European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I say to the Secretary of State that if he goes naked to the negotiating table—flaunting it all—it is because he and his supporters have conducted their ideological warfare on the airwaves and in our newspapers, not because of any votes we may have today.

The Liberal Democrats have tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment 19, which would provide people with a final say on the deal. It would be an opportunity to test the will of the people, and I do not quite understand why the Government—and, indeed, the Brexiteers—are so scared by the concept of testing the will of the people.

We have heard a lot about the will of the people, and I must say that it is now the only reason the Government can deploy for supporting Brexit. If we look at the economic grounds, we know from the impact assessments that it will do us damage. On the diplomatic grounds, our friends despair at what we are doing. On the security grounds, we hear threats and counter-threats about not delivering on the security agenda. On savings, we know there will not be any because, among other things, the Government will have to set up a whole series of parallel institutions doing exactly the same thing as the EU ones. On trade, do we really think we are going to get a huge boost from trade with Trump as a protectionist President?

Our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 19 would provide the people with an opportunity to have their views known on this subject, against a background in which much has changed since the referendum vote two years ago. It would give them a say on the final deal, which they are entitled to and deserve, and I think that would put this issue to bed once and for all.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The key difference between Lords amendment 19 and Government amendment (a) is that, in the event of a no deal scenario, the Government amendment simply requires a statement, while the Lords amendment in effect grants Parliament a power to issue negotiating directions. On the face of it, it looks attractive to say that if the Government cannot deliver, the Commons should be able to step in, but on these procedural amendments, I can see the other side of the argument.

Governments negotiate treaties, under the terms of the royal prerogative, and Executives govern, and I am not one who would wish to undermine that concept except in the most extreme circumstances. That is what I have been weighing up in recent days. I also recognise that the proposal in Government amendment (a) concedes the Lords request that Parliament should gain a legal right to a veto on an international agreement. I believe that this would be the first time such a veto had been allowed in law in the UK, and it moves us into line with the European Parliament approvals. It is fair to say that, in the past few days, the Government have gone some way to address the concerns on this issue.

In my considerations, I have been no little influenced by the Prime Minister, who I sincerely believe wants the best deal possible for the UK and who is asking to be able to go to the June EU meeting with the freest possible hand. However, if the Prime Minister gets the deal this country needs, even with the Government concession in their amendment (a), there is still no plan B if Parliament then rejects the deal. That is why I think the new compromise, tabled last night by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), moves towards the balance required in retaining both constitutional integrity and practical requirements. I was therefore very pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that this issue will now be looked at again in the Lords, and the Solicitor General reinforced that in his earlier comments.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Jonathan Djanogly

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think we may have the opportunity to put that to the test shortly.

In conclusion, the debate has unfortunately again revealed the obsession that Europe holds in the hearts of some Government Members. When it comes to Europe and our membership of the European Union, I am afraid that they have left their rationality at the door of the Chamber. If we do leave the European Union, they will be leading the country down a path that will, in my view and in the views of many Cabinet members, many Conservative Members and many Opposition Members, do long-lasting damage to our country.

[Mr Djanogly]

My concern is related to the timing issues of the phase 1 exit period and, by implication, of the transition period and, by extension, to how those periods link in to the proposed timing of the phase 2 deal on the future relationship with the EU following Brexit. That is the subject of a number of interconnected amendments.

The key point on timing is that, rightly or wrongly—probably wrongly—we have dropped our initial insistence that the terms of withdrawal, or what is known as phase 1, should be negotiated at the same time as the terms of our future relationship, which is known as phase 2. As things stand, the EU is saying that we should sort out phase 1—Northern Ireland, citizens’ rights and the amount of money—before we start scoping discussions on phase 2. The Government have said that the scoping of phase 2 should start in December, but the EU has threatened delay if we do not move forward significantly on phase 1 within the next couple of weeks.

Clearly, from the EU Commission’s perspective, and I believe from the perspective of British and continental business, the timelines are moving from tight to critical in terms of the need for a transitional agreement and a phase 2 outline. I separate the two because, of course, the transitional period is legally derived from and relates to the phase 1 exit date set out in article 50, providing time, for instance, to change over regulators and to allow companies’ systems to be changed over, too. Incidentally, it will also be used as a standstill period during which the Government can conduct their negotiations on phase 2.

Having heard the debate so far today, both in Committee and elsewhere, I am still unsure as to why we should fix an exit date that will thereby fix the date of the transition agreement. I can see only downside, with the Government losing control of one of the levers they could use to control the negotiations. Briefings I have just received also indicate that removing the flexibility of having different exit dates for different issues could undermine the ability of the banking and insurance sectors to amend their systems in time, risking financial instability.

The proposal to fix a date also possibly pushes us into a corner and unnecessarily increases the EU team’s leverage. Indeed, as has been said, when the Ministers came to the Brexit Committee, the flexibility to set multiple exit dates was described to us as a tool for setting different commencement dates for different provisions and for providing for possible transitional arrangements. What has changed in the Government’s approach over the past few weeks? That is something Ministers have to address.

It is now seemingly the Government’s intention to follow the Bill with further primary legislation to provide for an implementation period and the terms of the withdrawal agreement, along the lines of amendment 7 tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), which he says he will now update. The amendment has received a lot of cross-party support, and we will debate it at a later date. The Government initiative is welcome, but it will not in itself protect us from the dead-end option of fixing the exit date, which seems to pander to those who would welcome a no-deal Brexit.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) tabled new clause 54, which provides for securing a transition period of at least two years. Although the amendment will be substantially debated later, I think it is conservatively worded. When the Brexit Committee went to Brussels recently, Monsieur Barnier talked of the adequacy of two years for negotiations, as has our Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. However, nearly everyone else, including the European Parliament representative and the representatives of MEDEF—the French CBI—thought that three years, and possibly up to five years, will be needed.

Two years from the exit date may be enough time to settle the provisions of phase 1, but most experts are saying that two years is widely over-optimistic for negotiating an FTA. We need to consider what will happen if the Government do not reach certain targets by certain dates. For the Brexiteers, it may simply be that we go into hard Brexit mode. I personally think that would be extremely damaging to British business, but it is of course the default position under article 50. For those of us who want to have a negotiated phase 2 settlement, more Government attention is needed in this area.

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) tabled new clause 69, a thoughtful amendment that asks what should happen if the Government do not secure a withdrawal agreement by 31 October 2018 or if Parliament does not approve the withdrawal agreement by 28 February 2019. Rather than jump off the proverbial no deal, hard Brexit cliff, there is a suggestion of ending the two-year period or agreeing a new transitional period. For that approach to work, we would have to ensure that we do not have a fixed exit date. It would, in effect, involve taking up the offer previously made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and the Government starting to talk to the Opposition. Given where we are, that is going to have to happen one way or another, and we should face up to it now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Will the Minister rule out the use of closed material proceedings in inquest cases and cases that do not involve national security?

[Mr Djanogly]

My understanding is that that will be the case.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Tom Brake and Jonathan Djanogly

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I will keep my comments brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I think that it was the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) who said that she detected a theme in the contributions from coalition Members: I detect a theme in the contributions of Opposition Members. They criticise the Government for the action that we are taking, acknowledge that they would have done something about legal aid funding themselves, but completely fail to articulate what that alternative would be—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) says that we should look at Hansard. We will do so, but I can assure hon. Members that it will say absolutely nothing about what Labour would have done as an alternative.

What Labour’s proposals amount to is a £65 million cut from legal aid and a significant reduction in the number of firms that could practise legal aid. That would have a very heavy impact on the accessibility and availability of legal aid around the country. When the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) replies to the debate, I hope that he will confirm that that would have been the impact of Labour’s proposals.

It is clear that the legal aid reforms will have a significant impact, and there is no doubt that the changes will have an impact on existing legal aid users. That is why I am pleased that in Justice questions the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), confirmed that the Government have commissioned research on the ability of people on low incomes to access the courts, the availability of appropriately qualified lawyers prepared to undertake publicly funded work and the sustainability of legal services provided by bodies such as Citizens Advice. I hope that that research will become available very soon, so that we can assess the impact.

We need to keep these matters under review, especially in relation to litigants in person—an issue that the NSPCC raised with me, as I am sure it and other organisations have raised it with many other hon. Members. In a debate in the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) raised the issue of litigants in person—[Interruption.] He has woken up and is back with us. Given that exchange, I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary also said that a report is being commissioned at the moment on litigants in person, and he may be able to use this opportunity to confirm when that report will be published and whether it will include significant proposals on how we can ensure that the court process is simplified.

[Mr Djanogly]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

It would be more appropriate for the Minister to respond at the end.

Clearly, we are pleased that the concerns over the definition of domestic violence have been taken on board. I would have liked to have covered many other areas, including drug recovery wings, prisoner working and, as a starting point, prisoner volunteering—the listener schemes are very effective in that respect. I would also have liked to discuss the support that is provided to prisoners on release. Certainly there are some good organisations involved in that work, including Vision Housing, which is based in my constituency. It provides not only housing for ex-offenders but the support to ensure that they do not reoffend.

Finally, it is entirely appropriate for the Government to undertake a review of indeterminate sentences. The issue was identified many years ago by, among others, Lord Carlile, whom Opposition Members like to quote. In relation to IPPs, he said:

“The consequence of the IPP provision has been unpredicted, remains unpredictable and is shocking to many.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 December 2007; Vol. 697, c. 189.]

The views of Lord Carlile in 2007 are likely to be repeated by many Members today.

I would have also liked to touch on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, restorative justice schemes and the age of criminal responsibility, which I suspect might have been somewhat controversial.

In conclusion, this Bill contains many sound proposals. It is in good shape, but it is not perfectly formed yet. There are issues that we will need to address in Committee, but the Bill is making headway on our priorities, including tackling the scandal of reoffending and ensuring that providers are paid for by results, which will have a huge impact on the success of rehabilitation and on our ability to deliver a justice system that works.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

Those are the sorts of issues that we have been considering very carefully through the consultation process. It is very important to realise that even after our reforms we will still be spending £40 million on housing legal aid, for example, and £6 million with debt, so it would be wrong to say that we are abolishing those areas of law. We are looking to get better value and to make sure that the money goes towards helping the vulnerable.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Minister will have noted a great degree of consistency in the submissions on the proposed changes to legal aid, with concerns expressed about family law, debt and housing law, medical negligence and cost-shunting on to other Departments. He has confirmed that the consultation on legal aid has been a genuine listening exercise. Can he confirm that many of the points expressed by organisations such as the Law Society and the CAB have been heard and, critically, will be acted on?

[Mr Djanogly]

All of the submissions have been heard and are being considered very carefully—I can assure my hon. Friend of that. As for whether we put them all into place—that is unlikely, but we will consider them all and where we need to change our proposals, changes will be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Djanogly]

We are indeed doing that. The consultation on Lord Justice Jackson’s recommendations closed yesterday, and we have had a large number of responses. We will look carefully at those over the coming weeks and come back with our response to the consultation. I agree that this is an important matter in terms of legal aid and conditional fees arrangements in so far as half of clinical negligence cases are funded by the former and half by the latter.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

On budget savings, has the Minister had a chance to consider how much might be saved in the legal aid budget by not allowing cases of unaccompanied children and young people whose asylum claims have failed to be dealt with under legal aid, and indeed those who have fled domestic slavery? Will he look again at whether the savings derived are appropriate, given the impact that it will have on these categories of people?

[Mr Djanogly]

In all those circumstances—the hon. Gentleman mentioned a lot quickly—I think that we will be retaining access to legal aid.

Criminal Bar (Public Funding)

Debate between Tom Brake and Jonathan Djanogly

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Bone. I believe that this is your first debate as Chairman, and I hope that it is the first of many. I am a non-practising solicitor, but I have never engaged in legal aid work. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) on securing this debate, which is timely. Many issues have been raised, and I will do my best in the time available to address them.

My hon. and learned Friend is an experienced criminal barrister and, as I would expect of a leading silk, argued his case strongly, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner).

I should say at the outset that the Government agree that we need good-quality advocates to prosecute and defend in criminal cases, and to ensure that the criminal justice system works effectively and fairly. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon and others have argued passionately for the continued future need for an independent Bar, and I support that. However, it is important to recognise that the legal landscape in this country is changing and we must all acknowledge that; we must adapt to it, and to the financial realities of the current economic climate.

I will deal later with the various points made, but before that it may help if I speak about legal aid more widely in the current context. As hon. Members know, the Government have pledged to reduce the budget deficit to deal with the acute financial crisis and to encourage economic recovery. That is something that the whole Government must do. However, we are not driven only by economic considerations; the financial situation is a rare and urgent opportunity to develop imaginative and creative policies. I accept that our policy should not be determined only by the need to deal with the deficit.

In June, we announced that we were considering our policy on legal aid. That reflects the aim of creating a more efficient legal aid system as set out in the coalition Government’s document of 20 May. My hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate, and for Carshalton and Wallington voiced their concerns about the operation of the Legal Services Commission. I confirm that I have established a good working relationship with the LSC and that we are working through some of the issues. I should also say that the Government have decided to replace the LSC with an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice, in the belief that that will strengthen accountability and control of the legal aid fund.

As the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, there have been several reviews of legal aid in recent years under the previous Government. For example, Lord Carter of Coles’s report of July 2006 proposed a market-based approach to reform. The previous Administration implemented some of Lord Carter’s recommendations, but they did not succeed in implementing price competition for criminal legal aid work.

I can confirm to the right hon. Member for Delyn that we are seeking to develop an approach to legal aid spending that takes into account the necessary financial constraints, the interests of justice and the wider public interest. We are seeking to develop an approach that is compatible with necessary access to justice for those who need it most, the protection of the most vulnerable in our society, the efficient performance of the justice system and our legal obligations.

The cost of the legal aid system as a whole has risen over time. The scheme now costs over £2 billion per annum and, as has been recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, it is one of the most generous schemes in the world. We spend significantly more on legal aid than most other comparable countries. For example, the per capita spend on legal aid is about £9 per head in Australia and Canada, and £11 in New Zealand, but we spend £38 for every man, woman and child in England and Wales. In the current financial situation, that is unsustainable.

[Tom Brake]

My point is not directly related to the debate, but I would like to raise a point with the Minister about legal aid, particularly the availability of legal aid to British citizens in foreign countries and the extent to which the Government are able to publicise its availability.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tom Brake and Jonathan Djanogly

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

On the subject of magistrates courts, will Ministers consider seriously any proposal from magistrates that would have them hearing cases in venues other than courts so that they can continue to deliver local justice locally?

[Mr Djanogly]

The answer to that is yes, especially in the context of an increased use of technology.