Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Financial Promotion) (Amendment) Order 2023 Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Commodity Derivatives and Emission Allowances) Order 2023

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 General Committees

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray. The Opposition will support the SI. In recent months, we have seen major scandals in the crypto sector, including the concerning activities of FTX; the collapse of so-called stablecoins, which saw the savings of millions of British people put at risk; and a surge in crypto-related crime and scams. It is therefore right that consumers are made aware of the significant dangers of purchasing cryptoassets, and that the companies promoting such assets are properly regulated.

I have a few questions that I wish the Minister to address. I am particularly concerned about the temporary exemption to allow cryptoasset businesses that are not authorised by the FCA but that are registered under anti-money laundering rules to communicate their own financial promotions. I know that the Minister will agree that the risks posed by the cryptoasset sector extend far beyond money laundering and include other forms of crime, such as many scams targeting the public, but how will the Government ensure that they have made it absolutely clear to the public that those firms are not authorised by the FCA, and that consumers are fully aware of the associated risks?

The organisation Positive Money, which the Minister will probably know, has made the case that if the Government are serious about an approach of “same risk, same regulatory outcome”, stablecoins should be regulated in a similar way to bank deposits. Has the Minister made an assessment of that proposal? If the Government plan to regulate stablecoins as e-money rather than as akin to bank deposits, how will the Treasury ensure that consumers are made fully aware that their funds are not covered by the financial services compensation scheme?

What work is the Minister doing to develop additional protections for consumers in this high-risk and volatile space? For example, has he considered requiring crypto firms to include risk warnings that make clear to investors the percentage of retail investor accounts that have lost money when trading cryptoassets, as is the case for firms offering spread betting and contracts for difference?

Finally, it is noticeable that the Government are making the distinction that non-fungible tokens are collectibles rather than financial investments. Does that mean that NFTs are not considered cryptoassets under the draft order? The Government recently U-turned on their instruction to the Royal Mint to issue an NFT as part of plans

“to make the UK a global hub for crypto asset technology and investment”.

Does the distinction made in the SI signal that the Government’s NFT offer has finally been abandoned?

[The Chair]

I call Kevin Brennan. Will Members stand up if they wish to speak? It is hard to see people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

The Opposition support the SI, and recognise that the current ancillary activities test, onshored into UK legislation from the EU rulebook, is too complicated. My only question for the Minister is how the Government will work with the FCA to ensure that relevant stakeholders are consulted on a new test.

Rape and Sexual Violence

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and the tribute that she pays to her constituent Anna Robinson. It sounds like a fantastic play, and I am sure she has shown great bravery and courage in using her experience to shine a light on the difficulties that women face.

The cases that I referred to are not unique. The recent criminal justice joint inspectorate report said that the criminal justice system is failing victims of rape and that widespread reform is needed. Despite all this, action from the Government has been lukewarm and lacks urgency. We welcomed the end-to-end rape review, but it took over two years to publish it, and we are now one year on from that with little noticeable change. The review’s commitment to developing a better understanding of the impacts of trauma on rape victims and survivors across the criminal justice system, and the important commitment to taking a more suspect-focused approach to rape investigations, was encouraging and welcome. Yet even so, the review’s proposals were just piecemeal ideas without the funding and real accountability to make the change needed, and there was a concerning lack of urgency in the timescales put forward. The scorecards, which are a useful tool for transparency, completely lacked an equalities analysis, meaning that there is a blind spot in understanding justice outcomes for rape victims and survivors who are black and minoritised, deaf and disabled, or LGBT+. As long as this information remains missing it will show a fundamental lack of commitment to making our justice system work for everyone.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I want to speak on the point of making the justice system work for everyone. My constituent Michelle recently wrote to me because she has a stalker who is the father of her child. He has abused her, threatened her, and turned up on her doorstep and her mother’s doorstep. She spoke to the police, who said that she should apply for a non-molestation order, but she does not qualify for legal aid because she works full time and, as a single parent, she cannot pay solicitors’ fees. Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that there are women like Michelle falling through the cracks in the justice system, and something needs to be done to help them?

[Ellie Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point and shining a light on the dreadful situation her constituent is facing. Stalking is a really serious crime, and later in my speech, I will say a little bit about what Labour would do to be tougher on stalkers.

One of the commitments made by the Government in the rape review was to return to 2016 charging levels for rape cases, but at the current rate of progress it will take 29 years to reach that target, and even then it is not a particularly ambitious target. In the absence of effective leadership, the Labour party has put forward a plan to reverse the trend of falling prosecutions, to ensure victims can once again have faith in the system that is supposed to protect them. Our survivors support plan would fast-track rape and serious sexual assault cases through the police, Crown Prosecution Service and courts; establish a pre and post-trial survivors support package, including a full legal advocacy scheme for victims and better training for professionals about myths and stereotypes; and appoint a Minister for survivors of rape and sexual violence to investigate and tackle the root causes of delays in the system and act as a champion for victims. We would also end lenient sentences for rape and stalking by introducing new statutory minimum sentences, as well as toughening up sentences for spiking.

It is unacceptable that rape victims are waiting years post-charge for a court date, especially given the comparatively small number of cases that are going through the system. Rape survivors are often the most vulnerable and traumatised, but waiting for trial means they cannot move on with their lives and cannot access counselling for fear that their counselling notes will be disclosed at trial.

IOPC Report on Metropolitan Police Officers' Conduct: Charing Cross Police Station

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

It is worth pointing out that, while the assessment process was online, once those police officers enter training, it is not accepted that they will necessarily be attested at the end. They are constantly assessed throughout their training on whether or not they are suitable. We continue to monitor their performance not just through training and in the immediate months after their acquisition, but thereafter. Having said that, we have to be slightly careful to bear in mind that, of the 11,000-odd who have stepped forward to be police officers, the vast majority of them are bright, smart, well-meaning and well-motivated people with the right kind of values to be police officers, and we have high hopes for them in the future.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The report was chilling. What worried me most was that the horrific cases were referred to the IOPC in 2018, yet the concerns about sexist discrimination and sexual harassment in the London Metropolitan police were not addressed by the time of the horrific murders of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman, and Sarah Everard, who has been mentioned a few times. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), I have had young women in my constituency writing to me and saying that they do not feel safe walking around at night in my constituency. As someone who had a bad experience with the police before I became an MP, I ask the Minister to set out some tangible steps the Government are taking to ensure that the misogyny in the force is tackled and that they are actually doing a proper job, so I can reassure my young constituents that they are safe to walk around in Hampstead and Kilburn.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

May I just press on for a moment? Victims of domestic abuse just want it to stop. They do not want to live in constant fear in their own home or to be forced to flee to a place of safety. That is why civil protection orders play such an important role in providing protection to victims and their children, but at the moment we have a rather confusing landscape, with non-molestation orders, restraining orders and domestic violence protection orders. Each of those is available in different circumstances. They do different things and they have different consequences where the order is breached. Victims are not well served by that plethora. In recognition of that, the Bill provides for a new go-to domestic abuse protection notice and the domestic abuse protection order. I hate acronyms but I will call it a DAPO on this occasion. The notice will give victims immediate protection following a crisis incident. It will be issued by the police—

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

rose—

[Robert Buckland]

I will give way in a moment.

[Robert Buckland]

Mr Speaker, I think I have been very generous. I respect all hon. Members, and I will give way to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) now.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I had better make a good point now! The Minister has been making a powerful speech, and I welcome this Bill, but I have to reiterate the point about migrant women. Leaders of the non-governmental organisation Liberty argue that migrant women face an “impossible” situation

“where they are forced to choose between the risk of detention/deportation or staying in a situation of violence.”

So I ask the Minister, once again: where is the support? The Bill is welcome for the most part, but it clearly is a missed opportunity to create an intergovernmental strategy to support migrant women who are at risk of abuse. Does he agree that all of us should work together to develop a framework of support in Committee? Will he commit to that?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s persistence, because it has resulted in an important point. I assure her that the review is not just an internal review; it involves the sort of agencies that she and I would want to be involved. Not only the review but this Bill and the debates we can have in Committee can help us to get to a situation where we are providing the appropriate support for all victims, including migrant women. I thank her for her intervention.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

When a Conservative former Attorney General looks at a Bill and describes it as an “astonishing monstrosity”, it is clear that somewhere something has gone wrong. When a Conservative former Chancellor of the Exchequer says that we are facing the prospect of frittering away parliamentary democracy, something is not as it seems. When hundreds of thousands of people, whether it is June Barnes in Kilburn or Peter Singer in Hampstead, feel compelled to email their MP saying that they are in shock at the Government’s tactics, it is clear that the ministerial power grab at the heart of this Bill is unacceptable and brazen.

I am told that the Prime Minister campaigned to remain in the EU, and that has made her transformation into Brexiteer-in-chief even more difficult to stomach. The hard Brexiteers back-slapped and sneered their way through the referendum campaign saying that they would “take back control”, but the irony is that what the Government are asking for in this Bill actually takes control away. It proposes taking away control of the law from Parliament, taking away control of governance from all our regions, and taking away hard-won rights from those who live and work here. Not only will this Bill be dangerous to our country’s integrity; it also poses a serious challenge to hard-fought-for rights of my constituents and many across the country.

Let me be clear that my opposition to the Government’s intended mass deployment of secondary legislation is due not to a prosaic attachment to the purest form of primary legislation but to the very real consequences it could have for my constituents’ lives. The decision to withdraw from the EU charter of fundamental rights is, at best, problematic and, at worst, actively contemptuous of the rights that protect all aspects of citizens’ lives. The EU charter of fundamental rights covers a broad set of protections that guarantee individual freedoms and rights, from the prohibition of torture and the right to life to holiday entitlement and working conditions. Without it, for example, workers in London, whose air quality is already at an illegal level, would lose layers of protection.

I would like to know which rights in particular the Government object to; perhaps the Minister can tell me. Is it the right to life, or the prohibition of torture and degrading treatment and punishment? Perhaps the Government take issue with the charter’s codification of equality rights, or perhaps the Secretary of State has a new-found disregard for privacy laws. Paying lip service to human rights is no guarantee of human rights, and introducing legislation that cannot be properly scrutinised is no way to govern people’s lives. The explicit disregarding of the charter risks the rights of working people.

The Government may ask why the British people should not simply trust them to replicate any protections and rights in forthcoming legislation. Well, when certain Conservative Members believe that rape victims should not have access to abortion, I do not blame the public for being sceptical of the Government and their ability to rule.

The Bill not only poses challenges to parliamentary scrutiny and people’s rights, but sends a stark message about the trajectory of devolution in this country, if one examines clause 11. The Government could have used the Bill as a real opportunity to address the governance of our regions. If there was ever a time to empower the newly elected representatives, it is now. As with the rights of the EU charter, it seems as though the Government are asking devolved nations to take their promises in good faith, and asking individual nations and regions to accept Whitehall control again. Curbing the scope of devolution and the ability of devolved bodies to act, particularly at this time, sends out a troubling message.

I am a London MP, and there is no doubt that Brexit will have a disproportionate impact on London, with 1 million EU nationals living in the city and making up 15% of the employment force.

[Catherine West]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on the point about the London economy and EU nationals. Does she agree that an increasing number of EU nationals are very concerned, not just about the cost of their citizenship but about the constant changing of the goalposts by the increasingly incompetent Home Office?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. There are 17,000 EU nationals who live in my constituency, and they constantly come to my surgery because they are worried about the half-baked practice papers that are being put in front of them. In terms of the London economy, which my hon. Friend also mentioned, by 2020 a quarter of the GDP of the entire country will come from London alone. We have 800,000 private sector businesses. The Bill gives Ministers the power to modify retained EU law, and clause 11 stipulates that such powers should not be handed to the devolved authorities.

With the EU charter a thing of the past, London’s EU nationals will, as my hon. Friend suggests, have the right to question what their future holds and what rights will be guaranteed. An honest conversation is urgently needed on post-Brexit immigration arrangements and migrant protections for the huge population of non-EU citizens in London, and the Bill does not provide that. A lukewarm commitment to seek consent from devolved bodies will not do. Serious steps must be taken to mitigate the disproportionate impact that Brexit will have on the city where my constituency is based.

I will proudly vote against the Bill today with my Labour colleagues. The display put on by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) last Thursday revealed this Bill to be everything that campaigners warned it would be. It is a shoddy power grab that disrespects the democratic traditions of our country and throws hard-fought rights into total jeopardy, and the Government should be ashamed of themselves for introducing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the energetic speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). This is of course a Second Reading debate and we should properly be considering the general objectives and principles of the legislation. I think there is in fact some measure of consensus around the fact that such a Bill, or one similar to it, is required to give practical effect to our leaving the European Union. Even the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) admitted in his speech on Thursday that something like this was required, and even the House of Lords Constitution Committee accepts that something like this is necessary. It is clearly reasonable, when we have to pass 1,000 statutory instruments to effect leaving the European Union, that we do something like this Bill. I remind Opposition Members that all those 1,000 statutory instruments are votable, should they wish. The idea there is no democratic scrutiny is not accurate.

On Thursday and today, we have heard Opposition Members claim that the Bill gives unfettered power to the Executive, but it is very clear in both clauses 7 and 9 that the powers are circumscribed. Clause 7(1) states that the powers can be used only to correct a

“failure of retained EU law…or any…deficiency”.

Clause 9(1) clearly states that the powers can be used only to implement the exit agreement, an agreement on which this House will have a vote. The idea that the powers can be used across the board does not bear scrutiny.

Clauses 7(6) and 9(3) make it completely clear that a whole range of things, such as introducing new criminal laws, cannot be done under this Bill. The powers are fairly clearly circumscribed. To top that, there are sunset clauses that mean the powers are strictly time-limited, which gives further reassurance.

Clauses 7(4) and 9(2) mean that the Bill itself can be amended by regulation. If there is one little tweak we might consider, it is exempting the sunset clauses from that provision, but that is the kind of fine tuning that can quite properly happen in Committee, rather than on Second Reading.

I have heard quite a lot of extraordinary hyperbole and crocodile tears from some Opposition Members in this debate. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who is not in his place, said on Thursday that he feels the Bill disenfranchises Parliament, but for the last 40 years he has been perfectly content for regulations and laws passed in Brussels by qualified majority voting, with no veto or definitive say by the UK Government, to be implemented in UK law by Orders in Council without so much as a sniff of a vote in this House. Where was his righteous indignation for the whole of the last 40 years?

The hon. Member for Holborn and Kilburn, who is in her place—[Interruption.] Sorry, Hampstead and Kilburn. I should know, having stood in that constituency in 2010. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) said the Bill is a wholesale threat to rights under EU law, but the Bill copies and pastes wholesale those rights into UK law. Any material amendment to those rights would have to be passed by a vote of this House. She specifically referenced human rights law. She obviously has not read clauses 7(6)(e) and 9(3)(d).

[Tulip Siddiq]

I have read them.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady should know, then, that the Bill expressly prohibits these powers being used in any way to interfere with human rights law. She will have seen that the Bill expressly precludes her concerns.

The Scottish National party is going into paroxysms of apoplexy at the merest hint that London might exercise even a smidgen of the powers currently exercised in Brussels. I have not heard a single word of protest in the two years I have been a Member about those self-same powers being exercised in Brussels. Where were the SNP’s shouts of indignation then?

Everyone seems to agree that the Bill is necessary. No doubt there are points of detail that can and will be improved on, but anyone who is serious about implementing the British public’s decision should vote for Second Reading this evening.

International Women’s Day 2016

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Mactaggart]

My hon. Friend anticipates where my speech is going next.

The next part of the motion refers to equal pay. We have made some progress on that, but I am glad that the Women and Equalities Committee is looking at the fact that older women are being left behind when it comes to equal pay. They are being left behind in many other ways, too, so we need to try to sort that out.

The final part of the motion

“calls for greater action against FGM and other practices that are harmful to women.”

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I commend the Government for setting up the National FGM Centre, which helps women and communities to fight against this barbaric act. It is run, as hon. Members may know, by Barnardo’s and the Local Government Association, and a funding decision on the centre is due at the end of this month. Will my right hon. Friend join me in calling on the Government to continue this funding that keeps our daughters safe?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

It is essential that we have a strategic response to violence against women and girls. We have all been moved by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), and we know that women—internationally and in the UK—are particularly likely to be victims of violence, which might be through so-called cultural practices such as FGM, or victims of human trafficking.

I am glad that the Government have introduced the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and are focusing on the issue. We know that, internationally, the biggest reason for trafficking in human beings is trafficking for sexual exploitation. With women who are murdered, we know that if they have been in prostitution, their perpetrator is much less likely to be caught and convicted. Our average murder conviction rate is 75%, but at the moment we convict only 23% of the murderers of prostitutes. That is a shocking figure. We fail to have an intelligent, strategic response to the existence of prostitution, recognising that it is, as it is actually practised, a mechanism for violence towards women, for the sexual exploitation of children and for turning women into commodities, thus making all women’s lives less safe.

I am glad that the Home Affairs Committee is looking at this issue, but until we follow Sweden’s lead by targeting the men who create this problem and saying that it is an offence to pay for women’s sexual services, I do not think we will end the horror that is the reality for most women and girls involved in prostitution—the horror of drug addiction; the horror of pimping; and the horror of exploitation and trafficking. That is something that we really need to focus on. When I first came to this House, we were reluctant to discuss the word “prostitution”, and I am glad that we now have a Chamber that is prepared to talk about it. However, we now have to do things to end this form of exploitation.

Prisons and Probation

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Michael Gove)]

Coming as I do from Aberdeen, I know that porridge is not necessarily something that we consider to be unattractive. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) might be relieved to hear that.

Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing this debate. I thank him for the serious way in which he laid out the scale of the challenge that my Department faces—and, indeed, that faces all of us in this House. He rightly drew attention to the fact that this is the fourth debate on prisons and probation in the last week. He was absolutely right to draw attention in particular to the excellent debate conducted in the other place last week. It was a debate on a motion initiated by Lord Fowler, a former Conservative Cabinet Minister, and it is striking that so many Conservative colleagues are here today. It is important to recognise across the House that the cause of prison reform is one that is shared by people from every political party and should not be regarded as the province of any particular political organisation or caucus.

In thanking the speakers in the House of Lords, I draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, as well as most of them, took the opportunity in the time allowed to them to thank those who work in our prisons. It is important for us all to place on the record if we have time—I recognise that many want to contribute to the debate—our gratitude for the courage and the idealism of those who work in our prisons. I mean not just prison officers, but chaplains, volunteers, teachers and others.

In tandem with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who is the prisons Minister, I had the opportunity last year to visit Manchester prison, or Strangeways as it used to be known. I spoke to a young man who works in the segregation unit and I asked him why he had chosen to work with some of the most challenging offenders. He explained movingly that he had come from a part of the city that was particularly affected by crime, and he wanted to do something in his own career and profession to help make his community safer. He chose to work with those challenging prisoners in the segregation unit because he believed that the personal relationships he could form with individuals there might be able to change their lives for the better while making his community safer. I believe that sort of idealism is typical of those who work in our prisons, and it reinforces an essential point: the quality of the relationship between those who work in our prisons and those for whom they care is not soft or in any way a retreat from public safety, but critical to ensuring it.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that the number of attacks on our prison staff has increased by 42%, and these range from severe cuts to damages to internal organs and fractures. In order to keep safe the people who, as he has outlined, work so hard in our prisons, will he order a review into safety at work for prison staff?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes an entirely fair point. I do not deny the scale of the problem revealed in the statistics that she and her hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith deployed. The National Offender Management Service runs a violence reduction programme that involves studying precisely why there has been this upsurge in violence. Factors, which have been acknowledged by Members on both sides of the House, have contributed to that. One is the pattern of offenders. Prisons contain more people who have been convicted of violent and other challenging offences. It is also the case that the spread of new psychoactive substances—which have been misleadingly called “legal highs”, but which the Under-Secretary has more accurately termed “lethal highs”—has contributed to a lack of self-control and to psychosis, increased mental health problems and violence in our prison system. We must make some difficult choices to ensure that we limit the currently widespread availability of those drugs, and also keep people safe in our prisons. I shall talk about one or two of those choices shortly.

I agree that we face a problem—let me emphasise that—but I do not wish to use the word “crisis”, for two reasons. First, I think that it has the potential to undermine the morale of the people who work in our prisons. Secondly, I think that it might draw attention away from the incremental changes that we need to make, which can add up to a significant programme of prison reform. If we allow ourselves to be panicked by headlines and scared into overreaction, we may not be able to take the solid incremental steps that we need to take if we are to improve the present situation.

I was struck by the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) about prison staff numbers. Those of us who care about not just the safety of staff but the effectiveness of the prison regime are understandably keen for our prisons to be staffed effectively, but let me make two points. First, the number of prison officers has increased by more than 500 in the last year. Secondly, there is no absolute correlation between the number of prison officers and the nature of the regime, and the number of violent incidents. I do not deny for a moment that we need to ensure that prisons are properly staffed and prison officers are safe, but the extent of the security that individuals enjoy in a prison is a consequence of a number of factors.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman needs to appreciate that we have had to take tough measures. It is vital, and the British people in their millions rightfully say that they want overseas people to have some connection with the UK before getting use of the taxes that they pay. The residence test has gone through the court process to the Court of Appeal, and if it goes further, the Government will object and robustly defend our stance on the residence test.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

5. If he will make an assessment of the effect of the criminal courts charge on access to justice; and if he will make a statement.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Michael Gove)]

Last week, I announced that the Ministry of Justice will review the entire structure and purpose of the financial penalties and orders handed down by courts to offenders, with a view to considering options for simplification and improvement. The Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised about the criminal courts charge, and in the light of those concerns, I decided to pause the imposition of the charge while the wider review is carried out.

[Tulip Siddiq]

May I take the opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State on scrapping yet another proposal put forward by his predecessor, but may I also remind him that he was Chief Whip at the time and voted for the policy? Individuals have incurred high levels of personal debt, which they are unlikely to be able to pay back, because of this cost. Bearing that in mind, will the Secretary of State review and waive the outstanding payments, which do nothing but blight the finances of our justice system and place an administrative cost on the taxpayer?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind words, and for reminding the House that, while I was not an unprecedented success as Chief Whip, I did manage to vote with the Government the majority of the time while I was in that post. It is the case that people will have paid penalties under the criminal courts charge. That was the law at the time, and it will be the law until 24 December. After that, people will not pay the criminal courts charge.

Court Charges (Access to Justice)

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered court charges and access to justice.

I want to consider the effect that the criminal courts charge has had on access to justice. In the past five years, whether in criminal or civil law, access to justice—the ability to secure legal representation or to maintain one’s innocence—has come under repeated attack. While the Conservative party is apparently so adamant about imposing British values through the Ministry of Justice’s output, I can think of no other British Government who have attacked the principles of Magna Carta in such a manner.

The debate focuses on the criminal courts charge. While I am relatively new to the House, other Members—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr James Gray (in the Chair)]

As a result of the Division, the debate will run until a quarter to 5. The Member in charge might perhaps wish to leave a quarter of an hour or thereabouts for the Minister to respond.

[Tulip Siddiq]

To pick up where I left off, the Government are attacking the principles of Magna Carta. I am relatively new to the House, but other Members will have been concerned about previous legal reforms by this Government. The focus of the debate is criminal court charges, which have attracted widespread criticism from all parts of the legal world, from magistrates to the Lord Chief Justice.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has mentioned magistrates; does she share my concern about the fact that at least 50 magistrates have resigned since the implementation of the charges?

[Tulip Siddiq]

My hon. Friend has anticipated a point I will come on to. As he said, 50 magistrates have resigned, and in one case highlighted by the Howard League, a magistrate felt inclined to pay the court fee from his own pocket because of his sense of injustice.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate at a very timely moment. Does she agree that a major risk of the charges is that they will have a disproportionate effect on the poorest defendants, which is unfair?

[Tulip Siddiq]

Absolutely. I secured the debate because I am worried about access to justice for people from poor socioeconomic backgrounds. I will touch on that later.

The court charges were introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. They have had a dramatic impact on the number of cases going to court. I am particularly worried about tribunal numbers, which have plummeted, and the number of discrimination and unfair dismissal cases, which seems to be going down. I am concerned that the charges are in effect an attack on the most vulnerable in our society. I say the most vulnerable, because statistics show that sex discrimination cases brought by women have gone down by 80%. Similarly, if we compare the first few months of 2014 with the same period in 2013, the number of race discrimination cases has gone down by 60%.

Access to the court system is not, as the Government have put it, part of the welfare state. I prefer to agree with the Law Society, which said that the court system should be seen as

“part of the…rights and duties that give…resilience”

to the society that we live in. I do not doubt that our centuries-old court system needs some reform, but we need to think carefully before proposing those reforms. The Government would do well to remember their responsibility to enable every citizen to be treated equally before the law, whether they are a defendant, a victim or another party.

It is important to consider the effect that the criminal courts charge is having on poor defendants, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) mentioned. Despite the lack of quantitative data at my disposal, a lot of anecdotal evidence has been brought to light, especially by organisations such as the Howard League, revealing that this charge is not only intolerable in its consequences but will in no way recover the money that the Government talk about.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

In the light of the failure to consult before the criminal charge scheme was introduced; the clear concerns of judges, magistrates and the whole legal profession; and the likelihood that this will add to the problem, rather than solve it, does my hon. Friend agree that this scheme should be reviewed this autumn, as the Howard League argues, rather than in three years?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I absolutely agree with my hon. and learned Friend, who has a lot of experience in this field. That is something I raised with the Justice Secretary when I asked him in the Chamber a few weeks ago why this absurd policy had been signed off in the first place, and he said that it was under review. We should not wait three years, while the reform has dramatic effects on the most vulnerable in our society. We should move the review forward; if the scheme is under review, that should be done immediately, and we should not procrastinate.

Let me highlight what I find most concerning about this charge and what has struck me. This charge will put pressure on people to plead guilty because they are worried about financial costs. If someone pleads guilty early on, they are less likely to incur costs than if they say and then maintain that they are innocent, and are found guilty later down the line. That will inevitably put pressure on people to plead guilty. I want to read out some of the figures, to hammer this home. The charge rises from £150 for a guilty plea for a summary offence in a magistrates court to £520 for a conviction after a not-guilty plea. The charge at Crown court is £900 for a guilty plea and £1,200 for a conviction after a not-guilty plea. Think about the constituents who live on the estates of Hampstead and Kilburn, the constituency I am so proud to represent in this House. They would not be able to afford those fines.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one aspect of this issue is the fact that courts are given no discretion to take account of an individual’s ability to pay?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I will touch on that later, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence, as I have said. The Howard League and other organisations have highlighted that people on benefits or people who rely on social security are being expected to pay fines that we know they will not be able to pay. It is unrealistic to expect those people to pay these charges, and administratively, it probably costs taxpayers more.

[Wayne David]

The figures I have seen underline the point my hon. Friend just made. My understanding is that some £5 million in court charges has been issued, but less than £300,000 has been collected. Does that huge gap not show how ridiculous this policy is?

[Tulip Siddiq]

Absolutely. If we look at the money we have managed to claw back, it shows why this policy should be scrapped. It should not take three years to review it, because we have the evidence, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said.

I rarely agree with Conservative Members of the House, but I agree with the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who said on Radio 4 that the charge

“does seem to be distorting the way in which people behave in court…defendants might plead guilty to save the cost of the charge when otherwise they would not have done”.

That is from a member of the Conservative party. I could not agree more with him.

In 21st-century Britain, we should be appalled by the miscarriage of justice, especially when defendants are foregoing their freedom due to financial constraints. To pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, in some magistrates courts about 80% of defendants are dependent on state support to meet basic living costs, which makes this issue even more pressing. The charge means that poorer defendants are likely to make a different decision from the one they would have ordinarily made. That means we risk their voice being at best constrained, and at worst shut out from our justice system.

[Keir Starmer]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this cuts across the principle we have had in our criminal justice system for many years of being willing to reduce a sentence for an early guilty plea, because we are setting our face against increasing the consequences for not pleading guilty?

[Tulip Siddiq]

Again, I draw on my hon. and learned Friend’s experience in the legal world. I absolutely agree with him, and I hope the Government will listen to his interventions today, because I do not think anyone could be better equipped to help the Government at this point than him.

What is even more frustrating is that we are unable to place a specific figure on the increase in the proportion of guilty pleas at first hearing at the magistrates court. Until recently, quarterly criminal court statistics routinely included that figure. While the Government may be reticent about taking on board demands for revision, they must strive to make those figures available so that the extent of the recent phenomenon can be made public. I urge the Minister to be transparent about the impact this reform is having.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) mentioned that 50 magistrates have resigned since the implementation of this policy. Let us listen to the experts and judge them by their actions. The Magistrates Association claimed in written evidence to the Justice Committee that

“the lack of judicial discretion means that the charge…is not in accordance with the principles of justice.”

My second concern is that the charge is producing fines that are disproportionate to the minor offences for which defendants are often charged. For generations, magistrates imposed financial penalties in accordance with how severe the crime was and the defendant’s ability to pay, which my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) mentioned. The mandatory charge can account for 50% or more of the total, placing enormous anxiety and stress on individuals who sometimes have been driven, in despair, to commit crimes. I am not saying we should not punish criminals, but the importance of judicial discretion cannot be underestimated.

I would like to give one example from Highbury Corner magistrates court, where a lot of Hampstead and Kilburn’s constituents are tried. The defendant in question had no savings, no income and a drug addiction. He was put in the docks of Highbury for stealing a couple of steaks and 70p lollipops. He was told he should plead guilty, because the charge would be £150, whereas if he was found guilty further down the line, it would rise to £1,000. Of course, he pled guilty. The reporters at the case wrote that he sat there with “sunken cheekbones”, his shirt falling off his back, and he knew that he would in no way be able to pay the court fees imposed on him. The charge was £150, with a £65 victim surcharge and further costs of £85, which came to £295 for a man who the judge said needed 12 months of rehabilitation and community service. There is no way he will be able to pay that back. Is this a system that works for people? Should we not be looking at these vulnerable people who cannot afford to pay the fees we are imposing on them? Is this the future we want for our criminal justice system? It is surely time the Government realised that this policy is not fit for purpose and needs to be reviewed.

I want to ask the Minister a few questions. First, we have been told that the Government are listening, which is a good sign, but can we ensure the review is brought forward? May I have an answer to my original question to the Justice Secretary: how did this absurd policy get signed off in the first place? Secondly, in the medium term, will the Government disaggregate the statistics that are due in December, so that we can see exactly how little is being paid back and how much the policy is costing taxpayers in administrative costs?

A lot of Members in this House and in this Chamber today came into politics because they believed in the values of equality, fairness and social justice. If we carry on in this way, we will create a legal system in which people with money will have access to justice and those without will be shut out. That is not the kind of society we want to live in; we want to live in a society that has equal access to justice, and we need to be very careful, because we are in danger of hitting the most vulnerable people in our society with the legal reforms that are being proposed. I ask the Minister to respond to my questions, and I urge him, once again, to listen to all the Opposition Members who have made points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

The legal aid fund is one of the most generous in the world, after the reductions, at some £1.6 billion. It was previously over £2 billion. We have made reductions and we still rank among the top countries in legal aid provision. It is important to remember that point, which also addresses some of the comments of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn about access to justice. Let me remind her that, notwithstanding the reductions made by the Government in the past five years, we remain one of the most generous countries in the world for legal aid payments.

There is a high level of consensus across the justice system that the current system is unsustainable. This means that the court system must undergo fundamental reform. Our justice system must work better to deliver swifter, fairer and more efficient access to justice for everyone.

[Tulip Siddiq]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Vara]

I will give way, but I will not be able to conclude my comments. Only one and a half minutes remain.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I would like to know whether the review will be brought forward or whether it will take three years.

[Mr Vara]

As my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has said, the matter is under review.

Our justice system must work better to deliver swifter, fairer and more efficient access to justice for everyone. It must uphold the rule of law, the most precious asset of any civilised society. Changes to fees have occurred on the civil side, and bearing the burden of running the criminal courts cannot continue to be purely the responsibility of the taxpayer. Offenders must take responsibility for their actions, and the criminal courts charge is an important part of this. In reforming the courts and bearing down on the costs of running them, the Government are determined to make the justice system more efficient and to transform it into a modern public service.

I want to make it clear to the hon. Lady and to all other hon. Members present that I am aware of the concerns and various issues that have been raised, and I will certainly take on board all that has been said by her and other hon. Members. However, it is important to stress—I hope the hon. Lady will appreciate this—that in reviewing the charge, we must consider all the evidence to allow us to form an appropriate view and to help us to make sure that the criminal courts are run efficiently and fairly. I congratulate the hon. Lady again on securing this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered court charges and access to justice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

I announced the consultation on 16 July and it has now closed. If the hon. Lady wishes to provide me with further information, I assure her that it will still be taken into account.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

11. What plans he has to review the level of the criminal courts charge.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Michael Gove)]

It is right that we find better ways to pay the costs of running our criminal courts, and the introduction of this charge has made it possible to recover some of the costs from offenders, which reduces the burden on taxpayers. The Government are, of course, keeping the operation of the criminal courts charge under review.

[Tulip Siddiq]

The Secretary of State will be aware of disturbing case studies highlighted by campaigners such as the Howard League showing that this charge is putting pressure on people to plead guilty in order to avoid legal costs, thereby restricting access to a free trial. I am pleased to hear that he is reviewing the charge, but will he admit that signing off such an absurd policy should not have happened in the first place?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue, because I know that concerns have been expressed across the House and, indeed, by members of the magistracy and the judiciary, as well as by pressure groups such as the Howard League. That is why we are reviewing the operation of the charge. It is important to stress, however, that our justice system already creates a number of incentives for those who enter early guilty pleas, in order to ensure that the wheels of justice can run more smoothly, but I will continue to listen to the points that the hon. Lady and others make.