Independent Review of Administrative Law

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. May I answer his last question first? I can give him that assurance. With regard to the Cart jurisdiction, that clearly relates to a reserved matter concerning immigration issues, which does, of course, apply to the Scottish jurisdiction as well. In respecting separate jurisdictions, as I always do, these proposals relate to England and Wales matters and have been carefully delineated in that way.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s other assertions, I will simply say this: to conflate issues relating to public order with this Government’s approach to the rule of law and their steadfast belief in democratic institutions is, once again, to stretch reality too far. Without repeating the arguments that we had earlier this week, I cannot equate the adoption of recommendations by the independent Law Commission about the law of public nuisance with the sort of reactionary, authoritarian acts of France of the 1790s. It beggars belief that such comparisons are being made. They do not stand close scrutiny, and I am sure that in the weeks and months ahead, the intellectual poverty of these arguments will be exposed.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) [V]]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement. From my recent practice at the Bar, I know that the judicial review system is sometimes abused, and some unscrupulous lawyers will use it when they should not. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Opposition Members would be hypocritical to oppose this review, given that they—including the shadow Justice Secretary—proposed a complete abolition of judicial review in immigration and asylum matters?

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend, who is an experienced family practitioner of many years’ standing, will know from her professional experience that, while the proper use of legal process to make legitimate claims is at the heart of our rule of law, it should sadden all of us if we see attempts being made to delay and frustrate that process by the use of procedures that, frankly, are otiose and do not add to the fairness or justice of proceedings but rather detract from the overall outcome and the fairness of it.

My hon. Friend is right to make the point that successive Governments, including the one in which the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) served, have argued, sometimes very passionately, in favour of quite wide-ranging ouster clauses in order to achieve a higher degree of legal certainty. That was what happened back in 2003, when the right hon. Gentleman was in government. What we need to do now is avoid having those arguments in future, with overly wide ouster clauses, and find a proper modus vivendi, whereby they can be used proportionately in a way that will not offend the courts.

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

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee stage: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Let me first declare an interest, as an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. I take a different view on this Bill from my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). When I looked at the Bill and what it does, two words came out as being necessary to preserve, the first of which was agility. The Government need to have the agility to be able to implement treaties in this way. The second word was “flexibility”, which partly comes down to the issue of speed. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon was wrong when he said that these sort of treaties take forever and there is no rush to get them through. There is a rush to get them through. One example of where there is a need to get a treaty sorted out is the Singapore mediation convention. It harms absolutely no one. All it does is make the decisions that are reached in mediation in countries that have signed the convention applicable anywhere around the world. It stops the enormously artificial process of having a mediation and then changing the mediators for another set of arbitrators, who then introduce the arbitration on exactly the same lines as the mediation in order for it to be caught by the New York convention, which is applicable around the world and which we have signed.

Understanding why we need to be quick with that treaty, which, as I say, does no harm, comes back to the visit that I and colleagues from both sides of the Houses made to Singapore earlier in the year. We have heard that many people see alternative dispute resolution as the way forward, but that is a complacent way of looking at the situation in the UK. The UK is not doing very well at maintaining itself as a global hub for alternative dispute resolution. The facilities available for conducting arbitration or mediation are far inferior to those that can be found in Singapore. If we sit around for much longer thinking that we can carry on being the global hub for this, we will lose that position very quickly and it will go to somebody else.

The techniques that we need to approve a major treaty are completely different from the sort of techniques that are needed to adopt a small treaty such as the Singapore mediation convention. We are speaking not about a new Maastricht treaty, but about treaties such as the Singapore mediation convention. We do not need an Act of Parliament for that; we need Ministers to get on with signing and implementing them as quickly as possible.

The Law Society has rather missed the point. It stresses the point that the effects of a treaty can have influence on domestic law, but it totally ignores the need for speed and it falls into the trap of complacency when it looks at the situation in the UK and the global role that we play. The House of Lords, when it looked at the measure and made its recommendations, also failed to recognise those points. I say again to the Minister that he needs to judge these amendments and new clauses according to whether they increase his agility and flexibility to get treaties such as the Singapore mediation convention signed and operational as quickly as possible.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dame Eleanor. As a relatively new Member of Parliament, it really is a joy to be speaking on this Bill. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was a practising barrister for 30 years and for many of those years, I practised in these areas.

I am truly delighted to be speaking on this Bill in Committee. The very consideration of it is evidence that the transition period of our leaving the EU is coming to an end. For me, that is very welcome news. I support the propositions put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who said that the Government need to be responsive, and there is a need for speed, agility and considered thought.

It is of course right that, prior to the end of the transition period, the UK takes steps to ensure continued participation in key agreements in its own right, at last as a free and independent trading nation. From 1 February, the UK has regained full competence to enter into this sort of international agreement in the field in its own right. This is wonderful progress. As the UK develops its wider trading policy with the EU and the rest of the world, PIL agreements will be key to supporting cross-border commerce, which will be particularly important going forward. They will also regulate the very foundations of our society—how we deal with international family law matters—and build confidence for consumers as to how trade and disputes will be settled, all of which are very good things.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Sarah Dines Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and, of course, my new colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe)—I congratulate her on her fantastic maiden speech. Such passion was shown. I look forward to hearing more from her.

I declare an interest in this debate in that I have practised as a barrister in the field of family law for more than 25 years. It is the great strength of this House that it brings together 650 people from a great number of backgrounds. There are right hon. and hon. Members who have first-hand experience of working in the field of law that we are debating today. They will, I am sure, agree that it is particularly distressing and very traumatic for those caught up in domestic abuse to go to court. At the same time, it has been hidden from view for far too long. Many victims have for too long been reluctant to come forward and that must stop. This legislation will encourage them to do so.

There are many examples of the sorts of pressures on the victims of domestic abuse. Many of them are confronted by abusive and controlling partners, who threaten to kill themselves, sometimes by threatening to set fire to themselves, if their partners have the courage to leave them or report the abuse to the police. I have represented the subjects of such threats. I recall the abject fear of one such client, many years ago, when they faced the prospect of being cross-examined by in person by their former partner who had done just that with a can of petrol in front of small children, and I shall never forget that experience. Over many months, I watched that client forge a new life, with support, and become truly independent.

Domestic abusers come from all sexes, and I do not differentiate by saying that it can only be one sex as opposed to another. This House should not differentiate between the sexes and the law certainly should not. The level of fear and intimidation such witnesses face is hard to describe and very harrowing to listen to. In many instances, legal cases have fallen by the wayside as the prospect of being cross-examined in person in court by an aggressive ex-partner has resulted in the reluctance or inability of that witness to give evidence. If they give evidence, their life may be changed forever. Their evidence might not be believed because of the very nature and way in which it was drawn, but that does not make it untrue.

The impact on a witness of the fear of being questioned by an abuser cannot be understated. It is definitely a continuation of a pattern of abuse, and it must stop. As a cab-rank barrister, I have also on occasion represented those accused of being domestic abusers, some rightly and some not, so I have seen it from both sides.

I therefore strongly support clause 59, which is an innovation that prevents cross-examination in person where one party has been convicted of, given a caution for or charged with certain offences against the other party. The ban will also extend to circumstances where one party has an on-notice protective injunction in place against the other. That should be wholeheartedly supported by everyone in the House.

I have represented parties in cases in the family courts on many occasions where evidence has been heard precisely in the way envisaged in the new legislation. As a former practitioner, I reassure all hon. Members that it can be done in a way so as to provide a fair hearing for all. Again, it does not differentiate in relation to the sex of the abuser or the alleged abuser.

It is wrong to suggest that the change could result in an unfair or limited trial for an alleged abuser. Further protection can be given by the court and afforded to such alleged abusers. There will be the possibility, and in fact the power, for the court to appoint an advocate to undertake difficult cross-examination in the event that the alleged abuser is not legally represented. Such advocates need to be experienced and sufficiently paid.

The clause seems particularly prescient as we go through the covid-19 pandemic. There has been a dramatic increase in domestic abuse due to the confines of the present lockdown. I have spoken to the chief constable of Derbyshire, Peter Goodman, who has keenly followed these issues. He and his officers are aware of the need to be proactive and extra-vigilant in these areas. He also pressed me last week on the need to protect vulnerable witnesses. I have also spoken to many constituents about the issue.

I have been involved in the wider debates around these issues for a long time. I have no hesitation in supporting the Government on the Bill. As well as drawing on my own experiences—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hope the hon. Lady is drawing her remarks to a very swift close.

[Miss Dines]

I have listened to friends such as Sir Geoffrey Nice, QC, and Stephen Harvey. This is a game changer. I am pleased that this Conservative Government have brought such a pressing issue to the House. I support the Bill wholeheartedly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Dines Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

1. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that legal aid is accessible to people who need it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Wendy Morton)]

It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber, Mr Speaker, with you in the Chair.

Access to justice is a fundamental right and the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone can get the timely support that they need to access the justice system. However, legal aid is only part of the picture. We are also enhancing the support and offer to litigants in person by providing a further £3 million of funding over the next two years to ensure that those representing themselves in court understand the process and are better supported through it. We are additionally investing up to £5 million in a legal support innovation fund alongside many other initiatives.

[Miss Dines]

I should declare my interest as a former legal aid barrister. One of the first emails that I received following my successful election as Member of Parliament for Derbyshire Dales was from a constituent about legal aid issues. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that we do not waste legal aid on those who do not need it or on poor administration and excessive charges, and focus legal aid on provision for truly vulnerable people who really need it?

[Wendy Morton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. She brings a huge amount of experience in family law to this place. She has made an important point. The Government have always made it clear that it is important that legal aid should be targeted on those who need it most. Applicants for legal aid funding are subject to a stringent merits test. We have begun a review of the legal aid means test to ensure that those who need legal aid, particularly the vulnerable, can continue to access it in future.