going to be upheld by which courts—and commercial agreements, for example, between a widget manufacturer in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and a supplier in another part of the world. This relates to agreements that are already in existence which we want to roll over, but also creates the framework for us to agree and implement future agreements.



The Bill contains two substantive clauses. The first ensures the continued implementation of three Hague conventions on various aspects of private international law that are currently implemented—at least until the end of the transition period—under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. The second concerns the implementation of further PIL agreements—the point that I was just making—by secondary legislation. This clause was removed from the Bill in the Lords on Report, but was returned by this House in Committee back in October. Although clause 1 is not subject to the amendments in front of us today, the need to have these provisions in force by 31 December creates an imperative to resolve the outstanding issues without delay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—from one Alex to another.

When I stood at the Dispatch Box some weeks ago for the Bill’s Second Reading, I made Labour’s position very clear: we absolutely understand and appreciate the need for the Bill. The Minister was rightly wholehearted in his endorsement of the Bill and provided us with some excellent examples of how it will work and what it will mean. He even mentioned that it will apply to widgets. Perhaps when he does his summing up, he can tell me what a widget is.

In a post-Brexit world, it is essential that individuals, families and businesses have access to fair and clear legal mechanisms for dealing with international disputes. This has never been contentious and, from the very beginning, Labour made its support for clause 1 of the Bill clearly known. Labour welcomes the principle of the Bill because it maintains and perhaps enhances our legal co-operation across jurisdictions and provides certainty and fairness for those involved in cross-border litigation. In a post-Brexit world, this is essential to maintaining 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’s centre for resolving complex disputes while offering us a competitive advantage in finance, business and trade.

This is also a Bill that will affect human beings and human stories. A wide range of family law issues can lead to cross-border disputes—for example, when one partner takes a child abroad and there is a disagreement about parenting arrangements, when making arrangements for divorce in similar circumstances, and on issues of abduction and adoption. Over the years, many of us have seen examples of that in our constituencies, when a child has been removed from this country against the will of another parent, and yet we have struggled, even with the existing laws, to resolve those sorts of disputes. Of course, this is also about keeping our citizens safe. We must ensure that we have robust international agreements so that justice can be done.

On Second Reading and in Committee, we were content to give our full support to clause 1, which gives effect to international treaties in domestic law through primary legislation, because we recognised that it is both necessary and welcome. It is hoped that these provisions, which affect 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 trying circumstances.

Labour welcomes the principle of the Bill, but we remain of the opinion that there was no need for clause 2. Attempts by those in the other place to persuade the Government to ditch the unnecessary and, some would say, dangerous provisions covered by clause 2 were successful. Sadly, their decision was not appreciated by the Government and, despite the pleas and arguments put forward by their lordships, the Government felt compelled to reinstate the clause when it came back to the Commons. The House will be aware that despite the clear and sensible arguments of the Opposition and others, ultimately the Government are the Government and use their majority to prosecute their will, and, with no surprise, succeeded in reinstating clause 2.

[Christian Matheson]

My hon. Friend is right that the Government have the right to push through their agenda even in the face of well-meant advice either from the Opposition or the lordships’ House. I wonder whether there are any other independent expressions of concern, perhaps from the legal system, that also concur with the view that perhaps clause 2, as it was, was not the best way forward.

[Alex Cunningham]

Yes, there are many organisations, including the Bar Council, and I will develop that point later in my speech. It is important to recognise that this is not a case of the people sitting down the other end of the corridor making things up on the hoof. They were doing it on the basis of expertise and the opinions of others.

It was not the end of the matter after the Commons sent the Bill back to their lordships. Their lordships were intent on their ambition and refused to let the matter drop. Happily, that situation has been improved somewhat in recent days. I will return to the message from their lordships quite soon. Before I do that, I am happy to reiterate our support for the Bill’s provisions in clause 1, which give effect to key international conventions in our domestic law. That is very welcome on these Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

The Minister has discussed that with us this afternoon, and made clear the Government’s concessions in this area.

[Christian Matheson]

My hon. Friend is outlining one of the concerns that I raised earlier, which is about wider concerns raised by experienced legal sources. There may be—and I might ask the Minister to comment on this later—inconsistencies between agreements between the UK and one country and agreements with another country that are achieved through secondary legislation. If the agreement with that particular country is different, citizens will be treated differently depending on the terms of a particular statutory instrument.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend is correct. That could lead to considerable confusion in the system. What happens if a family member is moved from country to country? They will be subject to different jurisdictions and different laws, and it would be all the more complicated and difficult for resolutions to be made.

There appeared to be intense opposition to what the Government were trying to do, and it was not just from the other place; it was coming from all over the place. The Bar Council, in its helpful briefing, was highly critical of this new constitutional grab. It was somewhat concerned that the power in clause 2 to proceed by delegated legislation was very broad, and that, for instance, it enabled the appropriate national authority to make regulations for the purpose of or in connection with implementing any international agreement. To give effect to international treaties in domestic law is not a rubber-stamping exercise. The effect, implementation and enforcement of such provisions require robust debate, and we must protect the parliamentary scrutiny of such important legal provisions at all costs.

The Government attempted to raise arguments as to why that new constitutional measure would be necessary, but all of them have failed to convince. The first argument was that the new provision would allow the Government to implement each new international agreement without unnecessary delay, but there is no evidence to suggest that fast-track legislation is required. The implementation of international agreements in the past has often taken years, and there is nothing to suggest that implementing them through primary legislation would cause any difficulties without having to subject legislation to 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 arguments appear to be that there may be only a short period in which to legislate to give effect to the Lugano provision at the end of the transition period. That is not an argument for developing that new Executive power more generally. The Government have not provided for clause 2 in relation to Lugano but, as the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), said, there appears to be some movement on that, and I look forward to clarification from the Minister.

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

Even some of the Government’s own Members were rightly worried. It is worth putting on the record again a statement by the Conservative peer, Lord Garnier:

“Unquestionably, the provisions in Clause 2, which give the Executive the extensive future law-making powers originally in the Bill, have been shown to be constitutionally awkward and unwelcome”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2020; Vol. 804, c. 483.]

I think that the Minister has begun to address those issues.

Sadly, the Lords asked the Government to drop clause 2. The Government used their majority. A Conservative peer asked that them not to do so, but that is what they chose to do, so clause 2 was reinstated. As I have said, their lordships were not about to roll over, and they were determined that the Government should not get away with a smash-and-grab raid on our constitution and the way in which we do business in this country. It is no good at all our trumpeting a return of control of our own affairs—control for our Parliament to make decisions on the issues that affect our country and citizens—only for Parliament to surrender that control to an overbearing Executive who appear to be seeking shortcuts to creating legislation and regulations. That is not what the British people handed the Government a majority to do. I do not think they would tolerate the sidelining of MPs they elected to serve them. More importantly, we want to ensure that laws in this land are not just fit for purpose, but have been subjected to the widest possible scrutiny. Opposition Members have always been opposed to the power in clause 2 to implement future international agreements by secondary legislation, but we recognise that change to that clause can be made.

As I mentioned, both the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered whether the power in clause 2 was appropriate, and both made it clear that it was not. None the less, Labour welcomes amendments 1A and 1B, tabled in the other place, which act as a safeguard to clause 2, as reintroduced here. It was good to hear the Minister speak with some affection for those in the other place, and their expertise and skills. Although Labour Members remain disappointed that clause 2 has been reintroduced, the Government have heeded some of the Opposition’s concern by agreeing to the five-year sunset clause to clause 2.

Let me turn to amendments 4A and 4B. Labour also welcomes the amendment to remove the power from the Bill to create criminal offences that are punishable by imprisonment. For obvious reasons, this is a sensitive issue and it is only right that the Government act with caution in this area. Finally, Labour supports the amendment to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult before using the implementing power contained in clause 2 or before extending it for a further five-year period. Ideally, we would like to have seen further detail on who the Government are obliged to consult, but this is none the less better than nothing. That said, the Minister might like to address that issue in his summing up.

Before I conclude, I wish to pose a few questions to the Minister, where he could go some way to alleviating the remaining concerns many of us, in and out of this place, have about the amended clause 2. Will he give assurances to the House that any consultations on the implementation of a PIL agreement will be held in public rather than in private? Will he confirm that any consultations on the implementations of a PIL agreement will be announced in good time to allow experts to offer their views? Will he give assurances that the Government will produce a report on the outcome of such consultations and ensure that it is widely available to Members of this House? To sum up, although the Opposition would ideally have liked to see clause 2 taken out completely, or for greater restrictions to have been placed on its power, it is clear that the Government have listened to the concerns of the House and have taken some action to address them. We will therefore support these amendments this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

That leads us to the political context. This is coming about as a consequence of Brexit. As we come to the end of transition, we face an approaching deadline. Agreements are required, otherwise rights that we have had for years, and sometimes generations, will be lost. There is a maxim—perhaps only my own: legislate in haste and repent at leisure. I worry that, notwithstanding the excellent skills of parliamentary draftsmen, they are drafting this at late notice and trying to bring it all together, to deal with aspects such as Lugano and Hague and matters in which we still do not know whether we will be able to participate because the EU has not yet consented. Those are all fundamental to our rights. They are equally extremely difficult for anybody who is drafting legislation. I know the number of iterations required in legal drafting, so I hope that we will not see numerous rewrites having to take place, not through the fault of those carrying out the instructions but because of the situation they found themselves in—we do not know what we are dealing with, and we are trying to scramble something together with just days to go.

[Christian Matheson]

The hon. Gentleman is touching on a point that I have expressed concern about. If these legal agreements are done on a bilateral basis with different countries, we might find that we have agreements with some countries and not others, and therefore constituents of ours with a case in one country will get better access to justice than those with cases in countries where such agreements have not been concluded.

[Kenny MacAskill]

Absolutely. It is well known—and I have experienced it myself—that where children have been taken to, for example, some north African nations, it can be extremely problematic, if not impossible, for parents seeking their return. Although they had the right to that child, their ability to enforce it was often not recognised. If that is to be the situation we find ourselves in with countries with which we have had greater movement in recent years and greater involvement in terms of trade, the complexities will be extremely difficult indeed.

In the political context, this is the reality. It is not the delusion that we have been given about the sunny uplands of Brexit, or in the defence review about aircraft carriers steaming towards warmer climes, dispensing all sorts of social dividend. I always thought that the people who should be doing the soft diplomacy should be the British Council, as opposed to military forces. I recognise and welcome any work that they can do in that sphere, but it is not what they are trained to do, nor is it their trained function.

This is not the sunny uplands of Brexit. It is the harsh reality of what we face on rights that we have had for more than a generation, on the security of an understanding that lawyers have had about what they could do and where they could go, and the arrangements that have built up. I myself in legal practice had relationships with lawyers in London and Northern Ireland, or wherever else—it was passed around. If all that breaks down, the difficulty for individuals is damaging.

All the emphasis in the public eye has been, perhaps, on the dangers and difficulties we face with access to Europol—there are huge difficulties there—and the difficulties that we may face in terms of sharing information about criminals. We all know that more individuals in this country appear before a tribunal than before a court. We all know, in this Chamber, that more people will be affected by the civil aspects in private international law than will be affected by the far too many, but still far fewer, aspects of criminal offending by those who come here and would require those provisions.

This is the harsh reality of Brexit. We are signing up for something that is acceptable but not as good as what we had. It carries numerous risks. It leaves the danger of deficiencies—sometimes through error, perhaps, but sometimes through a failure to negotiate—that will leave each and every citizen of this country in a worse place. This is not what we were promised. We vote for these measures, but we do so with a heavy heart. It is the harsh reality of Brexit coming home. I hope that many families do not suffer as a consequence.

Probation Services

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am always happy to encourage free association of workers. It is part of who we are as a civilised society. The hon. Lady represents the great city of Durham, so many of her constituents will be public sector workers in Durham prison and Frankland high-security prison, which is not too far away. We should value that ethos of public service, wherever it comes from, and I am sure she will join me in paying tribute to those CRC members of staff—we hope they will make the transfer to the NPS—who have been serving the public diligently, even though they have been in the so-called “bad” private sector.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State may not wish to talk about ideology, but will he reflect on morality? Does he think it is morally right to make private profit out of incarceration and rehabilitation, because I do not?

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s extremely distinguished service in the Department. On legal aid deserts, it is of course right that those who are entitled to legal aid support can always access it over the telephone—that is an important point—but none the less, I very much take on board his points and would be happy to discuss the matter with him should he wish.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

Keeping the public safe from harm is the first duty of any Government. The terror attack in Streatham earlier this month sadly demonstrated that sentencing laws were not working as they should. People’s lives were being put at risk by the automatic early release of terrorist offenders without scrutiny by the Parole Board. Now that the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill has passed all its stages in both Houses, convicted terrorists will serve at least two thirds of their sentence before being considered for release.

The introduction of emergency legislation is not a step that the Government would ever take lightly, but the law was not working and we had a responsibility to act. I am pleased that this House agreed with that assessment and we were able to get the new law on the statute book as a matter of urgency.

[Christian Matheson]

Since 2010, the Conservatives have cut more than a third of all funding to local authorities’ domestic and sexual violence services. I have constituents coming to see me who are in shelters for months or even years because the facilities are not there. When are the Government going to bring forward the domestic abuse Bill, which has cross-party support, so that we can give justice to victims?

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that we intend to bring that Bill forward very soon indeed—well before Easter—so that we can debate it. He made a point about local government services; no doubt, he will have welcomed the announcement on the local government settlement that was made yesterday. He will know from his own experience of local authorities, as indeed I know from my local authority, that choices can be made to offer direct assistance. For example, with women’s shelters and refuges, decisions on non-domestic rates can help the funding of those services. Important decisions were made about how homelessness and housing support was given to make sure that the interests of those centres were put first and foremost, because they are not just shelters but places of rehabilitation and support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

May I welcome my hon. Friend to this House? He and I have known each other for a number of years and have campaigned together, and he will make an outstanding advocate for the people of Broxtowe. With regard to the issue of television licences, we believe that there is a case to examine decriminalisation. About one in 12 cases in the magistrates courts are taken up with television licence default. We want to consult on the matter, take evidence and see whether there is a better way forward.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the effect of trends in the level of staffing at courts on access to justice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

The hon. Member will be aware that the court system is in the middle of a reform programme, whose objectives are to make it more efficient, of course, but also to improve the user experience and access to justice. Despite the intended and planned reduction in Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service headcount, I believe that access to justice has been maintained, not least through the very widespread use now of online platforms to access justice, such as issuing and replying to civil money claims online, entering and replying to minor pleas online, and online probate applications and uncontested divorce cases. So I am satisfied that access to justice is being maintained throughout the court reform process.

[Christian Matheson]

That reform programme, which I read as court closures, is creating delays, but there are further delays in respect of the administrative staff who are supporting the courts: for example, I am told that in Chester and other courts CPS court caseworkers are now having to manage maybe three cases at once, with all the resultant delays that that brings about. So will the Minister look at the levels of administrative and support staff working behind the scenes to keep these things moving, because at the moment we are having delays of up to two years in Chester?

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his follow-up question. Questions concerning CPS staff levels are a matter for the Attorney General, but I can tell him that substantially larger amounts of money are going into the CPS—£85 million is going in over two years—to hire more staff. Also, innovations such as the common platform—the online system for handling criminal cases—will start to be rolled out very shortly, by which I mean in the next few weeks. So besides putting more money into the CPS, we are using the online system to make the staff working there more effective and efficient.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Plenty of time left. I call Christian Matheson.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

6. What steps the Government are taking to retain experienced prison officers.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)]

Recruiting and retaining engaged and motivated staff is critical to making our prisons safer and stopping reoffending. We have spent an additional £100 million to ensure we have thousands of extra prison officers at the frontline, allowing us to run better regimes and improve staff-prisoner relationships. From October 2016 to September 2018, there was a net increase of 4,364 full-time equivalent prison officers. We know that the retention of staff will take more than a one-size-fits-all approach. Specific action is being taken where attrition is most acute.

[Christian Matheson]

Morale among prison officers is at an all-time low because of low pay, understaffing and soaring violence, and now a retirement age that could go as late as 68. Police officers get the same protection as prison officers, and they are allowed to retire at 60. Why can prison officers not?

[Mr Gauke]

Of course, a deal was offered to prison officers and rejected a couple of years or so ago, but to come back to the point about morale, it is important that we address violence in prisons. That is why we have increased the number of staff, why we are giving prison officers the tools that they need—for example, PAVA—and why we are determined to ensure that we can turn this increase in violence around.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 5th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Very much so, and I want to pay tribute to the employers, businesses and charities that do so much in this space. I am pleased that there is a consensus in the House that we need to focus on rehabilitation and reoffending, and one of the best ways of doing that is focusing on employment.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

T10. I have constituents who are close family members of the murdered Fusilier Lee Rigby. They are being taunted by the constant drip, drip of musings from within the Prison Service of his two killers. Can Ministers ask the Prison Service to get a grip on those pronouncements and the ability to make them, and if they are to be made, might the family be informed first?

[Rory Stewart]

Absolutely. That is disgusting and disturbing behaviour, and I will be talking directly to the governor of the prisons concerned.

Parole Board and Victim Support

Christian Matheson Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have to say that the succinctness of the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) is medal-winning. May I exhort him to circulate his text book on pithy questions?

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

My question will not be quite as pithy, I am afraid.

Much as I support the idea of redemption and rehabilitation, my own view is that a sentence of nine years in prison for 19 rapes is simply derisory, especially given that, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), this was a predatory attacker. The Secretary of State said that IPP sentences were no longer in use. Is he satisfied that the current sentencing guidelines meet the need for decent sentences in shocking cases such as this?

[Mr Gauke]

First, let me briefly correct the hon. Gentleman: Worboys was convicted of 19 offences, and there was one conviction of rape. I do not say that in any way to undermine or belittle the seriousness with which his crimes should be considered.

As I have said, sentences for rape have gone up over the last eight years, and I think it right that that has happened.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Christian Matheson Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is fatally flawed, and that is why I will vote against it with hon. Friends in the Lobby tonight.

I will simply never be able to trust Tory Ministers with things like workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer rights. Let us take workers’ rights as an example. The Prime Minister has promised to retain all our workers’ rights as long as she holds office. In light of recent events, I hardly think that is particularly comforting, but in case we have any other doubts, let us just see what the then Tory Employment Minister, currently the International Development Secretary, said during the referendum campaign. She gave a speech at the Institute of Directors on 17 May 2016, about a month before the referendum. What does she want to do? To quote her, she wants to

“halve the burdens of the EU social and employment legislation”.

That is what the Tory Employment Minister said at the time of the referendum. It is no surprise that the Tories cannot be trusted now.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Did my hon. Friend see last Tuesday’s Order Paper, which listed a whole bunch of private Members’ Bills tabled by Brexiteer Conservative Members, including a Bill to take away the working time directive?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that, and it simply reinforces the case we are making: that Tory Ministers simply cannot be trusted with powers of this nature.

We have also frequently heard the argument about the need for legal certainty, but the Bill as drafted does not provide that legal certainty. What guidance does it give to judges post-Brexit as to how they are supposed to interpret the law that originated from the European Union? Absolutely none. The idea of a preliminary reference to the European Court is of course no more, because of the red line on the ECJ. That is completely gone. The remedy that citizens once had to go to the European Court is also gone. So the idea that, post Brexit, the Bill will assist our constitutional arrangements and provide clarity is simply wrong.