Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords]

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 27th November 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Before I open my speech, I wish to tell the House that today is Lancashire Day. On 27 November 1295, Lancashire sent its first Member of Parliament to attend King Edward I’s model Parliament. The day is well marked and celebrated in Lancashire.

We have been waiting for the arrival of court reform legislation ever since the Government promised in the Queen’s Speech last June a Bill to modernise the court system. One can imagine that expectations were high, but instead we were left disappointed when this wafer-thin Bill, which is both narrowly constrained and obscurely drafted, was finally published. Indeed, most of its provisions were included in the Prisons and Courts Bill that was shelved more than a year ago. That Bill devoted 38 clauses and 13 schedules to the courts and judges, whereas this Bill has just three such clauses followed by a single schedule. As Lord Judge once said of another Government move, it is

“a little too late and…quite a lot too little”.

[Robert Neill]

I intervene only in fairness to the distinguished legal journalist Mr Joshua Rozenberg, for that was his phrase that the noble Lord Judge was quoting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.

Rather conveniently, the Government have left out measures that would provide a legislative framework for the increased use of online technology in the courts—their justification for closing so many courts and axing so many court staff. Indeed, we know that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is working at pace on the introduction of online justice services: the civil money claims service was made available to the public in April 2018 and the online divorce application procedure was rolled out nationally in May this year.

Although we would, of course, not seek to refute the fact that modern technology has undoubted benefits, we do have to ensure that it is used carefully and without generating more confusion or distress around the process. It should be about investing to improve our services; it should not be a smokescreen for cuts and closures. As such, it is only right that the effects of digitisation should be researched intensely and costed to ensure the best possible outcome. The Government have not yet confirmed that that has happened and still seem intent on this path, without considering potential concerns.

We are by no means against modernisation. We all want justice to be done in the most cost-effective manner and we all believe that the court system must meet the demands of the 21st century, but there is real concern that the Government are trying to bypass necessary legislative scrutiny in this policy area. We must see a thoroughly researched digitisation programme included in primary legislation, to ensure that written and online processes are undertaken appropriately.

The Bill is a missed opportunity. It should have included clear principles to guide the future of online court procedures and a modernisation programme that could have been fully debated in the House today. Instead, we are told that more legislation will eventually follow to encompass all that. This fragmentary approach—or what has been described by one legal commentator as a “legislative drip-feed”—is deeply unsatisfactory. In May 2018, the National Audit Office published a report that concluded that delays in the introduction of primary legislation have created a significant degree of uncertainty, and that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service “faces a daunting challenge” in delivering the technological and cultural change needed to modernise our courts and tribunals.

Since 2010, the Government have closed literally hundreds of courts and cut thousands of vital staff. Our research suggests that 80% of the courts sold so far have on average raised little more than the average UK house price. That causes concerns about long-term damage to access to justice for civil litigants and, indeed, victims of crime. It will also have an obvious and long-lasting effect on the principle of local justice. The cuts have led to an increase in the number of people forced to represent themselves, a problem further compounded by cuts to legal aid. When unrepresented members of the public turn up to seek justice as litigants in person, it increases costs and delays for everyone. As we have said in the past, it is the most vulnerable who will bear the heaviest costs—young mothers who are unable to find childcare, the elderly who find long journeys difficult, or the disabled. The court closures will prohibitively reduce access.

Will the Government pause their programme of court closures while new technologies and online courts are being tested and wait to see the full findings of their pilots to assess the impact of the changes to our courts system? Will the Lord Chancellor commit today to restarting the programme of court reforms only once the House has finally had an opportunity to fully scrutinise the plans in primary legislation? We have concerns about the Bill as it stands and will not be supporting it today, but we will table amendments in Committee.

As we heard from the Minister, clause 3 delegates judicial functions to authorised staff. This provision must be understood through the lens of a wider austerity agenda that seeks to make significant cuts. These cuts are being made through a process of court closures and through savings on judicial salaries. Other proposals include the relocation of many case-management functions, which, as we know, currently take place in court buildings, with the benefit of on-site judicial supervision.

Our concern is that decisions would move to new off-site service centres. There is an implication that, given that off-site nature, those service centres would be supervised by authorised staff, not judges. That is deeply problematic for us, not least because we would have scenarios in which authorised staff who were not subject to the training, experience, ethos and oaths that a member of the judiciary is, would be performing direct judicial functions while being employed directly by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.

The issue raises obvious questions about accountability and independence. It is also worth noting concerns that the people involved may be subject to administrative pressures that require the meeting of targets. Given the ideological cuts agenda driving this reform, it is vital that the Bill makes provision for safeguards to protect the standard of decision making by authorised staff, to ensure that the quality of the judicial process and the experience of those who use the court are maintained.

Although we accept that there is some scope for freeing up judges by allowing the most straightforward decisions to be delegated to authorised staff, the intended future limits to any such delegation do not appear to be in the Bill. Instead, they are supposed to be decided by the procedure rule committee. That means that if the Bill passes in its current form, there may be limited external scrutiny of how widely judicial functions are being carried out by people who are not in fact judges, but who work for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.

I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor is aware of the serious implications for the rule of law and the independence of our judicial decision making. In his opening speech, he touched on the fact that our judicial legal system is considered to be one of the best in the world and is used by many countries, many companies, and many litigants; it makes up about £28 billion-worth of trade. Will that be affected by this downgrading of our judiciary? We believe that such a shift would not meet the expectations held by members of the public about the level of experience and the independence of those making judicial decisions about their rights. Unless limits are placed on those who can be authorised and on what powers can be given to those authorised persons, the Bill could change the very nature of our justice system.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady is right to raise the importance of our judiciary, but I hope that we can reach a consensus on that. Does she not recognise that the Bill has the support of the judiciary? Senior retired judges have spoken in support of it in the other place, and it has been welcomed by the senior judiciary.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I accept that the senior judiciary, some of whom are in the House of Lords, have said that the Bill is a good thing. However, practising lawyers, barristers, solicitors, the Bar Council and the Law Society have said that it is not right, and that the amendments that we will propose should be considered.

There is disagreement in the judicial community about the Bill. [Interruption.] I will just wait until the Lord Chancellor has dealt with his question. The Lord Chancellor and the practitioners here must be aware that, when judges are involved in delegated functions or non-court sitting judgments, they are making judgments on difficult issues and complex matters of law—for example, a case management hearing, or even something such as asking for an adjournment. We do not know, but, at the moment, the Bill suggests that such work could be done by delegated staff.

When someone asks for an adjournment, all kinds of complications could be involved; there could be issues relating to failure of disclosure and so on. According to the Bill as it stands, many issues would be given to a delegated person. That is one reason why we are asking for clarification about who those people will be, what powers they will be given, and, more specifically, what training they will be given. Although some senior members of the judiciary in the other place have said that the Bill is a positive development, the practitioners on the ground, at the moment, do not agree.

[Robert Neill]

I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, and I am not unsympathetic to her point, but, in fairness to the senior judiciary, is it not worth pointing out what was said by the two noble lords who spoke on this matter? Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, the recently retired President of the Supreme Court, counselled that it would be unsatisfactory to reduce the flexibility of these proposals, pointing out that there will be many decisions where requisite experience is required, but others where less experience is necessary. Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the previous Lord Chief Justice, pointed out that the procedure rule committee had practitioners on it who acted independently. He said:

“Experience has shown that detailed restrictions on procedures are a very real fetter on the administration of justice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]

Those are very serious counsels by two very distinguished recently retired judges.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I have respect for the senior judiciary, of course, but Parliament should have control over what is being delegated. Taking away judges’ positions and powers is a matter that should be debated in this House. We do not think that it is a matter for the procedure rule committee. We would have a much better idea about what it should be looking at. I think that we will disagree on this issue.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about always listening to eminent legal practitioners in the Lords? I am certain that, quite recently, they have made some mistakes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Those things do occur.

Let me go back to my earlier point. We believe that limits should be placed on those who can be authorised and on what powers can be given to those authorised persons. The Bill will change the very nature of our judicial system. We want a system that requires transparent and public scrutiny of the scope of future delegated powers by those in this House. That is important and I am surprised that hon. Members who are democratically elected wish to take away that element from the Bill.

We on the Labour Benches are seeking to push for a number of safeguards, the first of which places limits on the delegation of these judicial powers to non-judicial personnel. We intend to press for further oversight and accountability and will be laying down amendments to that effect. It should also be noted that the procedure rule committee has, for many years, undertaken some excellent work, but the delegation of judicial functions cannot be thought of as a simple procedural matter for a rule committee—rather, this is something worthy of secondary legislation in this House.

The reforms that the Government are seeking to introduce through the Bill are designed primarily to cut costs, but, as the Bill stands, there is a risk that the procedure rule committee will be placed in the difficult position of balancing pressures to save costs against maintaining fundamental rights. Amending the Bill so that the procedure rule committee must at least consider the impact on rights would provide important protections both for the rights of the citizen and for the integrity of the committee. We ask the Government to consider that any decision made by someone who has been delegated judicial functions should be open to a full reconsideration or review by a judge. That would guarantee that purely procedural matters could be dealt with more efficiently; if any decisions were deemed contentious, however, they could be reviewed by an experienced and appropriately qualified judge.

We also note that the Government’s late amendment in the other place obliged the procedure rule committee to consider making rules to determine which of the functions performed by authorised staff could be subject to a party’s right of reconsideration by a judge. However, that does not satisfy our concerns. Indeed, it is simply replicating the fundamental problem of the Bill. By placing the obligation on the rule committee, it delegates a legislative duty to the same unaccountable body. Consequently, we will be pushing ahead with our amendment, supported by the Law Society and the Bar Council, that proposes a statutory right to judicial reconsideration for any party to a decision by an authorised person. We will also seek to ensure that, in drawing up the rules on reconsideration, the rule committee must consider which functions and decisions will be clearly capable of having a material impact on the substantive rights of the parties. I reiterate that we respectfully disagree with the noble and learned Lords in the other place.

In the Ministry of Justice’s explanatory notes on delegation to staff, it is stated that decisions are unlikely to involve contested matters, yet this is not in the Bill. I remind the Lord Chancellor that case management decisions are essential judicial functions that should not necessarily be delegated. We need to ensure that the decisions that impact on the fairness of the process remain within the remit of the judges.

We also have concerns about the lack of minimum qualification for the authorised staff, particularly where staff are not legally qualified or sufficiently experienced to undertake such functions effectively. The Law Society has suggested that the requirements for qualification, training and experience should be set at three years’ post-qualification, as a solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive for all types of functions, and that that approach should be consistent across all courts and tribunals. I know that the Lord Chancellor has disagreed with this, but I ask him again to agree with the Law Society’s recommendation that a minimum requirement of three years’ post-qualification as a solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive is appropriate for court staff who are to be delegated judicial functions. Will he also provide assurances that provisions in the Bill that allow the delegation of judicial functions will only be considered where staff have appropriate legal qualifications?

A further omission from the Bill—this point has been made by Women’s Aid—is the provision prohibiting the cross-examination of victims of domestic violence that we all looked forward to in last year’s aborted Bill. The stark evidence from groups such as Women’s Aid is that this gap in the law is being used as a further means of control and abuse. We are concerned that such provisions are not now in the Bill. Will the Lord Chancellor tell us when the Government will bring this particular provision to Parliament so that we can deal with it and have a law in our statute book to bar people from cross-examining victims of domestic violence?

[Jess Phillips]

Those of us who have campaigned were expecting to see in the Bill some of the things that have been promised, such as the banning of cross-examination. Senior members of the judiciary have themselves called for that measure, but find that current legislation ties their hands. Given that it is not in this Bill, I am certain that Ministers will tell us that it will be in the domestic abuse Bill that will be brought forward. Why will women have to suffer this experience between now and whenever that legislation comes forward? Why is the provision not in this Bill?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work on raising these issues. She is absolutely right. Why is the provision not in this Bill? It was in last year’s Bill, which was aborted because of the general election. It should not be that difficult to put it into a legislative framework.

Let me give an example of something that happened a few months ago in the family courts. Two spouses had an issue about the custody of their child. The female plaintiff had made allegations of domestic violence and sexual abuse against her husband, and it was obvious that the male respondent wanted to cross-examine her. However, the judge had to step in to ask the question on behalf of the male respondent. The case then went to the High Court, where the judge said that it was really not appropriate for members of the judiciary to have to intervene in such cases. The provision should already be on the statute book. We have talked about it for so long and it is not that difficult; it should be on the statute book as soon as possible.

To truly understand the impact of the Bill, we must look at it in the context of the Government’s wider austerity agenda. As it stands, the Bill has the potential to have a profound impact on our justice system. The double delegation of powers that the Government are intent on introducing is a slippery slope that, without proper controls, puts rights at risk. Without further careful scrutiny and additional safeguards, the Bill has the potential to erode long-established legal rights.

The amendments that Labour tabled in the other House were reasonable, sensible and practical, and we really cannot see why the Government cannot adopt and accept them. The Bill has limitations. The Government should listen to us and others who want to improve it, and accept our amendments, which have the support of the Law Society and the Bar Council, so that we protect our judicial system.

Leaving the EU: Legal Services

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) on securing the debate, and thank him for his comprehensive speech, which dealt with the issues and challenges we will face once the Brexit negotiations have been carried out. I commend him on the work that he has done as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on legal and constitutional affairs in the inquiry on the effects of Brexit on legal services.

This has been a thoughtful and considered debate. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), who does a superb job as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on alternative dispute resolution. He discussed the need for arbitration and how it, too, is important to UK legal services. I hope we have further debates, for example on family law protection or the European arrest warrant post-Brexit. Serious concerns have been expressed in all parts of the Chamber.

As we have heard, Brexit will be the largest ever change to the UK’s legal framework, which presents many concerns and risks for the legal sector. Regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, we need to ensure that citizens and businesses in the UK continue to have certainty about access to justice in civil, commercial, consumer and family law matters. That requires clarity on the responsibilities of the courts in the United Kingdom and in the European Union, and certainty that judgments can be enforced with a minimum of delay and cost.

The UK legal services market, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon said, is worth anything between £25 billion and £30 billion in total, employs 370,000 people and in 2015 generated an estimated £3.3 billion of net export revenue. Central to that market is the ability of barristers, solicitors and other legal professionals to provide legal services in the European Union. Equally importantly, our exporters’ confidence in doing business abroad depends greatly on the ability of their lawyers to establish and provide services in the countries in which they seek to trade and invest. Numerous aspects of the work of barristers and solicitors will no longer be possible when we leave the European Union, unless existing cross-border rights are preserved.

The Government must therefore have regard to the nature of the legal work that comes to the UK as a result of the UK legal profession’s expertise, not least in European Union law. Will the Minister tell us what measures the Government are taking to maintain cross-border legal practice rights and opportunities for the UK legal sector, given efforts by European Union law firms to use Brexit to win clients from UK competitors?

The draft withdrawal agreement, like the White Paper before it, continues to emphasise regulatory flexibility in the context of services, which would not assist the legal sector. Legal services do not need further regulatory flexibility: the regime in the European Union is already considered to be among the most liberal in the world, and provides lawyers with the freedom to advise and represent their clients anywhere in the EU and in any dispute resolution forum.

The Government have also made mention of adopting the approach of a free trade agreement to services. That is disappointing. Will the Minister explain how a binding EU-wide regulatory framework for legal services could be agreed in the context of a free trade agreement? Is there a danger that the legal profession in the UK would be left to negotiate different bilateral agreements covering the provision of legal services with many of the EU member states? Will that leave a patchwork of rights and obligations, varying from country to country?

I am also concerned that lawyers from England and Wales might lose their right to advise on European law when in the EU. UK businesses, which will still need to operate under EU law, will be unable to have their trusted UK legal professionals by their side and will instead be forced to hire EU lawyers with whom they are not familiar, and vice versa—despite language and other barriers—to protect and defend their rights within the European Union. Indeed, lawyers from England and Wales will even lose the right to defend the UK Government, as well as UK businesses and UK citizens, before the Court of Justice of the European Union, despite a former president of the Court recognising the UK profession for providing some of the best advocates. That would be a huge loss to both the UK and the European Union. Will the Minister in her response confirm that the Government will ensure that any future relationship with the European Union includes a mechanism for UK lawyers to practise EU law via the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and law firm structures?

The deal lacks the detail that the professional services sector needs to know in other respects, in particular with regards to temporary mobility for business travel. Do the Minister and the Government appreciate that that is essential for the quick delivery of legal services? For example, a lawyer might need to see a client at short notice in one of the EU members states, or to represent that client in an arbitration or mediation meeting. Will she ensure that, post-Brexit, UK lawyers are able to continue to serve their clients on a fly-in, fly-out basis? Does the Minister recognise that the UK risks not only the loss of the tax revenue from legal services, but an erosion of the enormous influence and soft power generated by our legal services sector in Europe and internationally?

Finally, I remind the Minister that the UK is the largest market for legal services in Europe, and globally is second only to the US. The Government must do all that they can to protect Britain’s legal services sector after Brexit if the country is to remain the world’s jurisdiction of choice. Equally, it is vital to ensure that international parties understand the ongoing benefits of using English law and legal services once the United Kingdom has left the European Union. An efficient and cost-effective resolution of disputes is critical to that goal and to the ongoing development of English law. After all, that is at the core of the international attractiveness of the United Kingdom.

I hope the Minister and the Ministry of Justice will consider properly some of the representations made by the Law Society and the Bar Council. We all want the best for legal services, and I hope the Minister will respond on such an urgent issue and perhaps tell us what concrete steps the Department and the Government have taken to deal with it, and with the concerns. I am sure the concerns are not new and that the Government are not unaware of them, so I look forward to hearing from her.

Road Safety and the Legal Framework

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing the debate. I also thank Cycling UK, Brake and RoadPeace for the considerable campaigning that they have done in this area over the years.

I agree with the good doctor, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston): walking or cycling is clearly far better for people’s health than driving. From the contributions that we have heard today, it is clear that many aspects of our road traffic laws are uniquely problematic. I declare that I was a prosecutor for many years—one of those people who make a number of decisions about whether to charge somebody with reckless driving, driving without due care and attention, dangerous driving or other offences of that nature. I will explain some of the challenges that we faced as prosecutors.

We have heard that it is all too easy for someone who is not an inherently dangerous person to drive in a manner that none the less causes obvious and foreseeable danger, which explains the apparent reluctance of some jurors to convict drivers of offences that they can easily imagine committing themselves. That possibly also applies to justices of the peace and magistrates in the lower courts. Many colleagues have mentioned examples where it appears that the law has not been applied properly. The framework for dangerous and careless driving is unclear; more importantly, it is applied inconsistently. That obviously sends a poor message to people—it shows that our justice system is perhaps not operating effectively. As a result, it causes distress to the seriously injured and to bereaved road crash victims. It also reinforces the idea that road danger is to be tolerated rather than eliminated.

Cycling UK has highlighted a case of a driver seriously injuring a pedestrian outside east London’s Westfield shopping centre in February 2017, for which he received just nine points on his licence after pleading guilty to careless driving. He then sent his friends a bragging WhatsApp video saying, “Nine points ain’t stopping me from driving.” Nine months later, he was swerving in and out of traffic at 68 mph on a 30 mph south London street, killing a 19-year-old woman who had crossed the road in front of him. Other videos found on his phone included one captioned “ripping the road at 146 mph”, suggesting that he enjoyed driving dangerously and illegally on a regular basis. The failure to treat his first offence as dangerous driving allowed him to keep his licence, with fatal consequences. Obviously not everyone is in that situation—we have to keep perspective on this—but it demonstrates one of the problems that occurs in courts.

We know that the current distinction between careless and dangerous driving depends largely on whether the court believes that the accused person’s actions fell below, or far below, what would be expected of a competent and careful driver or cyclist. As we know, those terms are highly subjective, and they allow for huge variation in interpretation by individual magistrates and jurors. The distinction is supposed also to relate to whether a defendant’s actions objectively caused danger that should have been

“obvious to a competent and careful driver”.

Evidently, however, prosecutors and courts continue to act as if the defendant’s state of mind were still relevant, despite the removal of reckless driving from the legal framework in the Road Traffic Act 1991. That suggests to me that there is a need for a review into the definitions of “dangerous” and “careless” offences in order to clarify whether the distinction relates to the level of danger caused by the defendant’s actions—an objective test—or to their state of mind, a subjective test.

I hope hon. Members will forgive me for being a bit technical with some examples. An objective test would be clarified by retaining “dangerous driving” but defining it as that which had caused danger that should have been obvious to a competent driver paying due care and attention, without depending on whether the defendant’s actions fell below or far below the standard expected of such a driver.

The lower-tier offence should perhaps be renamed “unsafe” or “negligent” driving, to clarify that the distinction has nothing to do with the driver’s state of mind. The need for that has been demonstrated in the car-dooring offences that hon. Members have mentioned. One example is cyclist Sam Harding, who was killed in August 2012 when a driver opened his car door into Sam’s path, knocking him under a bus. The driver had darkened his car windows with plastic tinting film, reducing their transparency to about 17% of normal levels. The CPS, concerned at the inadequate £1000 maximum penalty, charged him with manslaughter, but was unsuccessful. He received just a £200 fine.

That and several other fatal car-dooring cases, in which the drivers received fines of between £30 and £955, clearly indicate the need for tougher penalties and perhaps a review of legislation on the issue. It is shocking that between 2011 and 2015, 3,108 people—including 2,009 cyclists—were recorded as being injured by a vehicle door being opened or closed negligently. Eight of those incidents resulted in fatalities.

We must be serious about strengthening the role of the justice system in deterring irresponsible road use and removing unsafe drivers from the roads. It is only right that the Government set up a review of road traffic offences and penalties. I remind the Minister that in 2014, the Ministry of Justice promised a comprehensive review of road traffic offences and sentencing, largely in response to the representations of various road crash victims’ groups. After substantial delays, however, the scope of that review was later reduced to two proposals. The first was to increase the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving, or for causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, from 14 years to lifetime imprisonment. The second proposal was to introduce a new sentence of causing serious injury by careless driving. Has the Minister considered the concerns about that? Has the new offence been created, or has anything been done in relation to that?

When the offence of causing death by careless driving came into effect in 2008, prosecutions and convictions for causing death by dangerous driving fell over the following five years by 46% and 51% respectively, as that charge was rapidly overtaken by the lesser new charge, even though the definitions of careless and dangerous driving remained unchanged. There are serious concerns that the proposed introduction of the offence of causing serious injury by careless driving would again lower the bar between dangerous and careless driving, with yet more inadequate sentences. In any case, the proposals would cause huge numbers of problems. We ask that the Law Commission look into this area properly.

I will give some background explaining one of the reasons why we have these anomalies. I remember that when I first started prosecuting a long time ago, in 1987, lawyers, prosecutors and judges—they and their sentencing guidelines were what the law was about—would not often look at the injuries, but would put the emphasis on the actions. There was the feeling that at a small lapse in judgment could cause fatalities, yet people who drive recklessly might cause no injuries or damage and would be dealt with in a very different way. That dynamic is what has caused some of the problems with traffic legislation since then. I know that things have changed and the laws are different now. As a prosecutor, I remember when the new legislation came in and we could look at fatalities and injuries caused. A number of new offences were introduced in order to deal with that matter.

Will the Minister support calls to launch a wide-ranging review of road traffic offences and penalties, as was promised in 2014? I suggest that some of that review be carried out by the Law Commission, so that it can clarify the definitions of dangerous and careless offences, or replace them entirely. It needs to be made clear whether the distinction is supposed to relate to the level of danger caused by the defendant’s actions—an objective test—or their state of mind, which is a subjective test.

The review should also consider the accompanying maximum sentences, and perhaps make greater use of driving bans for offences where danger has been caused by someone who is not obviously a dangerous person, while retaining custody as a sentencing option for more obviously reckless behaviour or for repeat offenders.

[Mr Sheerman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that some unscrupulous members of her profession specialise in getting high-profile people—David Beckham, for example—off their driving charges, and does she think that is good or bad?

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady should know that she has only a minute or two remaining.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I will not comment on individual cases—the courts made their decisions, and it would be improper of me to comment on them.

Driving ban sentencing needs to be looked at again. Many hon. Members have referred to how the exceptional hardship plea is being used, and suggested that courts and magistrates have been granting it too readily. That clearly needs to be looked at. Maybe there needs to be a change in the sentencing guidelines that magistrates take into account when deciding whether to grant exceptional hardship. That area also needs to be revisited and reviewed. With respect to car-dooring offences, the Law Commission should perhaps consider whether there should be an accompanying offence that carries licence points.

I await the Minister’s response on a number of the issues I have raised, including the need for the Law Commission to look into these matters.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

If the Minister could finish by 10.58 am, that would allow two minutes for the mover of the motion to sum up. Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

There is a consultation in relation to remand hearings at the moment, but I am happy to confirm that we are not considering closing Grimsby court.

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

The Conservative decision to cut 2,500 court staff has caused delays for victims and deterioration in the functioning of our courts, but that is just the start; the Conservatives plan to cut many more thousands of court staff in the next few years. Will the Minister commit today to halting those court staff cuts until this House has debated properly the court reform programme, which, to many, looks like a smokescreen for more austerity and which is being driven through without proper debate in this House and with the public?

[Lucy Frazer]

In the justice system, we are reforming the courts. We are investing £1 billion in that process. That is not austerity. On staff, we are modernising and bringing in technology to make our systems work more effectively. That is in the interests of victims, witnesses and defendants. We are making our court processes much more effective. There are some reductions in staff as a result of that, but we are increasing access to justice.

Victims Strategy

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

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

We have heard today some eloquent and passionate speeches about victims, the criminal system, the civil justice system, and about witnesses—especially those who see horrendous crimes. It is a pleasure for me to wind up this debate, because as somebody who was a prosecutor for 14 years and still practised criminal law thereafter, one of my roles in the Crown Prosecution Service was as a child abuse and rape specialist. I dealt with victims and witnesses who had seen some of the most horrific crimes, and exposure to such cases and to witnesses and victims makes me feel passionately about this area of public space.

Although we welcome the strategy that has been outlined, many things are missing from it, such as a timescale for when things will be rolled out, and information on what funding will be provided or how the scheme will be rolled out across the country. The strategy seems to contain ideas, but nothing about whether there will be legislation for those ideas. Some measures will clearly require legislation, and I will go into the details of that.

Apart from a fair trial, the foundation of any justice system, particularly the criminal justice system, is to ensure that the witnesses and victims of appalling crimes are treated properly during the collation of evidence, the trial process and thereafter. We have discussed violence and direct victims, but we also have to look at victims in the wider context. The experience of victims and witnesses in the criminal and civil justice system has been found wanting in several ways and many hon. Members have today touched on those issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) talked about cases where evidence has been lost. We know of cases where disclosure has not been done in time and the cases have been dismissed for want of prosecution. We know that the Crown Prosecution Service, the prosecuting authority, has had at least one quarter of its budget slashed. These things make a big difference to the ability of the prosecution to perform their jobs properly, in time and in due manner.

We also know that across the country, with cuts to policing and funding for specialist services, victims can often be left unsupported and exposed to further risk. Hon. Members have spoken about the fact that the victim of a crime suffers twice: once during the actual offence and once through the process in the courts. There are supposed to be systems in place in the court system, but regrettably far too often they are not followed. Many victims and witnesses to appalling crimes have a really appalling experience. That needs to be addressed properly. I am afraid that the strategy document does not really deal with those issues.

I am trying not to be party political, because much of the debate has been about recognising the need for things to be done, but we cannot get away from the fact that if you cut police numbers by 20,000, if you cut the youth budget by over 50%, and if you cut the budget relating to mental health, drug rehabilitation, detoxification centres and dealing with alcohol addiction, you are going to have problems. There has been a rise in violent crimes, especially among youngsters. It is not a surprise that at the same time support to young people, diverting them away from the criminal justice system, has been cut. I say that in the spirit of the fact that these are issues that we all need to address. I know the Minister understands the criminal justice system well—we served on the Justice Committee together—as a barrister and a recorder. He is very aware of what happens in our courts. He probably knows about the problems I am talking about, too.

We have heard hon. Members talk about their constituents. My hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) talked about the impact the cuts have had on their police forces and the criminal justice system. We must not forget the court closures that have been taking place across the country. One direct result of that has been that many victims and witnesses have to travel for hours on end to get to a court that is often on the other side of their county. Sometimes one journey takes five or six hours. That cannot be good for them. I know that for many people the thought of having to spend hours travelling will and does put them off. Those responsible for committing crimes can get away with them because witnesses do not turn up. I am sure nobody wants that situation to continue.

Many Members have asked for real changes in the law, which again the strategy document does not really talk about. For example, we have called for the immediate enactment of a law to prevent defendants having the right to cross-examine directly the victims of sexual and domestic abuse in civil cases. We know that the situation has changed in criminal cases, but the right still exists in civil cases. The Government have been promising this since 2015, but nothing has happened. A judge in the family court recently had to intervene to ask the questions because he would not allow a male respondent to cross-examine a victim regarding sexual allegations against him. Our judges should not be forced into that position; their job is to adjudicate and judge, not to get involved in the actual process. That was not a one-off case, because we know that these things are happening in reality. We need to deal with that urgently.

Another change that we need in the law—this was mentioned during the recent passage of the Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill through this House—is the introduction of anonymity for victims of revenge porn. It is strange that victim anonymity is maintained for all other sexual offences but not for revenge porn. I do not think that the humiliation of that crime is any less distressing than it is for some of the sexual acts committed against people. I ask the Government to bring forward legislation to deal with that quickly. They will have our support 100%, so it should not take too long to get the provision in place.

We have talked about the experience of victims. I think that most people accept that introducing independent violence advocates is a must. We need to have them in place as soon as possible so that victims have a better journey through the criminal justice system and at least feel, irrespective of the result, that they have been respected, heard properly and listened to. The Victims’ Commissioner for London recently said that, given the cuts to policing and to special support services, victims can be left feeling unsupported and exposed to further risks. That applies not just to victims but to witnesses. I know that the strategy contains specific provision relating to children who might have witnessed domestic abuse. That is laudable and we welcome it, but perhaps it should be extended to other witnesses who see such horrific offences.

I try to group victims and witnesses together, because in some respects they are integral and linked, and in many cases we are talking not just about the victims who have been directly assaulted. The Criminal Cases Review Commission, the body that deals with miscarriages of justice, which are just as important, has had its budget slashed by up to 70%, which means that it is now unable to review cases properly or in a timely manner. Families facing inquests into the deaths of relatives are currently not entitled to legal aid. Indeed, the family of PC Keith Palmer, who was tragically murdered in last year’s Westminster attacks, had to seek representation pro bono in the recent inquest. It cannot be right that the state can be fully funded but ordinary individuals are not. There has to be equality of arms. Victims’ families should, as a matter of right, be entitled to legal aid in inquests without having to go through all the hurdles. It should be an automatic entitlement. Councils, hospitals and Government bodies can afford the best legal brains in the country, but the poor victims’ families have to go through all the hurdles to get legal aid. I think that they should be put on an equal footing.

I thought that I would leave the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to the end of my speech, because my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) certainly explained it in detail. She is absolutely right because, as everybody knows, money will not heal or remove the suffering but it can be of assistance. The way in which the CICA operates really needs to change. That is not its fault—it follows the scheme, so the scheme has to be changed. I hope that the Minister will take on board the comments on that by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham.

While we welcome any improvement to the current system, I would ask the Minister to address the issue of an independent domestic violence advocate, the provision for victims and witnesses in court and the need to properly fund our prosecuting authority and increase police numbers. Nothing is worse than having a case dismissed because the prosecution has not been able to get the evidence together. We know that the number of prosecutors has fallen, as has the number of caseworkers who put the cases together. The police are under the same pressures. They collate the original evidence, but many of their civilian staff, who put the case paperwork together, have also been cut. That issue needs to be addressed and those organisations properly funded. We must be able to have faith in our criminal justice system. As I have also said, the ability of defendants and respondents to cross-examine their victims directly must be sorted out immediately.

Draft Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (Consequential Amendment of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2018

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh.

I will just inform all my honourable colleagues that this particular amendment is a statutory regulation and makes perfect sense, and I have nothing further to add.

Oral Answers to Questions

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend has campaigned hard on the closure of her court. I am always happy to meet with her. She made a lot of submissions to me during the consultation on the closure and put in a fair report. I am happy to meet her, and I know that she is very keen on alternative provision.

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

We hear a lot from the Government about this so-called court modernisation programme, but many people believe that it is simply a smoke-screen to cut the number of courts and reduce the provision of legal representation for those in court. Will the Minister agree to the Law Society’s call for an independent economic review of the long-term viability of the criminal legal aid system?

[Lucy Frazer]

We do make a lot of court reform because we are spending £1 billion to bring our court system up to date. In relation to legal aid, we have an ongoing review that will report at the end of the year, and we will be evaluating our court reform programme.

Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Commons Chamber

Lastly, because I do not want to take up too much more time, I think that the House is showing itself at its best. As new technology continues to adapt, so should the law. It is right that the Bill has come through Parliament so quickly and that we will get it on to the statute book as soon as possible. Today’s debate, and in fact the whole debate on this issue, has been thoroughly thought-provoking, and it is right that we have given the Bill due scrutiny. I thank all Members who have participated, including the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) who, by introducing her private Member’s Bill, really helped to take forward this issue. It is right that we are taking this action and doing so quickly, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s speech.

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

I thank all the members of the Public Bill Committee, from both sides of the House, for their work and active participation. May I say that none of them were stooges? They all actively participated in Committee.

I want to congratulate the campaigner Gina Martin, who highlighted this very important issue and the lacuna in the law. I also acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who introduced this measure as a private Member’s Bill. Mr Speaker, you could say that this is one of the lessons of the law of unintended consequences. When the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) objected to giving that private Member’s Bill a Second Reading, that resulted in an outcry and criticism from every quarter, but it is fair to say that were it not for that, this Bill would not have seen the light of day.

In 2017, the shadow Justice Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), wrote to the Lord Chancellor to ask the Government to enact such legislation in Government time, but they refused to do so. However, we are pleased that they have now been catapulted into bringing forward this Bill. We have supported the Bill at all stages and supported the Government because we recognise the urgency of a situation that needs to be addressed. The Bill was drafted by Ms Martin’s lawyers and we did not want in any way to cause difficulties or a delay in proceedings.

Let us be clear: upskirting is a depraved violation of privacy. It is shocking that in England and Wales at the moment there is no specific criminal offence to cover this, and that it is instead being prosecuted under more general offences such as outraging public decency, although we know it can be difficult to satisfy many of the requirements of such offences. The law as it stands means that the focus of the offence is often on protecting the public from potential exposure to lewd, obscene or disgusting acts, rather than on protecting the individual victim. Some people have been prosecuted for upskirting on the basis of outraging public decency, but that is not really what that specific provision in law was designed for.

The law should focus on individual victims and the crimes committed against them. A number of cases have highlighted the failings of the current law, and I start with the case in 2007 of Simon Hamilton, a barrister, who was convicted after secretly filming up the skirts of women in supermarkets. He was able to appeal on the basis that because none of the victims had been aware of the filming and no one had seen the film, public decency had not been outraged. Then there was the case of Guy Knight, a former chartered accountant, who took photographs up women’s skirts on trains over a period of five months while commuting to work. He was caught after suspicious passengers reported him to the police. More than 200 illicit images were found on his phone and laptop, and 10 of the women in the pictures were traced by the police. None of them was aware that they had been photographed.

This campaign came about because of Ms Gina Martin. About a year ago, she was at a festival in London with her sister when she noticed that the man behind her had taken photos up her skirt. Shocked and distressed, she sought help from the police, but the law was not sufficient to ensure that they could help her. That is why a change in the law is required, and it is why we have supported the Government throughout proceedings on this Bill.

We must remember that many women right across the UK are being affected. This can happen to any woman on public transport, in a park, at a concert, or even just on a walk along a busy street without the victim even realising that the photographs have been taken. It is impossible to judge how many women have been victims of upskirting, although a quick internet search will bring up hundreds of sites and thousands of images. On phones and laptops there may be millions more pictures that were taken on the streets, on escalators, in shopping centres, in supermarkets, in nightclubs and in other places. I think the hon. Member for Christchurch may be wrong to say that the Bill will cover only 29 cases per year.

There are endless web forums where amateur upskirters can exchange tips on how to get the best picture. One was posted by a man who had made a “cam-bag”—a holdall that had a specially made pocket with a hole for a digital video camera lens. The post says:

“Never forget to shoot their faces before or after to know which girls the ass belongs to…After the first…asses, they look very similar and you lose most of the fun. After upskirting them, either step back and wait for them to turn or step by them and shoot directly sidewise.”

Another poster on the forum said that he operates

“mostly at theme parks and tourist hotspots, or really anywhere that draws a large crowd of spectators and cameras”.

He finds

“an attractive young lady, preferably a teen for my tastes, and then I evaluate the situation.”

[Mrs Miller]

The hon. Lady mentioned that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) referred to 29 cases. It was the Government, not my hon. Friend, who said that there would be 29 cases a year. Does she not share the concern that that is a very small number, given the prevalence of the problem and the evidence that she is presenting about the number of websites on which this issue is so blatant?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention, and I stand corrected. The hon. Gentleman referred several times to the figure of 29 cases, and I sensed that he was trying to say that the estimate that 29 people a year would be affected made the Bill not very important. By referencing, as the right hon. Lady said, what is happening online, I was trying to emphasise that the Bill will potentially cover many, many more people.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

If the hon. Lady needs a reference for the figure—I am surprised if she does—it is contained in the explanatory notes. Paragraphs 29 to 31, which concern the financial implications of the Bill, make it clear that the cost per prosecution is £8,000, and that the total cost to the Exchequer of the legislation will be £230,000 a year. If we divide one into the other, we get the figure of 29.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful lesson in arithmetic. I can do that arithmetic, but the point I was trying to make was that he kept repeating that figure, so it seemed to me that he was trying to suggest that the Bill might not cover as many people as it purported to do.

Another man posted:

“I’ve been upskirting chicks, mostly at clubs, for almost two years. The club I go to is a great spot, real crowded, strobe lights going, loud music, so no one notices me sitting near the edge of the dance floor and if a woman in a skirt ends up by me I stick the cam under and snap.”

Legislation is needed to deal with those types of cases.

Several Back Benchers tabled amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) spoke with great passion about her new clause and street harassment, and we support her on that. The Government must urgently look into bringing forward a comprehensive Bill to deal with many issues, including anonymity for victims of revenge porn; the cross-examination of victims of abuse by defendants, as occurs in civil courts; and the distribution and sharing of images. We need a fundamental review of all hate crime and sexual legislation to ensure that victims are protected and have access to justice, so it would be very welcome if the Law Commission or another body could look into this issue, with its recommendations implemented in law as soon as possible.

I commend the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for her tremendous work as the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, which itself does tremendous work. I hope that the Government will address the points in her cogent and pertinent amendments and take on board the matters that she raised and the issues of concern. Hopefully, as the Bill progresses through both Houses, the Government will consider those amendments.

Lastly, on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch, I believe that in all cases judges should have discretion in deciding who should be put on a sexual register and when. That should not be a blanket proposal; it should be left to the individual judge in an individual case to decide whether somebody should be put on a sexual register, because being on the sexual offenders register has clear implications and repercussions for people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

Upskirting can be humiliating and degrading, and it is appropriate that that is recognised by the criminal law. As the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) rightly mentioned, although there is not currently a specific offence on our statute books, fortunately the law does already provide some protection. Prosecutions can be and have been brought under the common law offence of outraging public decency and the offence of voyeurism.

There is a gap in the law that needs to be filled, and it relates to where the offence takes place. Currently, if the offence takes place in a public place, such as a street, a person can be caught under the outraging public decency legislation, and if the offence takes place in a private place, they can be caught under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. However, there is a gap if the offence takes places somewhere that is neither public nor private. Worryingly, such places could include a school or a workplace. The Government have therefore introduced this Bill to seek to address this issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) said, it follows Gina Martin’s effective campaign.

Members have tabled a number of amendments that seek to expand the Bill’s scope. I shall address each in turn—and I assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) that I will take the approach that he took when he was a Minister and consider each one in turn on its own merits, as a matter of policy and of principle.

First, I will deal with new clause 1 and amendment 7, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). They seek to ensure that when offenders of the crime of upskirting are motivated by misogyny or misandry this should be considered by the court as an aggravating factor when considering the seriousness of an upskirting offence for the purpose of sentencing. She also seeks to amend guidance to highlight this issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South mentioned, it is very important to point out that the hon. Member’s amendments do not propose that misogyny becomes a hate crime, but is simply raised in the context of the upskirting offence. If the perpetrator of the offence was motivated by hostility against women, that should be taken into account on sentencing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I, too, want to place on record my thanks and appreciation to all Members who served on the Bill Committee. They were genuinely and passionately involved; it was not one of those cases where the Whips had forced them on to the Committee; Members were engaging in the debate and on this legislation. It is a small piece of legislation, but it is also important and does need to get on to the statute book as soon as possible. I am heartened to hear the news that the Minister was able to give that the Law Commission will be looking at this whole area of the law and at the recommendations. I hope that will be done as soon as possible and that we can implement its recommendations as soon as possible, too.

I also thank the House authorities, the Clerks and the Public Bill Office for all their work in putting the amendments together and their other tremendous work. I thank, too, my colleagues for being here today; a number of them do not need to be present, but they are still here because they are interested in this Bill.

Like the Minister, this is the first Bill I have taken from the beginning to the end in this House, and I, too, wish it a speedy journey and hope it will be on the statute book soon. It addresses a particularly vile and disgusting practice that needs to be brought to an end.

Legal Aid: Post-Implementation Review

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing this important and timely debate, and on the excellent points she made in her speech. I commend the work she does as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid. Her record on this issue is outstanding, and her spirited defence of legal aid was stupendous.

Before I come to the crux of my speech, I acknowledge the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who was the shadow Minister who led on the LASPO Bill in the Parliament of 2010-15. At that time, I was on the Justice Committee. I remember the hours of work that my hon. Friend put into the scrutiny of that Bill. The sadness of it is that many of the predictions he made, and those of the Justice Committee that examined LASPO at the time, have come to fruition. All the warnings and worries that we had then have turned out to be justified now. That is really sad. I do not think any of us wanted to be proved correct; we would have preferred to be proved wrong, but we have turned out to be correct.

The reforms have caused an enormous amount of sadness and misery for many ordinary people who are not familiar with the legal system. Often they are not the most literate people, who may not have the most excellent advocacy skills and are probably coming to the judicial system—criminal or civil—for the first time. Most are utterly bemused, and do not know what they are doing. I am sure many Members of Parliament have constituents who have come to them with such problems, and will know that most of them are completely confused, are not sure what to do, do not know their rights and do not have the finance to afford legal support. Because there is no legal aid, they cannot access a solicitor or a barrister or get legal advice.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) spoke about the problems of tenants and landlords. It is a shocking situation that many people now live in squalid accommodation but cannot do anything about it and do not know their rights. In any case, enforcing any of their rights costs too much. They live in squalid accommodation, and their options are to shut up or try to move elsewhere—and often the alternative accommodation they could move into is not great. That is another area where vulnerable people are affected.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North spoke about immigration—another sector where there have been big cuts in legal aid—and particularly the impact on children and families. Immigrants are not flavour of the month in most parts of the world, but they are human beings with children and family ties, who have legal rights and need to be able to access legal advice. There has been a massive reduction in their ability to understand what their rights are in trying to keep their family unit together.

Those are just two areas. We also know about people who are employed but who are in not particularly good working conditions or have employers who are not the fairest, and they cannot access employment tribunals. Many people with health issues cannot get advice on the benefits they may be able to get or, if they have a disability, on what their rights are. Such vulnerable groups are badly affected. Prior to LASPO, a reasonable, decent amount of legal aid was available and accessible. A lot has now gone.

We have also talked about ordinary family law cases, not just family law issues in relation to immigration—where parents may be going through divorce or separation, or where children are involved. That is a lot of stress for families. Often, they cannot go and get legal advice because, frankly, they cannot pay for it, and that causes distress.

Even if we ignore the human costs of the changes in legal aid, our court systems have not benefited, either. I distinctly remember hearing from a number of judges sitting in the civil courts, who came to give evidence on LASPO to the Justice Committee. They said, “One effect of the legislation will be that you will have a lot of unrepresented litigants turning up in court, taking more time, clogging up the court, which in the end will cost us more.”

Let us face it: even an hour in a county court, a magistrates court or the High Court costs thousands and thousands of pounds, because there are all the costs of running the court and paying people. When there is an unrepresented claimant or person before the court—or a defendant, in the criminal courts—they can take up a lot of time. Any saving of a few hundred pounds that might have been made by preventing them from getting the preliminary advice that could have helped them ends up being wasted, because the courts will, and do, take longer to deal with those cases and those cases clog them up. I think that if hon. Members speak to judges, they will find that that problem is still occurring.

Of course, one of the things the Government plan, which we have not touched on but which will have an additional impact on unrepresented people, is the increasing introduction of virtual courts and online court systems, where they will not be speaking to anyone, nobody will be able to guide them and they will be even more confused. One of our great worries in the criminal justice system is that we may have people pleading guilty or making admissions to things they should not.

As a practitioner in the current system—in which we do not have so many virtual courts—I remember being in court when somebody would come in who was unrepresented. Many legal professionals in court, when they hear that somebody is not sure about their case, will often give them voluntary advice and guidance or signpost them as to where they should go. That will not happen in a virtual court. The availability of legal aid becomes even more important in this technical age, where there will be less interface with people and there will be fewer people able to guide litigants.

I am sad that the Government, even now that they are carrying out a review, are taking so long about it. We were told we would probably have the review by the end of the summer; now we are talking about the end of the year. My first question for the Minister is, when will the review be completed?

The second question that I hope the Minister will answer is, in the light of what we know is happening, will there be any real changes to legal aid to make it applicable and available to many more people? The Ministry of Justice must be aware of the issue that I and other hon. Members have raised about the effect on people’s lives. It is pointless to have rights if we cannot enforce them; they might as well be meaningless if we have no mechanism to enforce them. The lack of legal aid means that those rights often cannot be enforced for the people who are the most vulnerable.

Another problem that has occurred as a result of the legal aid cuts is that even those people who might qualify for legal aid often find that there are not enough lawyers out there who are willing to do legal aid work, because the rates have gone down. The Government’s attitude is, “These are all ‘fat cats’ or people who are living a lavish lifestyle.” That is not true. Most legal aid lawyers are not fat cats or people earning hundreds of thousands of pounds; they are just trying to make a reasonable living. Therefore, it is more difficult to find people who can do legal aid work, and many small high street firms have closed down because they cannot afford to continue to run a practice. Even when people are able to get legal aid, finding lawyers who will do legal aid work for them is problematic.

I ask the Minister to look at this issue again. Legal aid was introduced by a Labour Government in 1949 as one of the benefits that people need the most, and I hope the Minister and the Government will reconsider the whole issue of legal aid and make it much more widely available to people.

Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 12th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck.

Labour’s Justice team has worked closely with Gina Martin and her lawyer, Ryan Whelan, since last year. They have done a remarkable job in attracting public and media support, gaining nearly 100,000 signatures for their petition, and then getting the issue on to the parliamentary, and now the Government’s, legislative agenda.

Under great pressure, the Government have been forced to expedite this legislation to outlaw this disgusting practice, using unusual parliamentary procedures usually reserved for when there is a broad consensus on uncontroversial legislation. In normal circumstances, the Opposition would support some of the amendments. However, given that the campaigners seek a broad consensus, it is not our position to support the amendments on this occasion, as we do not want to create an excuse for the Government to delay the legislation, including during its passage through the Lords.

I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow tabled her amendment, but she will be aware that the sentencing guidelines allow judges to consider misogyny when sentencing. However, it is obviously not a specific aggravating feature, as race is. We really need the Government to bring in, on a separate occasion, a domestic violence Bill or a victims of abuse Bill, during the deliberations of which these matters could be considered. My hon. Friend would have our full support on that occasion.

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Member for Walthamstow has campaigned hard on a number of issues, including this one. I am grateful to her for her interesting and thoughtful speech and for giving us the opportunity to discuss these issues.

Upskirting is a terrible crime and an horrific invasion of privacy for those affected, and it is right that offenders are appropriately punished. Creating a specific upskirting offence sends a clear message to potential perpetrators that such behaviour is serious and will not be tolerated. The offence carries a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment, which is a serious penalty. It is in line with the sentence for racially aggravated assault, assaulting a police constable while resisting arrest and other sexual offences, such as voyeurism and exposure. Additionally, the Bill will ensure that the most serious sexual offenders are subject to notification requirements, having been put on the sex offenders register. Those are common with sexual offences and assist the police with the management of sex offenders in the community.

Statutory aggravating factors do not usually apply to just one or two offences, as would be the effect of the amendment. Judges already take into account, on a factual basis in sentencing, the circumstances of the case. Creating an additional aggravating factor for this new offence would make it inconsistent with all other sexual offences. There is no rationale for the amendment to apply specifically to this offence alone.

Similarly, it would be wrong to suggest that patterns of offending would not be considered in sentencing. For example, if in addition to taking a photo the offender went on to share it with others, the additional harm caused would be taken into account in sentencing. If the offender took hundreds of images of women, rather than just one, the additional harm or potential harm caused would be linked directly to the seriousness of the offence and would be taken into account in sentencing. If the offender has been convicted of a similar or the same offence previously, or if a prior offence indicated intent or aggression on the basis of gender, it must be considered by the judge in determining the appropriate sentence.

In addition, the independent Sentencing Council already publishes guidelines, setting out the factors that magistrates and judges should consider in determining the seriousness of offending and the harm caused for the purposes of sentencing. An updated version of the guidelines is currently the subject of a public consultation.