Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer]

We appreciate all the issues raised by my hon. Friend, who has been a long-term campaigner on family law. I guarantee that either a senior official or a Minister will attend that meeting.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

We have heard the human cost of the Government’s policies, but I have had the pleasure of facing several—four or perhaps five—Justice Ministers across the Dispatch Box who claimed they would sort out the courts backlog. They have all failed. Contrary to what the Minister said, Crown court cases increased by 6% on the previous year in February: up 3,500 to nearly 61,000. Magistrates court cases were up 1,600 to more than 345,000. President of the Law Society Lubna Shuja has said:

“The data cuts through the rhetoric and clearly shows that delays in the criminal justice system aren’t coming down anytime soon.”

What new rhetoric does the Minister have today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

Well, they are working. The hon. Gentleman will not want to admit it, but if he waits to see the facts when they are published, I hope he will then realise that we are taking tangible action to improve the capacity of our courts.

[Mr Speaker]

Don’t forget that Chorley court is still empty—we’ll take the capacity problems that Preston has.

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

2. What recent assessment he has made of the impact of changes in the number of police officers on the criminal justice system in England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

Respectfully, the hon. Gentleman may not have quite read the entirety of the Bill, which makes it clear that in appropriate cases where there is an imminent risk of serious and irreversible harm, there will be the opportunity to make those points. He mentions Magna Carta; Magna Carta also includes the right to be tried by a jury of one’s peers, which he apparently wants to get rid of. I am interested to note that one of the most effective critics of that proposal was none other than the most eminent Scottish jurist Lord Hope of Craighead.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I start by congratulating the new Justice Secretary on his appointment: he has always come across as a measured and principled parliamentarian, and someone who is very serious about the rule of law. But what better way to trash that hard-earned reputation than by penning a joint opinion piece with the Home Secretary in defence of the outrageous Illegal Migration Bill, which blatantly trashes four international rights conventions and which the Law Society itself has warned has serious implications for the UK’s standing as a country that upholds the rule of law? Why is the Justice Secretary defending the Home Secretary instead of the rule of law?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

Human rights are important. I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave a few moments ago.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

I have already welcomed the Lord Chancellor to his position. He will know that, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is not a legal maxim, but it is still a sound one that may apply in this case. If it were thought necessary to make changes to the human rights regime in this country, perhaps the report of Sir Peter Gross offers a better way forward, but does he also agree that his Department’s important priorities are those that affect people’s day-to-day lives in their interactions with the justice system? Ensuring that we have fully efficient and working court systems and an efficient and human prison system may therefore be higher priorities. Perhaps meeting the Bar Council and the Law Society to iron out the remaining matters from the Bellamy review and ensuring that we have a proper prison workforce strategy, rather than legislating, may therefore be his best priorities—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. You’re not in court now, Sir Robert. Come on.

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend makes powerful points, and they are borne very much in mind.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

I welcome the Justice Secretary to his place. Positive obligations are a cornerstone of the Human Rights Act 1998. They mean that the state must protect as well as refrain from restricting our rights. The victims of the black cab rapist John Worboys used these obligations to hold the police to account for failing to properly investigate more than 105 alleged rapes and sexual assaults perpetrated by him. How can this Government be trusted on ending violence against women and girls when the previous Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) wanted to rip up that Act and those obligations? Will the new Justice Secretary commit himself to protecting them and the rights they give to victims?

[Alex Chalk]

The rights that the hon. Lady refers to derive from the European convention on human rights: the right to life, the privilege against torture and inhumane or degrading treatment, the right to a fair trial, the right to a family life, and so on. Those stand apart from the Human Rights Act, but she is correct to say that they are important rights. The only thing I would take issue with is where she talks about violence against women and girls. It is the Conservative party that made coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence—Labour did not. It is this party that made stalking a criminal offence—Labour did not. It is this party that made non-fatal strangulation a stand-alone criminal offence—Labour did not. And it is this party that passed Acts such as the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and will pass Acts such as the Victims and Prisoners Bill to ensure that victims are properly served.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to be seen as a Justice Secretary who will stand up for the rule of law and access to justice, he should be putting the greatest possible distance between himself and the dreadful pet project of his predecessor by disowning the Bill of Rights altogether. Importantly, will he stop that Bill being split up and dropped into other pieces of legislation, as we have already seen with the Illegal Migration Bill? Instead of undermining respect for international rights, why does he not work to incorporate more rights into domestic law, such as the UN convention on the rights of the child?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

20. What steps he is taking to bring forward legislative proposals to tackle strategic lawsuits against public participation.

[Mr Speaker]

Who is answering? Come on, Secretary of State.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

Sorry, Mr Speaker; I was so excited giving that last answer. SLAPPs involve abusing the legal process to shut down legitimate investigations and criticisms that wealthy individuals might find inconvenient. We will introduce a new statutory definition, an early dismissal process to strike out SLAPP litigation and protections against excessive legal costs. We are looking closely at a number of legislative avenues to pursue that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s answer to the question from the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), but how can he introduce fresh challenges for the Department when the backlog is so severe? A visit to Wandsworth prison at Easter with a cross-party group of MPs showed that 75% of prisoners were still waiting for a basic sentence. [Interruption.] While he is reassessing his priorities—and introducing new things such as legislation on SLAPPs—will he reconsider the day job and the bread-and-butter work of getting through the backlog, so that three quarters of prisoners actually get their sentence and victims get justice?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say that I love the imagination, but we have to be careful not to overstretch these questions. Secretary of State, are you happy to have a go?

[Alex Chalk]

I will give it a go, Mr Speaker. The question was ingenious, and I commend the hon. Member for it. Capacity is critically important—absolutely—and I want to stress, because people will be listening to this, that in 90% of the cases that take place in magistrates courts there are not those difficulties. However, it is true that we are expanding capacity, which is why there are more judges and there are 24 Nightingale courts. List officers are ensuring that we are getting through some of these most sensitive cases as quickly as possible, and the backlog in the Crown court—the case load in the Crown court—is coming down. We are seeing progress, and it is going to accelerate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

I reiterate that it is a matter for the judiciary to question the bona fides of an expert: if they do not believe an expert seeking to give evidence in court is of the required standard, the judiciary can reject them. On taking further steps, the rights of the child are paramount, which is why we are looking forward to discussions to see how we can tighten up the role of experts. Equally, the Government are confident that the family justice system can robustly address this issue already. If there is more work to be done once we have been able to see the evidence, we will do it, but I am not proposing that we rush into a further review at this stage.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

Family courts across the country are being used to perpetuate domestic abuse, and when that abuse proves fatal, which we know it too often does, the family courts allow it to be continued against the victim’s family. Currently, the parents of a woman who was killed by her husband would have to be cross-examined by that same murderer to adopt their orphaned grandchildren. This is a system that is stacked in favour of the killer. Do the Government agree that this practice is abhorrent and support Labour’s calls to implement Jade’s law in the Victims and Prisoners Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

The rights of grandparents have risen up the agenda considerably over the last few years. Both colleagues who have spoken on this issue today, including my hon. Friend, make some valid points. I will give a commitment to discuss it with my colleague Lord Bellamy, who leads on this area, to see what further work we can do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

These are not my words on the cuts to legal aid, but the words of the new Lord Chancellor:

“There is now a serious concern that, without some steps to restore a measure of access to justice, serious injustice will inevitably follow.”

Will the Minister heed the words of his new boss and reverse the devastating cuts to legal aid that his party has inflicted over the last decade?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this point. The Government have invested significantly in new capabilities for law enforcement, including our specially trained network of undercover online officers, to arrest offenders committing online child sexual abuse. Co-ordinated National Crime Agency and policing activity against those offenders is currently resulting in over 800 arrests per month, and we have also delivered a further £4.5 million for organisations supporting victims and survivors of child sexual abuse.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to welcome the Secretary of State to his place for the second day running. I have been reading his speeches with interest. He once said the Conservatives should

“do away with the argument that…we are somehow soft on crime.”—[Official Report, 2 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 90.]

Is it not “soft” to tell judges that they cannot lock up dangerous criminals?