Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

3. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on the protection of human rights of UK citizens of the UK leaving the EU.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

The Government’s assessment of fundamental rights is set out in their policy paper, “Rights and obligations of European Union membership”, which was published on 14 April.

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but his Secretary of State wants to leave the EU and the Home Secretary wants to leave the European convention on human rights, so should we take it that when this Government are finished, the UK will no longer be party to any international human rights treaties? Is that really the message that the UK Government want to send to the rest of the world?

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I think he probably knows by now that, in regard to the plans being worked up for the Bill of Rights, it is not the Government’s policy to withdraw from the convention. We have said that we cannot rule that out for ever and a day, but that is not our proposal now, and it is absolutely not the case that we would withdraw from a whole range of other international human rights treaties if we left the EU.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that if we stay in the European Union the real risk is that, rather than human rights policy being determined by this House and adjudicated on by British courts, it will be decided by the Brussels bureaucrats and the European Court of Justice, and that before we know it, prisoners will be given the right to vote?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend makes his powerful point in an eloquent way. There is a recognition across the House, on whichever side of the wider debate, that some of the laws that have come out of the EU have been damaging to civil liberties, whether involving the European arrest warrant and the injustice inflicted on my constituent Colin Dines, or the right to be forgotten, which has a muzzling effect on free speech. There are certainly areas of concern, on whichever side of the wider debate Members are.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Gender equality is recognised as a fundamental human right by the European Union, and a report from the TUC has identified 20 key areas in which European Union law has enhanced the rights of working women, often in the face of opposition from Tory Governments. How does the Minister propose to ensure that these hard-won employment rights are protected in the event of a Brexit?

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her question. First, the vast majority of equal pay rights and women’s and workplace rights have been introduced by this House—by elected representatives accountable to the British people. I am surprised that she believes that the human rights and wider rights of our citizens and her constituents are better protected at EU level by bureaucrats and unaccountable politicians rather than by hon. Members in this House who are accountable to the British people.

[Joanna Cherry]

As the Minister well knows, we did not get equal pay for work of equal value until the European Court intervened, and we have wide maternity rights only because of European directives. The Prime Minister’s former adviser Steve Hilton, who supports leaving the EU, said in 2011 that maternity leave should be abolished. Does the Minister wish to add his voice to that particular pungent voice? If not, which employment rights would he abolish in the event of a Brexit?

[Mr Raab]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for that, but I do not think that any of the factual assertions she has made are right. There is absolutely no plan such as that she suggests, and I do not support abolishing paternity rights; in fact, when I was a Back Bencher under the last Government and this point was raised, I was fully in favour of transferable parental leave. She is mistaken in what she says, but what is most striking is that the message she is sending to her constituents and the wider citizens of this country is that they should have no faith in her ability and that of the Scottish National party in this House to protect their rights.

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

The convention was agreed in the 1950s, Britain joined the EU in the ’70s and the Human Rights Act was agreed in the ’90s. Twenty years on, does the Minister agree that it is important that we revisit all these papers, because rights were not invented by pieces of paper? Instead we should have a British Bill of Rights.

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is right and makes an important point about the future direction of human rights laws in this country. We are party to the European convention on human rights, and that is a different and separate issue from the EU. Our regime is based around our membership of the European convention, and considerable legal uncertainty is created if the Luxembourg Court starts to interfere and create risks and wider uncertainty about which rules apply and how.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister may wish this was not the case, but in fact the EU has provided and protected employment and human rights for part-time workers and working parents, with paid holidays, maximum working hours, measures to tackle discrimination at work, and time off to care for sick children. Does he think that those rights are worth protecting? Or does he agree with the billionaire stockbroker who is funding the Brexit campaign, Peter Hargreaves, who thinks we should leave the EU because

“we will be insecure again. And insecurity is fantastic”?

[Mr Raab]

It is thunder and lightning but it does not provide much clarity on the issue; the bottom line is that the hon. Gentleman has little faith in Labour fearsomely defending workers’ rights. Whichever side someone is on in this House or in this debate, they should want to uphold the right of this House to make those finely balanced decisions on employment regulation and make sure that they are tailored to the precise needs of this country, not those of bureaucrats and other vested interests in Brussels.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

4. How many non-UK EU nationals (a) the UK has ever returned to prison in their own EU country under the EU prisoner transfer directive and (b) are in a UK prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

10. What progress he has made on proposals for reform of the Human Rights Act 1998.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

We will bring forward our proposals for a British Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act. We have made good progress on the development of our plans, with input from practitioners, non-governmental organisations, academics and many others right across the UK. Our proposals will be announced in due course and we shall consult fully on them.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Minister says that plans will be published in due course, but plans to repeal the Human Rights Act were announced in the Conservative manifestos in both 2010 and 2015 and in the Queen’s Speech in 2015 and 2016. Can he please explain why his Department has so far failed to publish any proposals or begin a consultation on those plans?

[Mr Raab]

I appreciate that the hon. Lady is eager to engage in a detailed, substantive debate on human rights. Distinguished people in the Opposition, from Lord Irvine through to the current shadow Justice Secretary, have talked about the defects in the Human Rights Act. They have made compelling points and we intend to act on them. I look forward to debating the matter with the hon. Lady in due course.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

12. What steps are being taken to improve safety and reduce violence at HM Prison Lewes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

15. When he expects the review of employment tribunal fees to be completed.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

The review will report in due course, and it will assess how effective the introduction of employment tribunal fees has been in the achievement of the original objectives.

[Dawn Butler]

So we still await the official report from the Government, but it is obvious that tribunal fees have affected the number of cases being brought, especially by women. In 2013 there were 18,398; in 2015 there were just 6,423. Will the Minister elaborate on those figures? Will he also elaborate on the multiple cases brought by men? Were those men from the private sector or the public sector? Were they white-collar or blue-collar workers?

[Mr Raab]

The assessment will look at the impact on protected characteristics, including the ones the hon. Lady mentioned. It is only fair and reasonable that those using tribunals make some contribution to the cost where they are able to. It is not right that the whole bill for employment tribunals, which is about £71 million per year, should be picked up by taxpayers, so we are looking to strike the right balance. There is, of course, a system of fee remissions to protect vulnerable workers, and we have taken steps to raise awareness of that scheme. We have also taken steps to encourage voluntary conciliation, which is a good way of settling disputes away from the tense, stressful and costly environment of a courtroom.

[Angela Crawley]

I received assurances from the Government that the post-implementation review of tribunal fees would be published last year. We now find ourselves six months beyond that deadline, and we are still waiting. Evidence suggests that tribunal fees do act as a barrier to justice and that they are compounding pregnancy and maternity discrimination. While we wait for the Government to get a move on, women continue to be discriminated against daily. When will the Minister finally publish the post-implementation review and scrap tribunal fees completely?

[Mr Raab]

The hon. Lady makes some powerful points. We are going to publish the assessment shortly. It is also right to point out, though, that we are seeking to divert people away from costly and often acrimonious tribunal hearings. Fees are a part of that, as is pushing in the direction of conciliation. Although conciliation is not compulsory, I am sure she will be reassured to know that parties agree to participate in it in 75% of cases, and satisfaction levels are very high.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that employment tribunal fees have played an important part in reducing the threat of litigation that hangs over businesses, particularly small businesses? Does he agree that they have also played an important part in the resurgence of our economy and job creation?

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend has a lot of experience of this issue, and he is absolutely right to look at its dual impact, particularly on small businesses. However, it is also right to say that this is not a binary, zero-sum game, and we attach huge importance to the fact that early conciliation has been used by more than 80,000 litigants in the first year, with over 80% of those participating reporting that they were satisfied with the outcome.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I have met many constituents who say that they will not pursue their cases to tribunal because of the introduction of fees. Does that not suggest that the existence of the fees acts as a deterrent?

[Mr Raab]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but we also have to factor in the proportion of those who have been diverted into conciliation. In resolving disputes like this, alternative dispute settlement will often be the best outcome for resolving the dispute, but also, in particular, for claimants who would otherwise struggle to bear the costs.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

14. When his Department plans to publish its consultation on a British Bill of Rights.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

As I have already said, we are looking to report on the review in due course. It will assess how effective the introduction of the fees has been in achieving all the different objectives we laid out.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for his answer. However, last week the Government amended the Investigatory Powers Bill to include a duty on public authorities to have regard to the requirements of the Human Rights Act. Does this mean that the Government’s plans to repeal the Human Rights Act have now been shelved?

[Mr Raab]

No, we are absolutely resolute about replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights, and we are working on those proposals. The hon. Lady will not have to wait long to be able to engage on the substance rather than some of the scare stories flying around in the media.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

16. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of planned changes to personal injury law and whiplash claims on access to justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

20. What plans he has to review sentencing guidelines related to stalking offences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

Sentencing guidelines are issued by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales. I understand that it has plans to consider the stalking guidelines next year.

[Richard Graham]

The Minister has read the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and me on the case for extending the maximum sentences for stalking. He will also have heard Lily Allen say last week of her stalker, “You can put him behind bars but he’ll be out soon and waiting there for his victim.” What can be done to assess the case for extending the maximum sentence for a few very dangerous stalkers who severely damage the lives of their victims?

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes his point in a particularly lyrical way. He knows that we are looking at a range of issues around sentencing. It is important that those are considered in the round to make sure that we better protect the public and improve reoffending levels. I read the excellent report produced by my hon. Friends on sentences for stalking, and we are giving it very serious consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Earlier this month, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor expressed his frustration at our country’s inability to prevent the entry of foreign national criminals and even terror suspects. Can he tell the House how things will change when we leave the European Union?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

I think it is well known that the current test for denial of entry for people coming from the EU is that they must pose a serious, genuine and present threat, which has obviously created difficulties over the years.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last week the Public Accounts Committee published a report on the criminal justice system. One of our conclusions was:

“The criminal justice system is not good enough at supporting victims and witnesses.”

We also cited the fact that only 55% of witnesses, many of whom are of course victims as well, say that they would go through the process again. Does the Secretary of State agree with our conclusion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Constituents including the families of Jamie Still and of David and Dorothy Metcalf were dismayed after the report in the Telegraph that there would be an announcement on criminal driving in the Queen’s Speech turned out not to be correct. Will the Secretary of State give a clear assurance that the review will happen quickly and that we will finally get changes to give victims of criminal driving and their families better justice?

[Mr Raab]

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in this issue. Everything that we do on sentencing is informed by the need to protect the public and drive down reoffending. We will look at a range of proposals in due course with those twin objectives in mind, including the potential for prisoners to earn their release from custody. We are also looking at driving offences and, as with stalking, we will welcome any further ideas along the way.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

The former Justice Secretary was warned that cuts in legal aid to domestic violence victims were “grossly unfair” and “harsh”. That is why the Court of Appeal shot them down. In response, the Government decided to do a survey, which had a very limited timeframe for being filled in. Do the Government think that that was a reasonable way to show that they take the situation seriously? Would it not be better to have a full, open, public and transparent consultation?