Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Raab and Meg Hillier

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to her for all the work we did together on these issues, and what a stalwart, doughty supporter she has been. The Victims Bill will place the victims code into law. It will increase oversight of how the criminal justice agencies work, both at the police and crime commissioner level and in the national inspections. I mentioned the increase in funding for victims. The increase in the victim surcharge will mean that we have more restorative justice, with offenders paying for the wrongs they have done and victims getting extra compensation.

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

I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), whose Government, of course, have been in power for 12 years. The court delays are a real problem for victims. One of my constituents was violently attacked and given a court date three years later. Her seven-year-old witnessed the attack, and the perpetrator keeps pestering her, breaking non-molestation orders, leaving the police pretty powerless, because he knows there is no traction. The Public Accounts Committee has looked into this. The backlog is not going down and will not be lower than pre-pandemic—it is not about covid. What is the Secretary of State doing to get a grip on his Department and make sure the courts deliver justice for victims?

[Dominic Raab]

I say to the hon. Lady that the Crown court backlog reduced from more than 60,000 cases in June 2021 to under 58,000 cases at the end of March 2022—[Interruption.] Hold on. The increase and the reversal of that trajectory were the result of the Criminal Bar Association’s strike action, which was unwarranted—[Interruption.] I am looking at Opposition Front Benchers. When we announced our proposals on the legal aid review, they agreed with every single one. Yet again, when it comes to the justice system, as with many other things, they are on the side not of the public, but of those who take disruptive industrial action.

Afghanistan: FCDO Update

Debate between Dominic Raab and Meg Hillier

Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

No one could fail to be moved by the heart-rending scenes at Kabul airport—the one my hon. Friend described and others. We will of course look at what we can do in relation to orphans and unaccompanied minors. The real challenge will be getting verifiable details about their parents—whether they are still alive or whether there are members of the wider family. In the first instance—this has been our experience more generally across the middle east and in war-torn countries—we want to try to see whether it is possible to reunite children with either their parents, if it is safe to do so, or wider members of their family.

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

As is the case for many MPs, many of my constituents who are British have family dependants in Afghanistan, and a number are saying that they want to go to a third country, such as Pakistan, to get them out. I am advising them to wait until they get advice from the Government, but is the Foreign Secretary having serious discussions with the Home Secretary about expediting cases that are already in the system, with the biometrics and paperwork already in place, to see whether we can get those people through quickly to avoid clogging up the infrastructure in those third countries?

United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between Dominic Raab and Meg Hillier

Friday 29th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), even though I take a fundamentally different view.

Last November, I resigned from the Cabinet because I could not support the Government’s Brexit deal, and I tell the House that I still believe it to be a bad deal. With the Government purporting to take no deal off the table and their acquiescence in the extension of article 50, I recognise that we potentially now face an even worse alternative that could reverse Brexit and betray our democracy. In extending article 50 and signalling that they were taking WTO exit off the table, the Government rather weakened their own negotiating position in Brussels, and I am afraid heartened some of those in Parliament who are seeking to frustrate Brexit. I believe that decision, which was a choice, was a mistake. As a direct result of that political choice, we now face a very real risk of the UK being forced to accept something akin to single market membership—losing control over our laws, our borders and an independent trade policy.

[Meg Hillier]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dominic Raab]

I will make a little progress.

The course the Government have taken gives rise to the very real concern that they would acquiesce in a further long extension, which on both sides of the channel would be used to try to exhaust the UK into revoking Brexit altogether. That is something that I believe we must not entertain or allow. In fairness to the Government, I also recognise that they have provided some additional assurances at the domestic level that Northern Ireland will not be forced, alone, to follow EU regulations. That is of some value, although I well appreciate the concerns of those—not just on the Opposition side of the House—who are concerned that those assurances are not contained in the withdrawal agreement and therefore are not binding at the international level. Until we see the Bill, it is impossible to assess the strength of those safeguards.

Beyond those assurances, the unilateral declaration and the joint instrument relating to the exit from the so-called backstop do not change our international obligations. Frankly, they offer scant political comfort either. In all this, however frustrating, I believe we need to proceed with some realism. The choice now is between the risk of being held in the backstop by the EU for a period without being able to control our exit and, on the other hand, a significant risk of losing Brexit altogether. Neither is palatable, and both could have been avoided if the Government had shown the requisite resolve and will.

I appreciate that, for many colleagues, this presents a very finely balanced judgment call. I share the deep frustrations many feel at being presented with two such unsavoury alternatives, but anger is not a political strategy, and in this fast-moving and fluid landscape, I believe we must assess the specific and tangible decision before us at this point in time. The motion today explicitly does not satisfy section 13 of the EU withdrawal Act so it is not, in practice or in law, a third meaningful vote. However—and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made this point rather well—the vote on its own terms does have significant legal and practical implications. First, it is necessary to satisfy the EU Council decision on 22 March to avoid and indeed prevent the Government returning to the EU to seek an even longer extension. I regard that as essential. The second implication of the motion, by virtue of that, is to avoid the UK holding European elections in May. I regard that as absolutely essential to avoid the very dangerous and corrosive effect on public trust in our democracy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Raab and Meg Hillier

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Of course, under the withdrawal agreement, we have set out very clearly the rights that people would have in order to give effect to the assurance that he is seeking. They include the right to stay in this country; the right to work; protection for those working as frontier workers; the right for close family members to join them; the recognition of EEA professional qualifications; and a role for the independent monitoring authority in relation to the application of the citizens’ rights element of the agreement, which would mirror what the Commission will do for UK citizens on the continent.

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

Does the Minister seriously believe that the Home Office will be able to cope with the number of applications from EU citizens, when its existing immigration systems are in overload?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Raab and Meg Hillier

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[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?