Criminal Legal Aid

Debate between Robert Neill and Bob Stewart

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are pressures and difficulties, and some areas of the system creak, but talking it down does no justice to anyone. At the end of the day, it is an immensely better system than anything else we have on offer. If we want to look at really badly funded systems, we can look across the Atlantic and to other places, which would horrify all of us. We are not in that situation, and I do not want to get into that situation, but we will only ever go forward if we can make a measured case for why, for example, it is cost-effective to have representation because litigants in person actually burn up more time and cost than if they were properly represented, and the trials take longer. Let us make the business case around that. That will not be done, however, by revoking this instrument or by people not accepting instructions—however great the temptation—and people going unrepresented. I hope that the Bar and the solicitors will feel able to get back round the table with the Ministry of Justice.

I was concerned to hear the powerful evidence given to the Justice Committee recently by the Criminal Law Solicitors Association. It was suggested that a duty solicitor was probably less well remunerated than a teacher with comparable experience. In a competitive world, that does not seem entirely fair. They are both demanding jobs, and we need to find a constructive way forward rather than walking away from these matters.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have had contact with five junior criminal law barristers, and not one of them earns more than £21,000 a year. That means that after they have paid tax and expenses, they have to live on about 10 grand a year, in London.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend makes an important point; it was in fact the last point I was going to make. If we are to win this debate on fairer funding, we need to get back to a more honest awareness of the realities of remuneration. The press have something to answer for in that regard. It is all too easy to talk about fat-cat barristers and the occasional £1 million-plus fee, which usually relates to a case that lasted about 18 months and was of a highly complex nature. Those sorts of cases are not around any more, for a raft of reasons, and those reports wholly misrepresent the position of the vast majority of barristers, who are working on really modest take-home incomes. Above all, we forget the level of deductions that have to be taken out. My hon. Friend’s point is an entirely fair one. I want to see more money in the system, but that will only come from having a strong and well-managed economy. I want to see more money in the system, but I do not think that this is the right way to go about it.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Robert Neill and Bob Stewart

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

Nearly 36% of my constituents work in the financial and professional services sector, and most of them commute to London. This was a good and sensible Budget for them, because it was a good and sensible Budget for economic confidence in the City and financial services, in which Britain is a world leader. It is critical that we maintain that position, and that we do so during the process of leaving the European Union. Investing in and supporting financial services, like investing in and supporting London, is actually an investment for the whole country.

It is worth bearing in mind data released in a report published by the City of London corporation, according to which the total tax contribution from the financial services sector reached £72.1 billion in the year to 31 March 2017, which amounts to 11% of all Government tax revenues. The bulk comes from employment taxes and corporation tax, and also a bank levy—the banks are now paying a significant sum to support our public services. Maintaining London’s position in that regard will be critical as we leave the European Union. For banks, some 35% of the total tax take comes from employment taxes, but the proportion depends on where they are based. If we shed jobs as we leave the EU, the tax base will be diminished.

I do not believe that that is necessary. I believe that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister want a good deal that will protect our financial services sector, and I support them very much in that. What would damage the financial services sector would be a poor deal—I do not believe that that outcome is necessary or desirable, and I am sure that we can avoid it—and an anti-business, left-wing Labour Government who would scare away those jobs and that tax revenue and undermine that great driver of income for our public services. It is self-defeating for those who believe in public services to damage our tax revenue. It is worth bearing in mind that the amount of tax paid by that sector in one year comes to half the value of the NHS. I suggest to Labour Members that they should not put that at risk.

It is also worth bearing in mind that, because of our access to the European markets, the sector processes transactions worth £880 billion every day. That is 100 times our net annual contributions to the EU—

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The financial sector is crucial to our constituencies, and I very much applaud what my hon. Friend says.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

That sum is also 15 times the highest amount that has been spoken of as a potential financial settlement. It therefore makes sense in terms of Brexit to support the financial sector and get a good deal, and it also makes sense in terms of the Budget to make sure that we have a favourable tax and regulatory regime in the UK that is attractive to financial services.

Southeastern Rail Services

Debate between Robert Neill and Bob Stewart

Thursday 28th January 2016 Commons Chamber

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

On one level it is a pleasure to raise this issue, but on another it is a great sadness. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to put the issue forward and a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a great sadness, because frankly the debate should not be necessary.

Bromley and Chislehurst is quintessential London commuter-land. A very high percentage of its working population travels up to London to earn its daily crust. They are dependent entirely on Southeastern trains. We have no underground as an alternative. There is, in effect, a monopoly supply. People in Bromley and Chislehurst, as in other parts of south-east London, are being badly let down. It is significant that a number of Members of Parliament served by the Southeastern trains franchise are here in the Chamber today. I note in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), whose constituents have suffered appallingly recently, following the landslide at Barnehurst. That demonstrated the complexity of the issues and the delay in putting them right—it was a long time before his constituents knew what was happening. It also demonstrated the fact that there is a shared responsibility between the train operator, Southeastern, and Network Rail, the owner and provider of the infrastructure. Both have failed woefully.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s opening statement. It is not entirely Southeastern’s fault: Network Rail is pretty abysmal too. Whoever takes over the franchise will still have the problem of Network Rail to sort out.

[Robert Neill]

That is perfectly true and that is an important point. In terms of responsibility, the split is about 70:30. A lot of the problems are down to Network Rail and signalling, but there are real failures with Southeastern relating to the passing on of information and other issues, including poor areas of customer service, which I will come on to. I know my hon. Friend’s constituents have the same issues.

Passenger ratings show how bad the situation is. Key figures from Transport Focus show satisfaction ratings for Southeastern on value for money at 35%. Satisfaction ratings for how the company deals with delays are at 31%. Southeastern is ranked the second-lowest for overall satisfaction in the country, at 75%. If we look at the London commuter part of the Southeastern trains franchise, the figures are even worse—at about the mid-60s. I suggest even those statistics do not break it down. If we took off rush hour commuters from that, where the delays and knock-ons are often more acute, the satisfaction rate would go down even further, demonstrating the real difficulty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although it is worth stressing that the failures are not just with the privatised train operating company, but with the publicly owned Network Rail. I draw a contrast between this line, which I now use, and the line I used before I moved to south-east London, the c2c line, which is also privatised but which has hugely improved its performance and satisfaction levels since it was privatised. So this is not an ideological issue; it is about sheer competence, and that involves enforcing the terms of the contract.

[Bob Stewart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Neill]

Once more, but then I must press on.

[Bob Stewart]

My hon. Friend has made the case for what we have all been asking for—Transport for London to take over as fast as possible.

[Robert Neill]

That is entirely right, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who is also present, would share that view too. We welcome that decision by the Department, but it is not going to happen until 2018. What we are concerned about is what will be done in the interim. For a start, when Southeastern is posting doubled profits, it sticks in the craw of my residents and commuters that they are paying a premium price for what is not an acceptable and not even a remotely premium service. There is plenty of money to pay the genuine financial penalties that are necessary if a private contract arrangement is to work. I hope it could be used to offer some form of reimbursement or remission of the fare increases for our commuters, who are simply not getting what they have paid for. That is a basic failing, and I hope the Minister will—

UK and Gibraltar Prosecuting Authorities

Debate between Robert Neill and Bob Stewart

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Crausby, and to have this important and very topical debate on the relationship between the UK and the British overseas territory of Gibraltar on prosecution and law enforcement matters. I refer at the outset to my relevant interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

As many Members will know, Gibraltar is a fully self-governing and self-funding British overseas territory. It adheres entirely to the British system and rule of law, and it is the contention of this debate and worth restating that it meets the highest United Kingdom and international standards in all respects. It is a small country, but it is proud to be British. Part of that British heritage is its strong legal system, entirely based upon our own common law.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my very hon. Friend for giving way. I want to reinforce his point by saying that not only is the legal system very good indeed, but the police and defence forces are outstanding. I speak from personal experience, having worked with them.

[Robert Neill]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, particularly given his experience in that sphere. It certainly coincides entirely with my own.

As well as having a strong economy with growth that most places would envy, Gibraltar has a robust and independent legal system, a thriving legal community, a strong and independent judiciary, as well as an excellent police force, organised and trained to the highest British standards, and associated law enforcement agencies. It has, in particular, a robust prosecution service presided over by the highly experienced and very well regarded Attorney General, Ricky Rhoda, and supported by a team of Crown Counsel who meet the same high standards as would be found in any prosecution department in the United Kingdom. I have had the pleasure on more than one occasion of meeting the senior Crown Counsel, the Attorney General and senior members of the judiciary.

It is against that background that on my last visit to Gibraltar, I was struck by the genuine sense of outrage felt by Gibraltarian citizens at every level that I met, from members of Government through to legal practitioners, down to shopkeepers and the taxi driver who took me up to the Rock hotel one evening—once he found out I was an MP—at comments made in this House, I regret to say, on 30 October by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I am glad to see him in his place. I notified him of my intention to refer to his comments in this debate. They were ill-founded, they have done damage to Gibraltar wrongly and needlessly, and this is a chance to set the record straight.

Persecution of Christians

Debate between Robert Neill and Bob Stewart

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

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

May I, too, warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his party on securing this debate? I could not agree more with the sentiments that have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).

I say gently to the Front Benchers on both sides of the Chamber that, however good their intentions, we should not be afraid, in the Parliament of a country that still has an established Christian Church, to phrase a debate in terms of religion or Christianity. Christianity can benefit everyone in any society. It gives us in this country a shared moral compass that binds us together. It offers the same to believer and non-believer, Christian and non-Christian alike, not just in this country but elsewhere. We should therefore not be at all afraid to speak up about the persecution that Christians face.

May I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of organisations such as Open Doors, which provided me with valuable material for a recent debate on this subject in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which came to my constituency surgery recently to highlight these matters? Canon Andrew White has rightly been mentioned. I also commend to the Government the work of the former Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, in whose former diocese my constituency lies. If Ministers have not met or spoken to Dr Nazir-Ali, I hope that they will do so, because he has shed light on the persecution in his native country of Pakistan and elsewhere.

It is worth restating that while any persecution of any faith is wrong, the pressure on Christians is particular and acute. We must face the fact that in some parts of the world, that persecution comes from a religious/political ideology. I regret to say that some, although not all, elements of the Islamic world demonstrate that problem. In some cases, the persecution comes from states—China and other states have been mentioned—that are aggressively secular. It is right for us to say that it is not good enough for a nation’s constitution to say that people have freedom of religion as long as it is through a state-approved Church. It is not acceptable for one part of a constitution to say that freedom of religion is guaranteed but another part to undermine that by saying that a particular form of Islamic jurisprudence trumps all others, as in Egypt.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Neill]

I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way; time is short, and I want to make progress so that others can get in.

I hope that the Government will use the leverage that they have. That is why I do not have any problem at all with our developing trade links with China—I hope that we can use the leverage that comes with that developing relationship to remind people that, as other Members have said, membership of the club of modern economies should bring with it respect for religious freedom, and for Christians in particular.

One particular concern is the situation of Christians in the Arab world. They face discrimination in almost every country of the Arab world, with perhaps the only notable exception being Lebanon. The latest Open Doors list of the 50 worst countries in which to be a Christian includes every Arab world country. It is legitimate, as a matter of policy, for us to seek to use our leverage to change that situation.

I have friends and contacts in Egypt, and Members have referred to the situation of the Coptic Church there, which has been established for centuries, almost millennia. That situation has got worse because of political and religious persecution over the past few months. Again, I hope that the Government will use the leverage that we can have with Egypt to ensure that the new draft constitution not only reflects a genuine right to religious freedom for all, particularly the Coptic community, but entrenches it in practice. For example, it should remove discriminatory provisions regarding the building of Christian churches, which evoke laws that go back to the Ottoman era and have been a problem in Egypt. We have a chance to work with the interim Government in Egypt to achieve a genuinely better constitution for all religious minorities, but the reality is that the largest and most pressured religious minority in Egypt is the Christian minority. We should not be afraid to say that.

Like other Members, I hope that we can consider what more support we can give beleaguered Christian communities in Iraq and Syria, which are some of the oldest in the Christian world, through the Geneva II process. It would be a tragedy if the Arab spring, which we all welcomed, turned into a winter of oppression and discontent for Christians. That is not in the interests of the Muslim majority in those countries any more than it is of Christians.

We should not be afraid of doing religion in this House occasionally. I hope that if we can have this debate, it means that we have got to a happier place, and I hope that the Government will reflect on that when they take on board what has been said today. Governments are entitled to do religion sometimes, because religion can be for the good of all of society.