Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon]

I can confirm that the Government will continue to base our investment decisions to reduce reoffending on the best available evidence at the time. We are continuously improving our evidence base, for instance through the cross-governmental Better Outcomes through Linked Data programme.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

Since the last session of Justice questions I have visited HMP Liverpool, a prison that received a poor inspection report some years ago, and I saw how it had been transformed. Prisoners were engaged in constructive activity in the cycle repair workshop and elsewhere, cells had been refurbished, and there was a clear sense of pride among prison officers, who were determined to deliver safety, decency and rehabilitation. Prisons as well as prisoners, it seems, can be redeemed. I have also visited Liverpool Crown court to see our “intensive supervision courts” in action, tackling the root causes of offending with treatment for addictions. In Coventry I saw rapid deployment teams of offenders who had been sentenced to carrying out unpaid work clearing up local neighbourhoods, visibly atoning for their crimes, and doing so within 48 hours of the project being nominated by the public.

I was pleased to support the important Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), which is intended to tackle abusive and chilling lawsuits. We have also brought forward legislation on litigation funding agreements to ensure that third parties can continue to fund court proceedings on behalf of individuals or small businesses. That support enabled the sub-postmasters to make their successful civil claim. Our legislation will bolster access to justice, boost our legal sector, and ensure that in our courts David can still take on Goliath.

[Mr Dhesi]

The Government have achieved only 5,900 of the promised 20,000 new prison places, resulting in them having to release prisoners up to 60 days early to alleviate overcrowding, thereby directly impacting on public safety. How does the Secretary of State reconcile this with the Conservative promise of being tough on crime, especially when his end-of-custody supervised licensing scheme expansion significantly deviates from judicial sentencing?

[Alex Chalk]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. When I was in practice, I had to listen to the then Labour Home Secretary say that he was going to cancel the three Titan prisons that he had boasted he would open. Not one was built. We have opened Five Wells and Fosse Way, and Millsike is under construction. We have more cells coming online in Birmingham, Liverpool and Norwich. We have rapid deployment cells, and we have new houseblocks in Guys Marsh, Rye Hill and Hatfield. This is the party that is delivering. We will be tough on crime.

Violence Reduction, Policing and Criminal Justice

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

In speaking to amendments (h) and (r), the House will be aware that I have openly called for a negotiated ceasefire on both sides, along with the release of all hostages. However, neither the Israeli Government nor Hamas have agreed to an immediate ceasefire. Hamas have stated that they will continue with their strikes against Israel, and they have not heeded repeated calls by the UN and others for an unconditional release of all hostages. Likewise, the Israeli Government have rejected growing international calls for a ceasefire and have continued with their relentless bombing. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has stated that a ceasefire would be possible only if all 239 hostages were released.

Who is suffering intolerably in the meanwhile? The Palestinian people. After the Hamas terror strikes that tragically resulted in the killing of well over 1,000 Israelis, I told the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House that, while Israel has a right to defend its citizens and rescue its hostages, its response must be proportionate and submit to international law. However, over 11,000 Palestinians—and rising—have been killed.

Shockingly, in just 40 days, one in every 200 people living in Gaza is no more. I have been particularly horrified by the killing of more than 4,600 innocent children. That is one child dying every 12 minutes. The number of children killed in just over four weeks of Israeli bombardment has surpassed the number killed in conflict zones across the globe every year since 2019. As a parent of two children, I cannot imagine what their parents are going through, if indeed they are still alive.

Whether or not the Israeli Government and Hamas listen to our pleas, I believe we must call for an end to the violence to save lives. The Netanyahu Government must be made to realise that razing Gaza to the ground and indiscriminately killing Palestinians will not lead to safety and security for people living in the region. It will merely fuel more anger and resentment, taking us further away from peace and prosperity for all and from a viable two-state solution. I have always spoken up for human rights, and in the past six years I have often spoken up for innocent Palestinians, who have suffered decades of injustice, occupation and forceful removal from their homes. They are now facing an atrocious siege and further bloodshed.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is making some important points. Does he agree that we need a ceasefire or a cessation of hostilities—we can use whichever words we choose? I sense he does agree with that or certainly with the sentiment. Does he also have a frustration that the Scottish National party amendment before us tonight is designed as a political ploy, and therefore we will not be voting for it and will vote instead for the Labour amendment?

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is correct in what he says. A lot of our constituents will not be aware of the procedures and protocols of Parliament, and how Labour Members hardly, if ever, vote for any SNP amendments. This raises another important point that my constituents have been emailing me about: signing early-day motions. I have been trying to explain to constituents, on the doorstep and elsewhere, that hundreds of early-day motions are in circulation at any given time and that shadow Ministers, such as myself, and Ministers never sign them and they do not have the requisite power. Those are some of the protocols that my constituents and others will not be aware of.

I wish to thank the Labour Front-Bench team, who have listened patiently to the passionate arguments of Members such as myself and tabled a comprehensive amendment last night addressing our concerns. First, it calls for

“an end to the violence in Israel and Palestine.”

That is what we all want to see. Secondly, it reaffirms

“the jurisdiction of the ICC to address the conduct of all parties”,

so that we can ascertain what war crimes have occurred. Thirdly, it calls on Israel to

“lift the siege conditions allowing food, water, electricity, medicine and fuel into Gaza”.

Fourthly, it calls on us to

“guarantee that people in Gaza who are forced to flee during this conflict can return to their homes and seek an end to the expansion of illegal settlements and settler violence in the West Bank”.

Fifthly, it addresses the road map and how we can get

“an enduring cessation of fighting—

basically, a ceasefire—

“as soon as possible and a credible, diplomatic and political process to deliver the lasting peace of a two-state solution.”

Prison Capacity

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend is completely correct. We in this Chamber all know that the context for offending—not an excuse, but the context—can be deep-seated problems of addiction, homelessness, relationship breakdown and so on. One thing I am pleased about is that the Department of Health and Social Care is investing over half a billion pounds, with more than 1,600 additional staff, to ensure that drug treatment is available to those who need it. For our part, we in the Ministry of Justice have launched a pilot of three intensive supervision courts in the Teesside and Liverpool Crown courts to ensure that those whose offending behaviour is driven by substance misuse can get the treatment they need to get them off drugs and off the driver of their offences.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

As my constituents have pointed out to me, there is a shoplifting epidemic under the Conservative Government. The police often do not deal with burglaries and other such crimes because of a lack of resources. Conviction rates for rape and sexual violence are at record lows. Now that our prisons are full, the Government propose to release prisoners early or try to ship them abroad. That is all because of a lack of foresight and action. Why are the Government so weak on law and order, and when were they first warned about a crisis and a lack of places in prisons?

[Alex Chalk]

There are more people in prison than ever before, which rather suggests the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman says. He also says that the conviction rate for rape is lower, but that is completely wrong—it is higher. Does he know who was Director of Public Prosecutions before? The Leader of the Opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer]

I know that the Lord Chancellor—he is his own predecessor, as was pointed out—has been committed to ensuring that the system remains correctly funded within the spending envelope. He will continue to address the concerns raised by all stakeholders in the criminal justice system. We are entirely committed to working with the advisory board to address all the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

17. What steps he is taking to help tackle racial disparity in the criminal justice system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

In response to the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, the Government’s inclusive Britain strategy sets out a clear commitment to tackling race and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. We are reducing the number of individuals from ethnic minorities entering the criminal justice system by expanding the use of diversionary initiatives such as out-of-court disposals to divert towards treatment or drug education courses. For those in contact with the system, we are providing funding for grassroots ethnic minority-led and specialist voluntary sector organisations to provide rehabilitative services.

[Mr Dhesi]

The disproportionate representation of black children in our justice system starts with arrests, with black children over four times more likely to be arrested than white children as of 2019. We must address the deep-rooted causes of that, ensuring that those from ethnic minority backgrounds are not discriminated against and drawn into a cycle of criminality due to a bias in our criminal justice system. The Lammy review exposed that bias and discrimination more than half a decade ago, so why have the Government still not implemented its recommendations in full?

[Mike Freer]

We have implemented the majority of the actions that we committed to in response to the Lammy review. The hon. Gentleman raises important points regarding the over-representation of ethnic minority children in the system. There is a range of activities, including work that we are doing in two test areas, to ensure that those people who are arrested have access to and can only opt out of legal representation, to try to ensure that the issues that he raised are addressed. I am happy to meet him to go through those activities and discuss them in much more detail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Johnson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. It is the Government’s position that we can tackle that significant problem within the current law. He will be aware that two judicial reviews are pending, but we are committed to the European convention on human rights and to the UN refugee convention. We believe that our proposals are within the law and that no court has said otherwise.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

T8. In recent weeks, my constituency has endured a spate of drugs and knife crime, which has resulted in the tragic loss of young lives. We must get more policing and preventive resources for Slough. Given the current justice backlogs, caused by Conservative Governments closing half of all our courts in England and Wales since 2010, what reassurances can the Secretary of State give to victims and their families that they will not have to wait up to the current unacceptable average of four years to get their day in court?

[Brandon Lewis]

As we said earlier, getting on top of that core backlog, which has obviously gone up as a result of pressures, is an absolutely key piece of work for us. People sometimes forget that we have lost almost a couple of years through covid and through the Bar strike this year. It is also about making sure that communities are safe through things such as the tagging scheme that we are rolling out, to ensure that people have confidence in their communities as well.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that clarification. Like her, I would like people to have the freedom to get vaccinated, and I have said that throughout the crisis.

With apologies to my right hon. Friend the Minister—and he is a friend—I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and others. I commend to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) just flirting with it—just get in that rebel Lobby with us. Let us say to the Government that actually this is going too far on noise. It is time to say, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) vividly demonstrated, that yes protests are inherently noisy and annoying. If noise is ever used as a weapon, I am sure other instruments of law could be used.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

As the dogs of war are unleashed in Ukraine, and women and men are dying defending their independence and freedom, it is timely to reflect on our own freedoms as citizens. We are debating one of the most egregious attempts to stifle our most fundamental rights, with ill thought through reforms without evidence-based justification. I am not alone in that assessment: more than 800,000 petitioners, ex-police chiefs and senior advisers as well as three UN special rapporteurs and Members of the House of Lords from across the political spectrum all have deep-rooted concerns about the Bill and its lasting implications in limiting our freedoms and dividing our communities.

Surely the freedom to protest is one of the most important freedoms. Protest has been the engine of reform throughout Britain’s history from the peasants’ poll tax protest of 1381 to the recent Black Lives Matter movement. The rights to challenge authority, to speak up, to chant and to march are freedoms that are part of who we are; we relinquish them at our peril.

Conservative Members will complain that the Bill does not remove the freedom to protest. Not in so many words, but the right to protest must include the right to be noisy. A quiet, supine protest or a protest denied because the shouting was too loud is no protest at all. The point of protest is to give a collective voice to those who feel that they have not been listened to, particularly for marginalised and oppressed communities who have been told too many times to keep quiet. The Public Order Act 1986 was introduced by the Thatcher Government in the wake of the miners’ strike. Are Ministers really saying that Thatcher did not go far enough and that she was a soft touch on protestors? That is not how I remember it. I beseech the Home Secretary and Ministers to think again, even at this late stage.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Member is giving a good speech. Does he agree that the Bill is part of a wider pattern that makes it even more dangerous? When we consider it alongside voter suppression measures, attacks on the Electoral Commission and judicial review, the extension of the Official Secrets Act and threats to the Human Rights Act, it is part of an attack on the very heart of our democracy.

[Mr Dhesi]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. As she says, the damage from the many things being combined by the Government will have a devastating impact on our democracy.

The measures proposed by the Government to tackle crime are also deeply worrying. They are failing to tackle the roots of crime and antisocial behaviour, and yet I am hardly surprised. Their record is of taking more than 20,000 police officers off our streets and ceding ground to criminals, and even now they have not made up for the numbers of police, civilian staff and police community and support officers that they cut. When people do not see police in their communities, as has been the case in my constituency, they feel less safe and secure, and crime goes up. In actual fact it is up 14%, according to the Office for National Statistics—not to mention the huge reduction in convictions for rape and domestic abuse. Why are the Government, through the Bill, making such an appalling attack against the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities even though the police do not want the extra powers?

There is chaos in the criminal justice system with a backlog of years for cases. Victims and witnesses are simply giving up and criminals are laughing up their sleeves. The Government’s response is to close courts, with 300 closed since 2010. They simply do not get it. We must defend the right to protest, to picket and to make a racket when we feel that we are not being listened to.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak to the amendments on noise and protest. Frankly, I should not have to. At the beginning of the Bill process, I was discussing the Bill with a friend of mine who said, “This is a ridiculous thing to put in the Bill.” I said, “Don’t worry—the Government will accept amendments in Committee.” They did not. Then I said, “Don’t worry—if they do not do it in Committee, they will surely accept their lordships’ amendments.” I have certainly yet to see the Government make enough concessions on that. That has led me to worry.

I worry that at a time when Conservatives should be promoting freedom of speech, we have created a weapon for our opponents to say that we oppose it. We should not be doing that. I worry that Government Members give the impression that we think that demonstrations are okay as long as they are nicely decorous, barely audible and easy to miss, and we forget that anger and frustration are natural human emotions that find their expression in a democratic society through the ability to protest and, yes, make a noise. I worry that, while Opposition Members have talked about the concern regarding large protests, the measures will actually have more effect on more marginal issues and smaller groups. I think back to the 1980s and the group AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, which was protesting to provide AIDS treatment to people. There was never a noisier, more active, disruptive group than ACT UP in my memory. They were representing a group that was marginalised, so they could only make a noise to make their voice heard. I worry that the Bill will have an undue impact on marginal groups.

I worry that, at a time when we need clarity so much in the way in which the law affects people’s lives, the Bill is so vague that people will say, “Why are we ‘noisy’ and not them?” How on earth does that help us to create a calmer discourse between those who have different opinions? I worry that we are asking the police to make too many judgments at a time when the police themselves want clarity, and not to be put into the mix. I love the fact that the British police do not care what people are protesting about, so why are we creating something where, in the moment, they have to make a judgment? I worry ultimately that, at a time when in our society we need trust between people with profoundly different opinions, the provisions in the Bill do nothing at all to help in that regard.

Laboratory Animals: Animal Welfare Act

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for leading such an important debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

Many colleagues have already noted that Great Britain is avowedly a nation of animal lovers. It pains me that we are here once again to ask the very basics from our Government: to offer the same level of protection to laboratory animals as will be offered to all other animals in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill. As the Bill makes its way through Parliament, I welcome some of the changes it proposes: ensuring that we recognise animals as sentient beings and replacing the protections lost through the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union.

Perhaps we on the Opposition Benches should be flattered, as many of the promises made by the Government on animal welfare come directly from Labour’s animal welfare manifesto. However, the Government’s continued failures, and their delaying on animal rights, do not fill me with confidence that such measures will be implemented sufficiently. The matter raised by this petition is one such concern. In reply to the 110,000-signature-strong petition, the Minister’s Department outlined:

“The Government believes animal use for research remains important and The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) provides specific protection for these animals.”

I would be grateful if the Minister explained the position, because if the Government are not willing to include measures to protect animals in laboratories in the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, do they have any intention of reviewing the current rules on animal testing?

Sadly, the cruel treatment of animals within laboratories continues under the falsehood that ASPA provides adequate protection to animals. Under current legislation, the force-feeding of chemicals to dogs for up to 90 days without pain relief is considered “mild suffering”, and it accounts for 67% of all procedures on dogs. It seems completely hypocritical for Government policy to allow that high level of suffering to animals, while the Secretary of State claims:

“There is no place in this country for animal suffering”.

It is clear that we must set out an achievable and long-term timeframe for ceasing to permit severe animal suffering, as defined in UK legislation, with a long-term objective to phase out animal testing entirely, particularly when so many other methods to achieve the same or better results already exist, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and others highlighted very ably. Groundbreaking new methodologies include artificial intelligence, advanced human cells, tissue cultures, organ-on-a-chip and stem cell technologies.

In some trials, the use of human cells has been integral to the findings, due to the genetic differences of animals complicating our understanding of human disease. As activists such as Louise Owen, the founder of For Life on Earth and the Scarlett Beagle campaign, Ricky Gervais, Peter Egan and accomplished scientists worldwide have rightly highlighted, penicillin’s use for humans was delayed by a staggering 10 years because it had no effect on rabbits. The polio vaccine, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) highlighted, was delayed by even longer—for 40 years—because of erroneous, misleading experiments on monkeys.

The long, lamentable list continues; yet currently there simply needs to be no alternative in order for animal testing to be approved, rather than its needing to be the most effective or successful method of testing. Given the lack of sufficient Government funding for innovative trials without the use of animals, we are in a Catch-22 situation. Setting out a timeline for change would allow the transition to such innovative research and away from the cruelty that so often accompanies animal testing. That seems like a sensible approach, with humanity, kindness and modernity at its heart. I hope that the Minister has more than mere warm words, and has a clear plan for this much needed change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

During the debate, a series of claims have been made about dogs being bled or force-fed, and I would be more than happy to correspond with Members on the scientific basis for those activities. While I understand that this is a very emotive and difficult issue—these are not pleasant practices that anybody would necessarily enjoy—there are sound, scientific reasons for their being employed. I would be more than happy to correspond with Members to explain how and why.

[Mr Dhesi]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being generous with his time. As hon. Members have pointed out, the language may be emotive but it is the truth. I fear that the Minister has failed to answer the question why anaesthetics cannot be given to those animals suffering.

[Kit Malthouse]

There are lots of circumstances in which anaesthetics are administered. Obviously, everybody is under an obligation to minimise whatever suffering may be incurred as part of an experiment. For example, reference was made to beagles being bled for scientific purposes. As I understand it, that happens from time to time but under terminal anaesthetic, and is not to be confused with the taking of small blood samples, akin to a human being giving a blood test.

The UK’s aim is to become the world leader for the development, access and update of new and innovative treatments and technologies. We also need to protect the health of humans, animals and the environment. To achieve these important outcomes, we will continue to need to use animals, including dogs, in science, until such time as alternatives are achieved for all purposes.

The Government remain committed to robust regulation of the use of animals in science. That continues to be achieved by a specific, targeted exemption from the Animal Welfare Act and the operationalisation and enforcement of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act, which exists specifically to regulate and protect animals in science.

We are committed to supporting and funding activities to replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in science. We accept that continuous improvement is always necessary, and therefore we are sponsoring a change programme to optimise the performance of the regulator for the use of animals in science in Great Britain. Additionally, we have established an integrated policy co-ordination function, currently in the Home Office, across the whole of Government to bring greater strategic oversight to the policy area of the use of animals in science. That will give the Government more effective management and assertive control over that area.

To conclude, Members have raised a number of issues, some which are historical, some of which, I am afraid, they are mistaken about and some of which require clarification. I am more than happy to correspond with all the hon. Members here today and answer many of those questions.

However, I finish with three points. First, it is currently the case that no human medical trials are possible anywhere in the developed world without safety testing in animals first. Notwithstanding the claims made by a number of Members today about comments made by particular scientists, that reflects the global scientific consensus at the moment, as I understand it.

Nevertheless, it is necessary for us to work on our three R’s strategy, to move towards less animal testing. Since 2015, we have had a three R’s strategy in place, devised by organisations such as the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and medical research organisations. That is doing great work across the industry and ensuring that we get this right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman will read the review’s findings with great care. I have been clear that this is not about changing the fundamental rights themselves, as he has quite rightly observed; it is about the way in which the domestic courts implement and interpret those rights. It is about the mechanism, if you like. It is now 20 years since the Act came into force and I think it is right at this juncture to give it a careful examination. That is what the independent review is all about. As he would expect, it will be followed up by the fullest consultation, in which I know he will play a vigorous part.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

What steps he is taking to tackle public naming of victims of sexual assault.

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

It is an offence to publish any matter likely to identify a person who has made an allegation of rape or other sexual assault. The prohibition applies automatically from the moment the offence is reported and has effect throughout the complainant’s lifetime.

[Mr Dhesi]

The public naming of a rape victim who has bravely come forward is devastating for the individual concerned, but under current legislation perpetrators of this crime get no more than a mere £200 fine. At a time when 44% of rape victims are actually pulling out of the justice system before their day in court, does the Minister agree that such lax laws can deter even more sexual assault victims from coming forward? If so, why did his Government vote down proposals that would have strengthened prosecuting powers against such perpetrators?

Independent Review of Administrative Law

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s characterisation. The use of the word “balance” is very much at the essence of what I as a Conservative and Lord Chancellor believe in. I can give an example. We can see from the Cart judicial review process, which I have mentioned, how such a process can be used to press claims that, frankly, have no merit and result in delay, which frustrates lawful action. By streamlining those procedures, by ensuring that the existing, reliable and sufficient routes of appeal are there, we can ensure that claims are dealt with quickly, fairly and in the proper place.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement, but on 13 March The Daily Telegraph reported that the Government were planning to limit how a judicial review could be used in asylum cases by stopping

“the automatic referral of judicial review cases to senior judges.”

Will the Lord Chancellor be doing that? If so, is anti-immigrant sentiment the motivation behind this Government’s attack on judicial review?

[Robert Buckland]

May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is certainly no base motive behind these proposals, and certainly no attack on people who make proper applications, whether they are seeking asylum or, indeed, clarifying their immigration status in the United Kingdom? What we seek to do is create a system that will work in their better interests. As he will know, one of the big problems is the delay and the anxiety it can cause to many applicants who have to wait for an undue period of time. I want to ensure that we maintain those appeal processes that need to exist in order to satisfy all those rule of law principles that he and I believe in, but to also strip away the unnecessary processes that just prolong the agony for everybody concerned, not least the applicants.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am delighted to let me hon. Friend know that, as a result of the campaigning that he and other Nottinghamshire colleagues have undertaken, we will be opening a Nightingale court in Nottingham before the end of this month. I agree that adding additional capacity through opening up Nightingales is the key to tackling the higher level of outstanding cases caused by the pandemic. We have now opened Nightingales in every Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service region, and we are on track to have a total of 60 additional courtrooms by the end of March.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

After the post-war recovery, legal aid was celebrated as being one of the great pillars of the welfare state, but thanks to a decade of Tory cuts many of my constituents and vulnerable people across our country no longer have access to justice. So what exactly is the Secretary of State doing to halt the terminal decline in the number of legal aid firms and solicitors?

[Robert Buckland]

I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman, and I am more than happy to have a longer discussion with him in real time about the evolution of the legal aid system, which evolved under Governments of both colours. Civil legal aid was slashed considerably by the Labour Government in 1999. This Government still spend £1.7 billion on legal aid. We are already dealing with criminal legal aid, and have a big review into it. With regard to civil legal aid providers, I have already answered questions about the way we are seeking to procure more housing and debt advice. I assure him that the challenges are great, but my personal commitment to legal aid, having been a practitioner in legal aid in my professional career, is real, sincere and will yield proper results.