Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

10. What progress the Government have made on their review of legal aid domestic violence evidence requirements.

[The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)]

Following our completion of the review we announced our intention to make changes by secondary legislation that would make it easier for victims of domestic violence to access legal aid. These changes include removing the time limit on all forms of evidence and accepting evidence from domestic violence support organisations.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. I appreciate that he might not be able to go into detail just yet, but can he offer a commitment to the victims of domestic violence of his continued support for them in the justice system in the next Parliament, if a Conservative Government are returned?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I can certainly do that, and I can also point to the recent changes made in courts to help victims of domestic violence to give evidence, such as the video links that we have introduced, and the provision for recorded evidence and cross-examination which is about to be rolled out. It is also important to say that the House generally supported the end to cross-examination by perpetrators.

[Mr Mak]

I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome the announcement. Will he join me in commending the Southern Domestic Abuse Service, a Havant-based charity that helps victims of domestic violence report to the police, and ensure that he continues working with such charities to make sure that the evidential guidelines are consistent with the sensitivity of this issue?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I am happy to pay tribute to organisations that help victims of domestic violence on their work, and I know from talking to my hon. Friend, who is a strong advocate for them, that that service in Havant is excellent—so, yes, I agree with him.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

The Ministry of Justice committed to reviewing the domestic violence evidence requirements for legal aid. That was a clear admission that the scheme was not working and was not fair. Since the passing of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the family courts have become more adversarial. Should the Minister not admit that the withdrawal of legal aid for so many family cases has caused real unfairness to families?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

As the hon. Lady will remember, we promised at the time that there would be a review of LASPO and the legal aid provisions, and we have announced the timetable for that review, which has been welcomed, but I agree that we should have a process of constant improvement in helping the victims of domestic violence.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

The Government have made huge progress in tackling domestic violence both at home and overseas. However, my surgeries are often filled with people who are suffering or have suffered from domestic violence and who are stuck in the family courts system. They are receiving legal aid, but the situation has caused distress. I know the Minister has personally looked into these issues, but will he meet me, hopefully after 8 June, to discuss them further?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I would never take the electorate for granted, but if I am here, I will meet my hon. Friend.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

2. If she will review the effectiveness of legislation relating to novel psychoactive substances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

15. If the Government will take steps to ensure that any provisions proposing changes to human rights protection in UK law which result from the UK leaving the EU are laid before Parliament for scrutiny.

[The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)]

The answer is yes.

[Carol Monaghan]

Amnesty International, Liberty and other human rights groups have raised the issue of diminished human rights protection as a result of the great repeal Bill and the Government’s plans to correct the statute book through secondary legislation. Will the Minister provide more detail on the extent of these correction powers and whether the changes will include human rights protections?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

As the hon. Lady will know, I cannot make any announcements today because of purdah, but what I can say is that, as I explained in giving evidence to two Select Committees, it is not our intention to have any gaps in our human rights protections.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Why is it reasonable to expect our justices to be any less creative than European ones?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

We do want a British jurisprudence, and that is what we will have following Brexit. Human rights were not invented with the Human Rights Act; this country has been a leading pioneer in human rights since its first gasps of breath as a nation, so there is no reason for us to think that we will not continue to express our values.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

Why are the Government continuing to confuse and, indeed, deceive people by suggesting that the European convention on human rights is anything to do with the EU? It was signed up to by nations that had just come together after the most disastrous war in our history, and it was supported by Winston Churchill. Why can the Minister not support it?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I have always tried to uphold the vision expressed by Sir Winston Churchill in his great speech at the Place Kléber, when he spoke up for the need for human rights across Europe, and, of course, he did not mean the EU.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

17. What the Government’s policy is on the UK remaining party to the European convention on human rights.

[The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)]

We are in favour.

[Patrick Grady]

The European convention on human rights guarantees the right to free and fair elections to the legislature, but the vast majority of legislators in this country are unelected peers of the House of Lords. Have the Government ever taken legal advice on whether the existence of the House of Lords is compatible with protocol 1, article 3 of the ECHR?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I spent about 18 months on the Joint Committee looking at reform of the House of Lords in the last Parliament, and we took legal advice on every possible issue. If the hon. Gentleman would like to read the proceedings, he will enjoy them.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

rose—

[Joanna Cherry]

Earlier this month, when I met UN officials in New York to discuss human rights issues, they were appalled to hear that the British Prime Minister had said that at the next general election she would be campaigning to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European convention on human rights. Can I take what the Minister said previously as a guarantee that this abhorrent commitment to withdraw from the European convention on human rights will not be in the Tory party manifesto for 8 June?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

That was a good try, but I am afraid that I am not going to be launching the manifesto here at Justice questions. The hon. and learned Lady will have heard my earlier answer.

[Joanna Cherry]

Article 8 of the European convention on human rights guarantees the right to respect for family and private life. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has written to the Government saying that the controversial rape clause raises serious issues under article 8. Can we assume from the Government’s insistence on proceeding with the rape clause that article 8 covers one of the rights guaranteed by the ECHR that they find inconvenient?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

The Government are committed to supporting victims of rape and domestic abuse. This approach is crucial to protect women who face very difficult circumstances, and that is what the Government have been doing through the reforms to which the hon. and learned Lady refers. As part of these reforms, we have made sure that victims are able to use third sector professionals to endorse their claim while they receive support to help them to cope and recover. No Government have a better record on helping victims.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

19. What steps the Government are taking to ensure effective enforcement of child arrangement orders.

[The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)]

The family court has powers to address a breach if someone has been wilfully obstructive. When a child’s welfare requires it, the court can transfer the child’s residence to the other party. This Government are keen that there should be effective action, and a Green Paper on family justice has already been announced.

[Suella Fernandes]

Unfortunately, enforcement is a serious problem in the courts because of the criminal threshold and a lack of an effective penalty. In some of the worst cases, the non-resident parent—usually but not always the father—can be cut out of the child’s life. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this issue needs to be addressed if we are to see equity in the family justice system?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

It is right that there should be a clear system to establish the facts about a breach, and it should then be possible to deal with the breach effectively. Of course I am unable to make any announcement today but, as I have indicated to my hon. Friend, a Green Paper on family justice has been announced for later in the year, and she and I have already had the opportunity to discuss some of her ideas.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

20. What assessment she has made of the effect of increased use of digital technology in the courts system on the effective delivery of justice.

[The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)]

We are investing over £1 billion to create a straightforward courts and tribunals system so that people can have confidence in using the system themselves or with the help of their excellent lawyers.

[Mark Menzies]

The current reliance on printed documents in civil courts burdens people with significant unnecessary costs, and the UK is lagging behind many countries, including Australia and even Turkey, in the use of innovation and technology in civil claims. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we must speed up the process of digitising courts in England and Wales if we are to retain our place as a world-leading provider of legal services?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I do agree. We are making progress. We have equipped our criminal courts to work digitally, reducing reliance on paper bundles, and we are doing the same in the civil courts. So far we have saved, in one year, an enormous pile of paper. Devotees of these questions will know that I measure this by the height of the Shard, and we have now saved 4.3 Shard-loads of paper.

[Mr Speaker]

Well done!

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 is landmark legislation that makes revenge porn a specific offence. In Eastbourne, we have just had a high-profile case in which a serial offender walked free with a caution. One of his victims was a minor, and to add further insult to injury, images posted with incitements are still online. What more can the Government do to make sure that this groundbreaking legislation really delivers justice?

[The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)]

My hon. Friend is known for the way in which she has highlighted in the House such incidents of criminality and really pressed the case for proper and effective punishment. In relation to this particular incident, the offence is relatively new, and the good news is that many people have come forward to report instances of disclosure during the short period since it came into force. There have been a number of prosecutions, with more than 60 convictions so far. It is early days, but I agree that the Crown Prosecution Service needs to treat these cases very seriously.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

T5. The Government undertook by this month to renegotiate transforming rehabilitation payment structures as a result of community rehabilitation companies experiencing significant difficulties with the contracts. For how many of the 21 community rehabilitation companies have new payment arrangements now been agreed and put in place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

T7. This afternoon in Parliament, the families of four British soldiers murdered by the IRA in the Hyde Park bomb are launching their campaign to bring the chief suspect of the atrocity, John Downey, to justice and to ensure that no terrorist is ever allowed to act with impunity within the United Kingdom. Will the Secretary of State meet Members and peers who support the victims’ campaign to consider the Government making exceptional funding available to remedy a situation in which the victims have been denied justice for 35 years?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

May I say that our deepest sympathies remain with those affected by the dreadful Hyde Park bombings? Those terrible terrorist atrocities were really dreadful for the nation at the time. Decisions on legal aid in such cases are made through an independent process. A fresh determination was given by the Legal Aid Agency on 2 February, but my understanding is that there is a right of review and that the case is still ongoing with the agency. I therefore cannot comment further at this time, and a decision would have to be made before any meetings occurred.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

My constituents very much welcome the Department’s decision not to proceed with the change to probate fees because the increases would have fallen disproportionately on London and the south-east, given the cost of housing there. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the next Conservative Government will not again proceed on such a basis?

[Elizabeth Truss]

rose—

[Sir Oliver Heald]

As the Secretary of State said a moment ago—I think she was about to say this again—I am afraid that we are not in a position to say what will be in the manifesto. However, I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and we will obviously take full account of them.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

T9. I am helping families across Southwark who have been denied access to justice as a direct result of the coalition’s legal aid cuts. Three years ago, the Children’s Commissioner said that those cuts were undermining human rights. Was the former Liberal Democrat Justice Minister speaking for the Government when he promised a review and did he break that promise in not delivering it, or was his promise a cynical ploy to deflect attention from the damage his cuts were having on my community and the rest of the country?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I know Simon Hughes well, having been his opponent in the 1987 general election. I think that I am still the president of Bermondsey Conservatives.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

The only member.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

No, I deny that I am the only member—we have quite a few.

The Government have announced the timetable for the review, which has been welcomed. It was odd that Simon Hughes called for a review when he was the Minister, but it was a Liberal Democrat press release, and we all know about those.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister’s presidential duties are evidently not very onerous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

T10. Under this Government, poor people have had their legal aid cut by 40% and thousands upon thousands of people have been denied an employment tribunal because they cannot afford it. Are the Government proud to be on the side of the rich, the powerful and the bad bosses?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

It is, of course, a union campaign to talk about employment tribunal fees. Let us be clear that the number of people taking up cases about the workplace has increased, not gone down—it is up to 92,000. Those people are being helped by a free service from ACAS, which the Labour party used to support. Fewer cases are going to tribunal because of the work of ACAS.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Exclusion zones are an important tool to protect victims, but for those living on a county boundary, an exclusion zone that just covers the county is not particularly helpful. Will the Minister undertake to look into that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

In correspondence with the Criminal Cases Review Commission over recent months, I have repeatedly asked it to release and review crucial evidence that is vital to the case of one of my constituents. However, the CCRC has been less than helpful. As the deadline for the evidence to be deleted approaches, my constituent’s chances of justice could be killed for good. Will the Minister step in to ensure that the crucial evidence is released and reviewed so that justice can be done?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will certainly look at that.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

The dedicated governor and staff at HMP Bristol do a brilliant job, but right now they are struggling with inadequate staffing ratios, prisoner use of the dangerous drug Spice, and poorly delivered privatised maintenance contracts. When will the Government give the prison in my constituency the tools it needs to do the job?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

In order to make a claim under the rape clause, a woman has to sign a form stating:

“I believe the non-consensual exemption applies to my child”.

Will the Government explain how that can possibly be in the best interests of the child and in respect of our duties under the UN convention on the rights of the child?

[Sir Oliver Heald]

The hon. Lady does not seem to understand that this is about supporting victims of rape and domestic abuse. This approach is crucial to protect women who are faced with very difficult circumstances—[Interruption.] I am answering. As part of these reforms, we have made sure that the victims are able to use third sector professionals to endorse their claim while they receive support to help them to cope and recover. No Government have done more to help victims.

[Several hon. Members rose—]