Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rupa Huq and Dominic Raab

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Ind)]

Q8. Does the Deputy Prime Minister’s comeback, on which I congratulate him, and the new direction of tomorrow, signal that the ban on no-fault evictions from the Conservative manifesto is back on after there was zilch from the previous Prime Minister? If so, will he get it on the statute book, using emergency powers if necessary, so that no family gets left, on a whim, out in the cold this winter?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is looking at all such matters. He will have heard what the hon. Lady has said and, although I will not prejudice what further measures he is going to bring forward, I will ask him to write to her to address her specific proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rupa Huq and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

Labour Members are talking about cuts. We have just made the biggest ever donation to the Global Partnership for Education, a 15% increase on last time. As a result, at the G7 we corralled one of the biggest G7 sets of donations—close to $3 billion. We are hosting, with our Kenyan friends, the Global Education summit in the next few days. The point is that, through the leadership of our official development assistance contribution and our diplomatic leadership, we are bringing the world together in pursuit of two targets: 40 million more girls receiving 12 years quality education, and 20 million more girls literate by the age of 10.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) [V]]

  It is cheering to see the new US Administration repairing relations that the previous President damaged. Will we take a leaf out of our closest ally’s book and recognise the 2 million dead under the Ottoman empire from 1915 to 1923 as Armenian genocide, as Biden and dozens of other states worldwide have done? Can we also commit to playing our part to resolve current disputes with Azerbaijan?

[Dominic Raab]

Our position on the Armenian genocide is unchanged, but certainly in relation to the other disputes the hon. Lady mentioned, we of course work with the international community to try to alleviate the plight of those on all sides who are suffering.

DFID-FCO Merger

Debate between Rupa Huq and Dominic Raab

Thursday 18th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. He mentions our right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. I pay tribute to the incredible work he did at DFID. We are absolutely committed, with even more passion and even more zeal, to those objectives, while at the same time, as my hon. Friend rightly says, making sure we can deliver the best bang for our buck with British taxpayers’ money. The best way to do that is in a co-ordinated and integrated way. That is what the merger will achieve.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

After failing to consult the Cabinet let alone the sector, does the takeover not spell the end of collective responsibility and transparency, and show us that it is not the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister in charge but another Dominic—and he has got to go?

[Dominic Raab]

I had thought we were on the cusp of a very serious question but it descended into political cut and thrust. Actually what we are really focused on, and what this crisis has proved, is that necessity is the mother of innovation and invention. We have to try to drive greater effectiveness not just domestically as we tackle coronavirus but in our international effort, and that is what we are focused on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Rupa Huq and Dominic Raab

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; a second referendum would create far more uncertainty than it would resolve, and would erode public trust in our democracy. We will heal the divisions created by the campaign and the politics of Brexit by delivering on the outcome of the referendum, and by making sure that we deliver jobs for working families and build homes for the next generation beyond the Brexit negotiations.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Now that we know that the referendum that delivered this entire process was conducted illegally, surely that is another reason to give us all a people’s vote at the end of the process. The Secretary of State can have his Bill endorsed, and we can have the option to remain, because we know what that looks like.

[Dominic Raab]

I always listen to the hon. Lady, who is thoughtful and passionate in her views. However, I think that a second referendum would create a huge amount of uncertainty, returning us to square one and eroding public trust in the system.

Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Rupa Huq and Dominic Raab

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will need a separate legislative vehicle to address the wider question of visa bans, but he makes his point and has been tenacious in powerfully campaigning for this. We will want to move on to that issue at the appropriate time. Today is really about the asset-freezing side of things. We have in this last analysis the opportunity to send a message of solidarity to those who are fighting for the liberty that we in this country hold so dear. We have the opportunity to nurture the flame of freedom on behalf of those brave souls, such as Sergei Magnitsky, who suffered the very worst crimes when standing up for the very highest principles.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

As I rise to speak to this group of amendments, it looks as though new clause 1 might not be moved in favour of Government new clause 7. The Minister started by saying that the Bill has so far enjoyed a degree of cross-party consensus in its parliamentary passage, so I would like to say that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition will not stand in the way of new clause 7 and will not stand in the way of new clause 1 if it is moved.

I welcome new clauses targeting asset seizure for those guilty of human rights abuses outside Britain who seek to use the UK to conceal their wealth. New clause 1 has become known colloquially as the Magnitsky amendment, and we have heard some of the tragic details of that case. It would bolster the Bill’s aim to tackle the growing concern about money laundering, terrorist financing and corruption. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank estimate that the annual loss through money laundered globally is between 2% to 5% of global GDP—a staggering $800 billion to $2 trillion. We do not know the true figures because this is all hidden, white-collar crime.

It is estimated that serious and organised crime on our own doorstep costs the UK economy at least £24 billion annually. The amount of money laundered here every year is between £36 billion and £90 billion. That is a loss to our Exchequer, so it is only right that we tighten up the legislation with this Bill, and such an amendment would tighten them up further. Quite simply, those who have blood on their hands from the worst human rights abuses should not be able to funnel their dirty money through our country. In a recent article in The New York Times, the journalist Ben Judah uses quite colourful language to attest:

“Just because there aren’t bodies on the streets of London doesn’t mean London isn’t abetting those who pile them up elsewhere. The British establishment has long feigned ignorance of the business, but the London Laundromat is destroying the country’s reputation.”

Under new clause 1, the names of individuals who have been involved in or profited from human rights abuses would be published, and Ministers would be obliged to apply for a freezing order of up to two years if they are presented with compelling evidence of abuse and it is in the public interest to do so. That would make dictators and despots think twice about using the UK as a safe place to stash their dirty cash. By creating personal costs for the perpetrators of human rights abuses, we can protect whistleblowers around the world, which would be a fitting tribute to the legacy of Sergei Magnitsky.

Courts and Tribunals Fees

Debate between Rupa Huq and Dominic Raab

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Raab]

I am going to make a bit more progress. I have been given some time, and I have given way to hon. Members from across the House. If towards the end I have got time, I would be happy to take the hon. Lady’s intervention.

I turn to divorce fees, about which hon. Members have made some important points. The Justice Committee criticised the recent increase in the fee for divorce to £550, primarily because of the risk to vulnerable women. The Government have sought to make sure that vulnerable women are protected within the divorce fees scheme. Although it is true—this point has been made—that more women than men petition for divorce, it is also true, although it was rather neglected in this debate, that women are more likely to qualify for a fee remission. In the circumstances of a divorce or any other matter where the parties have conflicting interests in proceedings, the applicant is assessed on his or her own means, rather than on those of the household. For victims of domestic violence, the first priority is to ensure the victim’s safety. There is no court fee for an application for a non-molestation order or any applications in relation to one.

I turn to money claims. There has been criticism of the introduction of enhanced fees for money claims in March 2015, and some criticism of the quality of the research that supported those increases. We have said all along that we took the decisions that we did based on the best evidence available at the time. As things have turned out, the impact of those fee increases on the volume of claims has been greater than we thought. It is easy to be wise in hindsight, and we are investigating the reasons, but in the meantime we have decided not to implement the further increases we proposed. But given the very challenging financial circumstances, we have been clear—I want to be honest with the Chair of the Select Committee and hon. Members—that we may need to come back to those and look at them again when we have got a better understanding of the specific impacts.

There have been criticisms of our proposals to raise the fee in immigration tribunals to full cost levels. We estimate that those proposals would generate about £35 million a year in additional income. The normal policy over many years has been to charge fees at full cost unless there are good reasons not to. I do not see, given the remissions and the other flexibility, why the taxpayer should foot the bill in this case. We are currently considering in detail the responses to the consultation. Under our proposals, certain types of appeal would continue to be exempt from fees; we are talking about vulnerable people who need such flexibility the most. People receiving means-tested benefits, such as asylum support, would continue to have fees waived. We sought views on further exemptions, and specifically on whether we should exempt people in receipt of a Home Office destitution waiver. We are making sure that, notwithstanding the difficulty of the decisions, the most vulnerable are protected.

Meeting the challenges ahead cannot just be about increasing fees. That is why we recognise the need to invest in the courts and tribunals so that they are lean, efficient and fit to serve a modern, digital society. In the spending review, we announced that we would be investing, as I have said, more than £700 million to transform our courts and tribunals system. The scale of that investment and the ambition of our reform plans will enable us to build a justice system that is simpler, swifter and more efficient, because it takes better advantage of modern technology.

Other points and criticisms have been made. We take them on board, and we will respond to them fully in due course. We also need to have a sense of realism. Given the financial situation that we are still grappling with, fees are a critical part of the Ministry of Justice’s plans to meet our spending review challenges.

[Dr Huq]

Could the Minister tell us the cost of administering the employment tribunal fees? There is a mismatch between what they raise and what they cost.

[Mr Raab]

My understanding, off the top of my head, is that it was £71 million. I will come back to the hon. Lady if I find out that that is incorrect.

The truth is that we cannot afford to duck these decisions around fees if we want to secure the long-term funding of the courts and the tribunals and deliver on the mandate on which the Government were elected. It is all very well for the Opposition to say that they want to scrap every fee that has been imposed or duck every difficult decision, but unless they can explain to the House how that will be paid for or the impact that it will have on our economy, it is not the responsible thing to do.