Domestic Violence Victims: Cross-Examination

Debate between Oliver Heald and Anna Soubry

Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Heald]

On the hon. Lady’s final point, as she knows, the LASPO review has to be concluded by April 2018. It is not overdue, but it is something that the Government have very much in mind, and that we will have to start fairly shortly.

On the hon. Lady’s other points, legal aid is available in cases of domestic abuse. That is why the Government concentrated efforts in legal aid on situations where life or liberty are at stake, and on domestic abuse and housing when homes are at risk. That is not an issue, but I accept that the evidence criteria are important. That is why the Government have allowed a longer period and a wider range of evidence to be used, which has been welcomed.

Cross-examination by litigants in person takes place too much. The hon. Lady asked what the exact number is. It is not clear, but it is certainly a considerable number, which is why the Government consider this to be an important issue to tackle.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and welcome everything he has said on the Government’s attitude to this long-standing problem. May I urge him please to look at the rules on legal aid? There is certainly strong anecdotal evidence from former colleagues of mine at the family bar and the judiciary that there is a direct consequence and link between the rise in litigants in person and the changes to legal aid, which was begun under the Labour Government. That link between litigants in person and legal aid is causing so much of the problem. If he at least looks at it, he could provide some of the solution.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

As my right hon. Friend rightly says, this is a long-standing issue but one that has now become urgent—the cries for help from judges and others have become more urgent—and that is why the Government are tackling it. It is necessary to find a way to prevent litigants in person from using proceedings to continue the abuse, and that is what we aim to do.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Oliver Heald and Anna Soubry

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Heald]

What is happening is the creation of a culture of the multi-Member constituency. An individual constituent will be able to choose whether to go to the Liberal Democrat, the Conservative or the Labour representative in Parliament, and I do not believe that that is good for our country. I believe that it is important for a Member of Parliament to represent all his constituents, and for the constituents to know where to go when they need help or want to raise an issue. That is good for them, and it is good for us.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

Although I support the Bill, as a Member representing one of the most marginal seats in the House—my majority is 389—I think that my hon. Friend is making an extremely important point which must be considered. I can imagine how, had I been elected under the proposed system in the last election, my Labour or Liberal Democrat opponent would have sought to undermine my position by claiming that he or she had a mandate equal to mine.

[Oliver Heald]

My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about that.

The Joint Committee took evidence from Australian senators. The Australian system is similar to that proposed in the Bill. Senator Ursula Stephens from the governing Labour party told us:

“I am allocated a number of seats that are not held by the Government in the lower House in my state. I look after those constituents who do not have a government representative. Those people might come to me about issues and legislation.”

Senator Lee Rhiannon from the Australian Greens said:

“we have nine Senators and only one Member in the House of Representatives. The issue of working with constituents is very important for us and it takes up quite a bit of time.”

Senator Michael Ronaldson of the Opposition Liberal Party said:

“I do not think that you can make the assumption that you will not be engaged in constituency-type work, particularly if the elected Lords in an area—as Senator Stephens said—come from the other party. If you are a Member of the non-ruling party, the Lords might find that they have more people knocking on their doors than they might otherwise have anticipated.”

When the Clerk of the House gave evidence, he spoke of the danger of “constituency case tourism”. We must try to avoid such constituency conflicts.