Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Joanna Cherry and David Gauke

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that leaving the EU without a deal risks some significant impacts across the justice system, including potential disruption to goods and services to our prisons; an increase in case load and case complexity across court jurisdictions; increased pressure on our courts system; the loss of access to several law enforcement tools, including the loss of data exchange tools, making it more difficult to protect the public; and market access impacts on our legal sector, restricting or removing our ability to operate in EU markets. So do I think a no-deal Brexit is a good idea? No, I do not.

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

I commend the Secretary of State for his honesty, but I wonder whether he would pass on his knowledge on this subject to the two candidates to be the next Prime Minister, because, despite their recent and mercifully brief visits to Scotland, they seem unaware of the impact on the safety of people living in Scotland and across the UK if we leave the EU without a deal. Has he spoken to them to explain that if we do not have the use of the European arrest warrant, it will be extremely difficult to apprehend people who commit violent crime in this country and then go back to the continent, whereas at the moment this can be done within a matter of days?

[Mr Gauke]

Both candidates for the leadership of my party have made it clear that they do not want a no-deal Brexit, and I wish them well—[Interruption.] I understand that the chances are “a million to one”, so I wish them well in their endeavours.

[Joanna Cherry]

It would seem that the Secretary of State and I must be reading different newspapers. In an earlier answer, he mentioned problems of data protection if we leave without a deal. Has he explained to the candidates to be Prime Minister that leaving without a deal means we would lose membership of Europol and, because of data protection rules, that would mean that not only would the police no longer have access to data held by Europol, but information that Police Scotland has currently been providing to Europol will be removed from Europol databases, thus prejudicing ongoing investigations? Does he agree that it is not acceptable for people in Scotland to have their safety so prejudiced?

[Mr Gauke]

First, I can confirm that I suspect we do read different newspapers, but I agree that the loss of access to various law enforcement tools would make it more difficult to protect the public. I am sure there are ways in which these issues can be addressed, but a much better way forward would be to leave the EU—this is where we disagree—with a deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Joanna Cherry and David Gauke

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

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

It is now well recognised that a system that pushes offenders through a revolving door of short prison sentences simply does not work. Notwithstanding the riders expressed by the Secretary of State a moment ago, the fact is that the Justice Committee, as well as his Government, have recognised that the system in Scotland is working. The Committee’s recent report recommended that the UK Government follow Scotland’s approach of a presumption against short sentences. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to introducing such a presumption in England and Wales?

[Mr Gauke]

I hope to be able to say more about the details of what we want to do in the not too distant future, but in respect of the approach that is being taken in Scotland, it is worth bearing in mind that it is already the case in England that a custodial sentence should be pursued only as a last resort, so there is already something approaching a presumption in the English system. I am interested in seeing whether we could go further than that, but I welcome the hon. and learned Lady’s approach —our shared approach, I think—of scepticism about the effectiveness of short sentences.

[Joanna Cherry]

As someone who worked in the criminal justice system in Scotland for 20 years before coming to the House, I can assure the Secretary of State that the idea that a custodial sentence should be a last resort existed in Scotland before the presumption against short sentences, so that is an additional presumption.

One of the bodies that gave evidence to the Justice Committee pointed out that diverting those who have been identified as low-risk offenders

“from short custodial sentences to suspended custodial sentences could reduce the prison population”

in England and Wales by about 3,000 places. Does the Secretary of State agree that the presumption against short sentences in Scotland can help to reduce the prison population, and could do so if introduced south of the border?

[Mr Gauke]

As I have said, I hope to say more about the approach we want to take, but there is a case that an approach on short sentences along the lines that I have discussed may reduce the prison population, but the principal purpose is not reducing the prison population. It will not be massively dramatic, but I believe it will help to reduce reoffending. That is the big prize, rather than what are likely to be relatively marginal changes to the prison population.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Joanna Cherry and David Gauke

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that on leaving the European Union we will not have access to the European arrest warrant. We would wish to be able to do so, but there are difficulties. For example, Germany has a constitutional bar in this area. The Home Office continues to work with EU member states to try to find a way in which we can have as effective extradition and arrest warrant arrangements as possible.

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

Justice issues are, of course, largely devolved. EU initiatives such as Eurojust and the European arrest warrant are well utilised by Scottish prosecutors and are hugely valued by them. In the current Brexit talks between the UK Government and the Labour party, will the Secretary of State confirm what proposals regarding justice have been discussed and if the Scottish Government have been or will be consulted on these or any forthcoming proposals that may result from the talks between the Tories and the Labour party?

[Mr Gauke]

I am not going to comment specifically on those discussions. What I would say in the context of no-deal preparations is that, as I understand it, the Scottish Government have not allocated any of the money given to them for no-deal preparation on justice matters. Certainly, when it comes to the United Kingdom, we are doing everything we can to prepare for every eventuality.

[Joanna Cherry]

I can assure the Secretary of State that the Scottish Government’s no-deal planning is well advanced. The Justice Secretary’s Government recently opted into the Eurojust regulation. Eurojust plays a vital role in the fight against serious organised crime, particularly terrorism but also cyber-crime and child pornography. His Department said that opting in was necessary to ensure that the UK continues to work in line with our European partners in the lead-up to exit day and during the transition period. Will he tell us how many more justice opt-ins has he planned before Brexit takes place and will they feature in the Tory manifesto for the EU Parliament elections?

[Mr Gauke]

What I say to the hon. and learned Lady is that we want to work in a pragmatic way with the European Union, so that as we leave the EU, we continue to co-operate wherever we can to our mutual benefit. That does require us to reach a deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Joanna Cherry and David Gauke

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Can the Lord Chancellor assist me in finding out the answer to a question that the Attorney General and the Brexit Secretary have been unable to answer: how much taxpayers’ money did the UK Government spend fighting the litigation that established that the article 50 notice can be unilaterally revoked?

[Mr Gauke]

I certainly cannot give that answer this morning, but of course there is no intention to revoke article 50.

Worboys Case and the Parole Board

Debate between Joanna Cherry and David Gauke

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who is also a distinguished predecessor in my post. He is absolutely right on both counts. In terms of whether I took action or not, I thought that it was very important to test the legal arguments. As I made clear on 19 January, I was not going to stand in the way of others and, indeed, others may have been better placed to bring that case. I looked carefully at the advice I had received and based my actions on that advice.

My right hon. and learned Friend’s second point is also important. There were failures in what the Parole Board did, including not probing sufficiently and not being sufficiently inquisitive. We must, however, accept that the Parole Board makes thousands of decisions every year that often involve difficult judgments, and it is not always necessarily going to get it right, but it is not the role of politicians to interfere and second-guess those decisions. We do, though, have a role in ensuring that we have a system in place with clear guidance, clear training and the right people. We clearly need to do some work on that, and I have set out some proposals today.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his very full statement. I welcome this decision, both in respect of the remit back to the Parole Board and on the transparency of the reasons. It seems that there has been a shocking dereliction of duty on the part of the Parole Board. I welcome the actions that the Secretary of State is taking to tackle this. It is important that Professor Hardwick, who has resigned, is not made a scapegoat. I congratulate the Secretary of State on focusing on the rules and procedures, which need to be tightened up.

Something has gone very wrong in this case from the start. In order to get justice, the victims themselves have had to go to court to vindicate their rights—not once, but twice. First, they had to go to court in order to get a proper investigation by the police and a prosecution of the cases. Secondly, they had to protect themselves from the early release of their attacker.

As others have said, judicial review has proved to be a key tool in this respect. It is therefore very unfortunate that legal aid is no longer widely available in England and Wales for judicial review. I urge the Secretary of State to look at the independent review of legal aid in Scotland—I stress the words “independent review”—that was published earlier this month, because it showed that with less spend per capita than in England, legal aid has much wider eligibility and scope in Scotland. Seventy per cent. of Scots are eligible for legal aid. If that can be done on less money per capita in Scotland, then it can be done in England. Will he commit to an independent review of legal aid in England and Wales so that if victims in these cases have to use judicial review, they can have the wherewithal to do it regardless of their means?

[Mr Gauke]

On legal aid, the hon. and learned Lady will be aware that we are undertaking a post-implementation review of the changes to legal aid that were made earlier in this decade, and we will conclude that before the end of the year. Certainly, given what she has said, we would want to take into account the evidence in Scotland as part of that review.

As for failures within the Parole Board, I think, as I said, that it is right that Professor Nick Hardwick stand down as chair of the Parole Board. I acknowledge that he has been a dedicated public servant who has done a number of very good things at the Parole Board as well. However, I believe that there have been significant failures and that at this point new leadership is required within the Parole Board.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Joanna Cherry and David Gauke

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman states his position very clearly and forthrightly. As we leave the European Union, new flexibilities will arise for all parts of the United Kingdom.

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

Unlike the EU withdrawal Bill, the Scottish Government’s legal continuity Bill contains a power to enable devolved law in Scotland to keep pace with EU law after Brexit, where appropriate. Does the Secretary of State agree that similar provisions should be made in the EU withdrawal Bill for reserved matters and for the benefit of the English legal system?

[Mr Gauke]

The extent to which this Parliament decides that it wishes to replicate provisions of EU law is a matter for this Parliament, and whether or not we put that in the EU withdrawal Bill, that freedom will continue to exist for this Parliament.

[Joanna Cherry]

Another point of contrast between the Scottish Government’s legal continuity Bill and the EU withdrawal Bill is that the Scottish Government’s Bill incorporates the charter of fundamental rights into Scots law in so far as it applies to devolved matters. What is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that everyone in the United Kingdom keeps their rights guaranteed by the charter, regardless of which jurisdiction they live in?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Joanna Cherry and David Gauke

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I thank my hon. Friend. Given that the last Lord Chancellor from Ipswich was Cardinal Wolsey, who ran into some difficulties in negotiations with a powerful European supranational body, I should tread carefully. It is important that in our negotiations we try as best we can to provide the certainty my hon. Friend seeks.

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

I welcome the new Secretary of State for Justice to his place. Sir David Edward, a distinguished former judge in Scotland and at the European Court of Justice, has said that so far

“the UK Government has overlooked the significance of the separate Scottish legal system, the Scottish judicial system and the Scottish prosecution system in relation to justice and home affairs issues”

in their negotiations with the EU. Will the new Secretary of State undertake to meet me to discuss how those oversights might be rectified?

[Mr Gauke]

I am not sure that I would accept the hon. and learned Lady’s characterisation of the position as one of oversight. I made it clear in the very first answer I gave in this role that I fully appreciate that Scotland had a distinct legal system. However, I would certainly be delighted to discuss the matter with her further.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for agreeing to meet me, but that was not my characterisation; it was the characterisation of a senior judge in the Scottish courts and in the Court of Justice. The judge went on to describe the UK Government’s paper on enforcement and dispute resolution as

“an undergraduate essay which would have failed”.

He says that those who are writing the papers are not aware of the problems posed by the separate Scottish legal system and that they do not want to hear from the experts who have offered to help. This is a serious problem. Will the Secretary of State, in his new role, undertake to listen to those who know about the Scottish legal system and to take on board their concerns in his negotiations on these matters?

[Mr Gauke]

I want to ensure that we end up in a position that is good for the legal system and legal services in every part of the United Kingdom. That certainly includes Scotland, and of course I will want to engage with representations and representatives from all parts of the United Kingdom to ensure that we get the best possible deal.

Parole Board and Victim Support

Debate between Joanna Cherry and David Gauke

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that case. I met Professor Hardwick this morning and he is already participating in this debate. He has been making the case for greater transparency and, as I said in an earlier response, he makes a good case. There is a strong case for ensuring that the reasons for particular decisions are put in the public domain, where that provides reassurance.

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

I welcome the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State to his place, and I thank him for advance notice of the statement. I was pleased to hear him say that it is a priority for the Government that victims of rape and sexual assault have full confidence in the criminal justice system.

In Scotland, where these matters are devolved, we have put a huge amount of work into improving the prosecution of sex crimes, and Police Scotland works closely with the National Sex Crimes Unit—I was proud to be one of its first prosecutors nine years ago. In Scotland we have robust victim notification schemes. What has gone wrong with the notification scheme in this case is just one issue. There were also very serious failings from the outset in the way in which the police approached the investigation, and the House needs assurance that those serious police failings could never happen again. Can the Secretary of State give us that assurance?

It is concerning that, as Home Secretary, the Prime Minister intervened to support the police against victims who had successfully obtained findings in the lower courts that the police had been in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the way they investigated them. I appreciate that, as the Lord Chancellor has said, those cases are currently sub judice, but can he give an undertaking that when the judgment is issued he will make a statement to the House about why the Government took the side of the police against the victims?

Worboys is going to be free later this month unless further charges are brought. We are all aware that there were many more Worboys victims than those in respect of whom there has been a prosecution. The Guardian has reported that the police say there is no live investigation, but it has also reported that the victims would like to see proceedings brought. Can the Lord Chancellor confirm whether any of those cases are still live? Will there be any further charges?

[Mr Gauke]

Further charges are a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and I am very limited in what I can say about that. What I can say is that of course it is a priority for us that rape and other sexual offences are pursued. As I mentioned earlier, sentences for rape have increased in recent years by approximately 30% on average. We take these matters extremely seriously, and we continue to ensure that these horrendous crimes are pursued. It is not for me to make a statement about likely further prosecutions in this particular case. We are talking about a case that was prosecuted in 2009, and I know that there is an ongoing debate about whether more cases should have been brought at that point. It is important that we learn the lessons from this case and, not just looking at the particular facts of this case, ensure that we have a victim support system that works for victims across the board.