House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Friday 6th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Joseph Johnson]

There is a limited ground there.

Without primary legislation, the House of Lords cannot override the right of individual peers to receive a writ of summons. That would encroach on the Lords position as a self-regulating Chamber and could have other unintended consequences for parliamentary privilege, in that the courts could be asked to judge on the exercise of the powers.

To answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the Government support the retrospective application of both the Bill’s sanctions because the House of Lords already has the power to sanction a Member who is found guilty of misconduct as part of its inherent power to preserve honour and decency. Therefore, a peer who engaged in misconduct before the Bill came into force would have known that their actions had consequences. Although the power currently extends only to the ability to suspend a peer, it would seem extremely odd if the Bill allowed more serious past conduct to go unpunished or to be sanctioned less severely than it could be under the Bill. The public will expect misconduct that comes to light after the Bill comes into force to be dealt with, particularly the most serious misconduct.

On the final point that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch raised, given that there is considerable support for the Bill in the House of Lords, it can be expected that the Standing Orders that will give effect to the provisions will be passed swiftly after the Act comes into force. It therefore makes little practical difference whether the powers are dated from the coming into force of the Act or the coming into force of the Standing Orders. The Government therefore do not support any of the amendments in the group.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I will be even briefer than the Minister.

The Opposition have supported the Bill throughout its passage. I agree with the Minister that the overall impact of the amendments would be to weaken the Bill and, thereby, damage its limited but important purpose.

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) spoke about amendment 6 in a moderate and plausible way. He always speaks in a moderate and plausible way. Sometimes—and I thought this might be the case today—what he says is actually moderate and plausible. However, I then listened to the even more emollient words of the Bill’s promoter, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), and, like the Minister, I am persuaded that the amendment is not necessary. It is right to raise the possibility of retrospection but, as has been explained, the Bill is not pregnant with that danger.

We are therefore happy not only to support the Bill, but to oppose the amendments.

[Mr Chope]

What a short but fascinating debate this has been. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister had a chance to stand at the Dispatch Box and participate. During the latter part of his comments, I became more concerned because he made the case for retrospection in relation to misconduct that would give rise to expulsion. That is exactly the concern that I have.

We heard last week from my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) that one course of conduct that their lordships are keen to ensure results in expulsion is repeated breaches of offences. That means that if one was guilty of repeated misdemeanours, there would be the possibility of expulsion. There is therefore all the more reason why none of this should be retrospective. If repeat offences are to give rise to expulsion, rather than just a reprimand, that should only be prospective and not retrospective.

If the House had accepted the amendments in the first group, which we debated last Friday, I do not think that I would be so concerned, because those amendments would have linked the code of conduct much more closely to the provisions of the Bill. However, those amendments were not accepted. I remind the House what Lord Wallace of Saltaire said:

“I read the latest Code of Conduct again this morning, thinking that we need to be sure what we are on about. One of the issues that perhaps we need to discuss informally off the Floor is how far this measure is intended to refer only to conduct that is mentioned in the Code of Conduct or to egregious conduct of other sorts conducted by Members of this House. However, that is a question that we need not have in the Bill itself, but it is certainly a question that the Committee for Privileges and Conduct and others will need to consider at a later stage.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2014; Vol. 757, c. 650-651.]

When I read out that quote last week, I did not get any assurance from my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire that conduct would be confined to what is in the current code of conduct or in any changed code of conduct. As I have said, the code of conduct is not specifically linked to the Bill. What is in the Bill is “conduct”. Unless we have that safeguard, the Standing Orders of the other place could be amended to impact on conduct that took place prior to the amendment of those Standing Orders, but subsequent to the enactment of the Bill. In my view that represents a danger of retrospection, and I cannot understand why the Government are against this measure. They may say that it is unnecessary in the light of assurances that have been given, but it would not be the first piece of Government legislation that was duplication and unnecessary, so that in itself cannot be a convincing and decisive argument against it. Because of the obiter dicta of people such as Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who seems to have a rather different agenda from that discussed by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, we should make a final attempt to get one safeguard against retrospection into the Bill.

I will therefore withdraw amendment 1, on which we tried to vote last week, and instead I will test the will of the House on amendment 6. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 1.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 6, page 1, line 17, after “Act”, insert “and any Standing Orders made under subsection (1)”—(Mr Chope.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

As I said earlier, I have supported the Bill at every stage so I can add my congratulations to those who have enabled its passage through to the statute book, including Baroness Hayman and the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who—with his customary modesty—is not taking credit for it, although he should. I do not know where it stands in his legion of achievements in his many years in the House—that is a matter for historians to judge. As I have noted recently, he has been an excellent MP for North West Hampshire because of the excellent grounding that he got as an MP in Acton. He is one of the best things to have come out of Acton and we can perhaps therefore say that the Bill is, indirectly, another good thing that has come out of Acton.

We welcome the Bill. It is relatively modest in its ambition, but it is important, and those tend to be the two criteria that get private Member’s Bills on to the statute book. It is important that proper measures are in place to deal with suspension and expulsion in the other place, although of course the Bill is no substitute for the bigger and wider reforms—to which the Labour party remains committed and which we hope to see in the next Parliament—of hereditary peers and, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) mentioned, the size of the other place. Some 116 coalition peers have been created since May 2010 at a cost of some £15 million a year. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that this Bill is a Trojan horse for mass defenestration of peers as a way of reducing their number: we will have to find another way to do that, and to introduce some democracy into the other place. I remind the House that substantial steps were taken by the last Labour Government, including reducing the number of hereditary peers to 92; people’s peers; the first elected Speaker; the creation of the Supreme Court, which separated off the judiciary; and the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission. We are, however, still looking for the essential formula for a democratically elected second Chamber, and I hope that we will adopt our proposal for a senate of the nations and regions. That is for the future. For the moment, I repeat our view that this is a good Bill and it is good that it will become law.

Fixed-term Parliaments (Repeal) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Friday 6th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) on a stirring speech in which he spoke with great authority. The freedom of the Back Benches has allowed him to speak out on a great many issues, and I find myself agreeing with him uncomfortably often.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that having fixed terms is a substantial departure, and not only for this Parliament: Parliaments and Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are now moving towards the five-year fixed term, with important but limited caveats on when elections can take place—a two-thirds majority vote or a motion of no confidence.

Section 7 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 makes provision for these matters to be revisited in 2020, which is not that far away, albeit clearly not sufficient for the right hon. Gentleman and others who have spoken today. I am not going to rehearse at length the arguments for and against fixed-term Parliaments, as they are well known. I certainly cannot match the anecdotes of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), but I can try to be a proceduralist and statistical and say there is some evidence from the university of Oxford that over the past 70 years the ability of a Prime Minister to choose his time has, notwithstanding the mistakes Edward Heath and James Callaghan may have made, on the whole given an advantage amounting to an estimated 6% of public support, which is not insignificant.

I think civil servants are very fond of fixed-term Parliaments—I suspect that might be an argument against—and in terms of certainty and allowing better planning, fixed-term Parliaments are an asset. I could tell a small story of my own here. In 2007, when there was some rumour of a general election being called, I remember disappearing into the tunnel on the Eurostar with an announcement imminent, and I came out the other end not knowing whether we were in the middle of a general election campaign or not. I mention that only to say that although a lot is said about the time wasted in prolonging Parliament, quite a lot of time and nervous energy is wasted in planning for elections that never happen.

Perhaps the main argument against fixed-term Parliaments is what we have seen over the past year, in what has been called the zombie Parliament. The rather sad way in which business has been dragged out and has collapsed or has been of an insubstantial nature has not been a great credit to this House. I am not sure, however, that one can draw the conclusion from that that is entirely the fault of fixed-term Parliaments, or fixed-term Parliaments of a particular length. It might simply be due to the way this Government have conducted their business. In the Labour party manifesto of 2010 there was a proposal to move towards fixed-term Parliaments, but of a four-year duration. That was our preference, and it may be our preference again in the future.

I believe that, given what is in the 2011 Act, the best course of action is to wait until 2020 and see what happens, and then take a slightly more considered view than can be taken in the course of one Parliament on whether fixed-term Parliaments are working and five years is the appropriate length of time. The right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, who has more experience and wisdom than I do in these matters, might be entirely right. I simply say that I think it is a little precipitate, having gone through the process of getting us to where we are, immediately to reverse that decision. There might be an overwhelming consensus—not just one of 100 or 200—for reform again when we get to that stage, but for the present purposes I say that we are, reluctantly, unable to support his Bill.

Food Banks

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I want to start by saying that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and that I agreed with so much of what he said. I also want to say that, to be fair, the Minister is right to acknowledge, as we do on this side, that some of the problems that are propelling people in this country to food banks have deep roots and a long history that goes back beyond the time his Government have been in office. However, we simply have to acknowledge the explosion in the scale of the problem in recent years.

We cannot have a sane and sensible debate about how to resolve the problem if Ministers refuse to acknowledge that over the past four years the number of people relying on Trussell Trust food banks alone—there are many other food banks around the country—has gone up from 41,000 in 2010 to nearly a million now, and that in those years we have seen food banks such as the Brick in my constituency springing up to fill need and demand.

Many people are too frightened or humiliated to go and ask for help, and the British Red Cross—more used to working in countries torn apart by war, famine and disaster—is launching its first-ever emergency appeal in this country, one of the richest countries in the world, to feed and clothe our children. We should be ashamed of ourselves. We have to start by acknowledging that and the heartbreaking reality, as all my hon. Friends who have visited food banks in their constituencies will know, of a nation that will not feed its children.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, as always. There is agreement across the House about how well food banks are performing, how well organisations such as Tesco are doing and how generous our constituents are in giving money and food to food banks. Does my hon. Friend agree that what is missing on the Government Benches is the anger at the fact that we have food banks in this country? That is what I saw when I was collecting at Tesco in Brook Green—that people are so concerned.

[Lisa Nandy]

The Minister’s warm words and praise for many of the charities running those food banks would be a lot more convincing if his Government had not just tried to gag them to prevent them from speaking out by passing the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, which we will repeal.

One of the reasons why we have such a problem is that the safety net that those charities campaigned for and that we built during the previous century has been allowed to collapse in this century. What was provided once as a right is now provided as charity. That, in the end, is what lies behind the humiliation facing many of the people forced to walk miles to go to food banks and the gnawing anxiety that they live with daily, not knowing where their next meal will come from.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. RFA Argus is often based in Falmouth. Its crew are doing an amazing job, and they are doing so at some personal risk to themselves. It is absolutely essential that Britain takes this leading role in Sierra Leone and inserts not just the hospital beds and staff, but the training and logistics that are going to be essential in turning around this crisis. Having RFA Argus there with all its expertise and ability is an absolutely key part of that.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Q14. Following the closure of Hammersmith and Central Middlesex A and E departments in September, west London now has some of the worst waiting times for A and E in the country, but last week NHS England told the Evening Standard that Charing Cross A and E would be replaced with an emergency centre run by GPs and nurses. Will the Prime Minister abandon any further cuts to A and E services in west London?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman should know not only that we are recruiting more A and E consultants and nurses in north-west London and that Northwick Park and Ealing hospitals are getting more beds, but that both Hammersmith and Central Middlesex hospitals have GP-led urgent care centres on site that are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Instead of trying to frighten his constituents, he should be talking about the investment going into the local health service.

Ukraine (Flight MH17) and Gaza

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Everyone wants to encourage that restraint, and I agree with my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) about the sense of déjà-vu and the cycle of violence that is created. However, we have to come back to how we can stop this current cycle. When we see that Israel has accepted a ceasefire, we need Hamas to accept it as well. Then we can stop the cycle before we go on to the more fundamental question of how we can bring about a two-state solution.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister rightly spoke of his anger at the deaths in Ukraine and the dangers of turning a blind eye when big countries bully smaller countries. Will he apply those maxims to Gaza? Will he stop blaming the Palestinians for the murder of their own children? Will he show consistent resolve and equal action to uphold international law in dealing with Tel Aviv as with Moscow?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said on many occasions today, when it comes to condemning illegal settlements and to the importance of a two-state solution and when it comes to calling out on such issues on past occasions, I have always done so. I would do so again, and I have been very clear today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor-General]

I would be more than happy to discuss the case with my hon. Friend. Obviously it is difficult for me to comment, not having seen the papers, but I make that offer.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

4. If he will discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions ways of limiting public expenditure on exit payouts at the Crown Prosecution Service.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

I regularly meet the Director of Public Prosecutions, and this subject has been discussed. The CPS has reduced its staff numbers by 1,902, or 21%, during the current spending review period, while improving overall performance in its delivery of a public prosecution service. These reductions will save the public purse a forecast £77.8 million per annum by 2015-16. Expenditure on staff exits will substantially reduce in the next financial year as the CPS will have completed its major programme of achieving significant staff reductions.

[Mr Slaughter]

Given that, by his own admission, the Attorney-General is losing a quarter of all prosecutors, perhaps it is not surprising that he spent £50 million getting rid of them, but why has £10 million of that gone on packages of more than £100,000, including ones of up to £300,000, when the rump of the service is starved of resources?

[The Attorney-General]

The payments in each case were those to which the individuals were contractually entitled. I am aware of the recent press coverage of two payments, but it relied on a series of assumptions that have been shown not to be accurate. Moreover, in the case of one of those two cases, the payments were in fact made in 2009 and were part of the redundancy payments approved by the previous Government, which we changed.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

We have all said in a number of ways in Committee and on the Floor of the House that we accept that this is not a perfect solution. We are not in the territory of perfect solutions when we talk about these issues.

I would make a number of points to the right hon. Gentleman. First, one purpose of the Bill is to provide assurance to our external partners on the sharing of intelligence material. Although I recognise the parallel that he draws with other court processes, that assurance is an important additional factor. If a time period was introduced, whether through a form of renewal or sunset, as one got towards the end of that period, there would be significant anxiety about what the future may hold. That would not satisfy the policy objective of giving that assurance to our external partners.

It is interesting that the Constitution Committee did not recommend a sunset clause. Its report said that the House may wish to consider the Bill being independently reviewed—not renewed—five years after it comes into force. The Government have accepted its recommendation in our new clauses.

New clause 9, which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) may wish to speak to shortly, seeks to provide for the collection of information. We believe that that matter is addressed in a different way by our new clauses, under which the Ministry of Justice will collect and publish data on the number of declarations granted, the number of revocations and the number of final closed judgments.

Regular reporting and a full review of the operation of closed material proceedings will provide an insight into how the provisions are working in practice and a clear mechanism to provide reassurance on their operation. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support that approach and the Government’s new clauses.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister has kindly set out in some detail and in his usual authoritative way the basis for the new clauses. Members should not worry, because that is the high point of my compliments to the Government. It is downhill from here.

We had an extensive debate on this issue in Committee. In fact, we spent the whole of the last afternoon’s sitting on 7 February deliberating review, reporting and what is colloquially called sunset, but which, now that the Minister has corrected us, should be called renewal, which sounds much better. Two days before that, we debated the equivalent of new clause 9, which has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).

Two things happened in the debate on review, one of which the Minister has alluded to, that did not happen at any other time during the Committee proceedings. The first is that the Minister agreed to go away and look at something that we raised and come back with further proposals. The second is that we won a vote. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) referred to that earlier. For the record, with the support of the Liberal Democrats and in the absence of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley)—I do not want to prejudge how he may have voted—the vote was 9:9. The Chair, as is the convention, voted for the clause to be read a second time, but sadly, two or three seconds later, voted that it not be added to the Bill. However, it was good while it lasted.

There have been some technical changes to the new clause that we presented in Committee, and it is now new clause 4. For the avoidance of doubt, we will press it to a vote, because we believe that otherwise, proper review and renewal of this controversial part of the Bill will not be provided for.

On new clause 9, I put it to the Government in Committee that if they wanted to rely on CMPs, they should document them properly so that they had an evidence base for when they wanted to use them in the future. They were not persuaded. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has referred to the contribution that Dr McNamara has made to our deliberations at all stages of the Bill. He is a legal academic specialising in open justice and proceedings related to terrorism matters, and his briefings have been extremely helpful, particularly on these provisions. He says about new clause 9:

“There does not appear to be any systematically compiled evidence of the scale of the use of secret evidence in the areas where it is currently used. There does not appear to be any publicly accessible formal or informal recording of the total overall use of CMP, or the total use within the different contexts identified by the Government. Nor is there any indication that such evidence exists out of the public eye…Where records have been requested the Executive has been largely unable or unwilling to provide records. Parliamentary questions in the Commons and the Lords have revealed a paucity of information is available to the current use of CMPs…As it stands, the Bill sets a very, very low threshold of openness for judgments under Clauses 6 and 7. Moreover, there is presently no central recording of how often CMPs are used in any courts, nor any centrally recorded information about them.”

He says that unless there is systematic recording, there is no practical mechanism by which the use of CMPs can be monitored. That is quite an indictment of the current position, and I can only repeat what I said in Committee and hope that it is more persuasive on the Floor of the House. The Minister should consider the matter for his own good, and the Government should take that point on board even if they are not prepared to support new clause 9 today.

On new clause 5, the Minister said that he would consider the issue of reporting and come back to the House, and he has done so. The new clauses on reporting that we pushed for in Committee, and those that the Liberal Democrats pushed for on a slightly different basis, were designed to emulate the situation in comparable legislation. That was why we specified a three-monthly review period. The Minister has come back to us with an annual review period, which seems somewhat parsimonious, if I may say so.

The Minister should take the point that this is controversial legislation—I would make that point even more clearly in relation to new clause 4—and touches on new ground. It contains many definitions that we are coming across for the first time, so it seems entirely appropriate that there should be more regular reviews. Perhaps we should be grateful for what we get, however, and at least the provision is for recurring 12-monthly reporting. So be it, and we do not intend to oppose new clause 5. We did not press our new clauses to Divisions in Committee but instead waited to see what the Minister would come up with. We are somewhat disappointed, but it is something, and the Government have at least listened.

New clause 6 does not do the job of new clause 4. It seems designed to act as a review for this part of the Bill, but it is wholly inadequate. Even for those who take a strong interest in this issue, including the hon. Member for Cambridge, the Government’s approach does not seem clear. I am not used to reading Liberal Democrat Voice in my spare time—that would be a terribly sad thing to do in my leisure hours—but I will read out two brief exchanges that put into focus the problem with what the Government are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for constantly plugging my Twitter accounts, as he did earlier, and Liberal Democrat Voice, and I recommend that he looks at it more often. I know Jo Shaw very well and we speak quite regularly. I think she would share my position of trying to push the vote on amendment 1, rather than that of the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that if one asked her she would say she does not agree with his position of being in favour of closed material proceedings in principle.

[Mr Slaughter]

I do not think that is for this debate, but good try. I should follow the example of my boss and try not to antagonise the hon. Gentleman if I want him to vote with the Opposition on this matter. That may be contrary to what he said last Thursday, but it is in line with his party’s policy, what he did in Committee, and what seems to be the current position in Liberal Democrat Voice. We have heard enough of that; let us consider the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which stated in a short but telling paragraph in its most recent report:

“We also reiterate the recommendation in our first Report that the Bill provide for annual renewal, in view of the significance of what is being provided for and its radical departure from fundamental common law traditions.”

I am not sure one needs to go much further than that, and that lies at the heart of new clause 4.

Anyone who has sat through this debate, or previous debates in the other place or Committee, cannot be under any illusion that this Bill is complex, controversial and important, above all, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie): it attacks and deals with fundamental issues of fair and open justice. It is also, I am afraid to say, confused—perhaps deliberately so—and has had a very confused birth. The Minister said that, contrary to comparable legislation, this Bill has made slow, stately and clear progress, but I beg to differ.

I do not think that anyone would quarrel with my assertion that the Bill is complex. It is complex even for lawyers, 702 of whom wrote to the Daily Mail last week saying that they would not support this part of the Bill. Views have been expressed either way on it, and I respect the views of lawyers from the senior judiciary and the Supreme Court, as well as of human rights lawyers and special advocates. We are not short of legal opinion on this matter, and it is not of one mind. Overwhelmingly, however, it takes the view that this is territory into which we should proceed with great care and great caution.

I do not think that the Minister would deny that the legislation was controversial, either. He will find similar sentiments on it being expressed in normally Conservative-supporting newspapers such as The Mail on Sunday and normally Liberal Democrat-supporting newspapers such as The Guardian. Huge amounts of thoughtful concern are being expressed across the press about the provisions.

I have heard the Minister without Portfolio say many times that secret courts were undesirable and that we would not have them if we did not need them. Where we differ is on how we should use the provisions and how far they should go. Some say that they should not go any distance at all, while others say, as we do, that they should be as closely constrained as possible.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) does not agree with my view that this is a confused measure. I am not going to repeat the vaudeville act that I so enjoyed doing in Committee, in which I pointed out the four different positions that the Liberal Democrats had held on the Bill, some of them simultaneously, or the four occasions on which the Minister without Portfolio had announced that he had seen the light and decided that he was previously wrong to be so terribly authoritarian and that he now had a package of measures that would ensure full judicial discretion and that CMPs were de facto, if not expressly in the Bill, to be used as a last resort. I think we have all seen through those posturings, which were adopted primarily for political purposes.

We have only to look through the list of amendments to the Bill and at what will be in the Bill after tonight—until such time, I hope, that some of it is removed again in the other place—to see that this is all hugely controversial. Yes, we have the six markers that were put down in the House of Lords, and I accept that two of those—the least far-reaching—have been accepted by the Government. The move from “must” to “may” opens the door to judicial discretion; there is agreement on that. There has been some peculiar dithering about equality of arms, which is a strange term to use in this context as it refers simply to the ability of both parties to apply to get into a CMP; it will have nothing to do with equality of arms once the CMP has been invoked. That proposal was put in, taken out and put in again by the Government. I am not making a point about that; it is in there now and the Government are supporting our amendments on that tonight, but—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Obviously there is a load of historical information that people might wish to discuss, but we need to stick to the new clauses before us tonight, rather than going back through the history. I am sure that that is where the hon. Gentleman is going to take us to next.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The point I was trying to encapsulate is that there is so much in the Bill that is new and highly controversial that it seems utterly right that we should not have to wait five years or have only a single process of review, and that we should have instead a process of renewal. That is to say that this House and the other place should have the opportunity to reject the Bill once they have seen it in operation.

[Dr Francis]

May I place on record the support of the Joint Committee on Human Rights for my hon. Friend’s amendment? It is extremely important and one that is part of my Committee’s most recent report.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am most grateful, and I think the whole House is grateful for the Joint Committee’s work: it has taken a forensic interest, produced three substantive reports and taken a huge amount of evidence. We would all be a lot poorer in discussing this matter were it not for its role.

The Joint Committee felt able to summarise the need for the annual renewal provision in one paragraph because it had highlighted the difficulties that arose from the rejection of the Wiley balance, the rejection of last resort, the rejection of “PII first”, and the rejection of the Wiley balance in the CMP, a matter that I believe we will have an opportunity to vote on when we press amendment 38 to a Division at the end of the debate. That has not been discussed at any length and all I will say is, as a paragraph of the Joint Committee’s report makes clear,

“The Special Advocates…consider that once a CMP is ordered, and the court has to decide which documents will be “open”…and which “closed”, the court should be required to perform the Wiley balance between national security on the one hand and the fair and open administration of justice on the other.”

That is a point that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) constantly rejects in what appears to be a wilful misunderstanding of the way the PII process works, or indeed the way that the Wiley balance works. All of the proposals, which have had great support from the Joint Committee, the other place, many parties in this House and a substantial number of senior Members on the Government Benches, are dismissed out of hand by the Government in the belief that the new formulation, the revised new formulation or the revised, revised new formulation is good enough. For all those reasons, it will be necessary to have the annual review process.

Finally, not only are there issues with which we are now familiar, some of which we have just voted on, but the Government have slipped in new proposals. The hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned amendment 28. We believe, notwithstanding the Government’s reassurances, that the aim is to destroy the use of confidentiality rings. Government amendment 47, which we believe allows—[Interruption.] The Government know what their own amendment says. There are serious, additional clauses, which I am sure will be raised in the other place. There has not been the opportunity to raise them on the Floor of the House this afternoon. They have been introduced on Report and not properly debated.

[James Brokenshire]

I would just say that we have had an extensive debate on all the amendments on which the hon. Gentleman suggests there has been no debate. I wonder whether he might like to reflect on that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. What I can reflect on is that we should be sticking to the new clauses before us, and, as I have said, I know that is what we are going to do now.

[Mr Slaughter]

I do not know how the Minister can say that when he has tabled new amendments on Report that introduce new concepts to the Bill. [Interruption.] Well, I am in difficulty here, because Mr Deputy Speaker is asking me to conclude. Perhaps this is a matter we can return to on Third Reading.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is the new clauses that are under discussion and it is the new clauses we need to stick to, because we have dealt with the previous amendments. We are just rounding off on the new clauses. I am sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman wants to do.

[Mr Slaughter]

It might be that we can return to this matter briefly on Thursday, because the other place will want to see what the Government have done to the Bill before it leaves this House. The introduction at a very late stage, both in Committee and on Report, of substantial changes to the Bill does not make for good legislation. At the very least, our new clause would make the provision subject to a process of annual review. The idea of a review after five years that might lead to nothing but a continuation, without any possibility of sanction from this House or the other place, is not reasonable, so I urge all Members to support not only new clause 4, but amendment 38.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tyrie]

I am grateful for what appears to be, already, the Joint Committee’s support for the recommendation. It is an innovation from the Treasury Committee—Parliament has not dealt with any appointments in that way before—but I think that it adds something.

[Mr Slaughter]

What the hon. Gentleman has said is very persuasive, as is what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis). I think that we would support such action, and that the Government should consider it seriously.

[Mr Tyrie]

Well, I have one Front Bench aboard; that leaves another one. I do not see any movement just yet, but if I keep going for a couple more minutes, who knows? I might receive a response.

I think that it is in the interests of the Government to adopt this route, because it would bolster public confidence that the review and the reviewer were truly independent of the Government. My personal view is that five-yearly renewals, informed by a five-yearly review clause, should be satisfactory or at least adequate, but that is certainly the minimum that is required. What the Government have offered so far, which is just some reporting plus a five-yearly review, is clearly not enough. If they do not indicate that they are prepared to move this evening, I will vote against them. However, I hope very much that their lordships are also listening to the debate. They will have an opportunity to improve the new clause in a number of ways, and I hope that those will include the ways that I have suggested.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

We have had an interesting debate on these new clauses. I note that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) described the Bill as complex, controversial and important and asked whether I would accept his analysis. I agree that it is complex, inasmuch as we are dealing with the need for closed material proceedings and the nature of sensitive material. It is controversial and it is clearly very important, as it relates to the assurances we are seeking to give to overseas partners and, obviously, to the nature of justice itself, which was very much a feature of the preceding debate. In the context of his description, I certainly recognise the need for an assurance to this House and to the public about how the powers and provisions in the Bill will be used in practice, as well as on the points that have been made about that.

In essence, that question was at the heart of our debate in Committee about the utility, effectiveness and proportionality of the use of closed material proceedings and the frequency of their use, which, in many ways, touches on the point alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). We have given an indication of how many cases are expected per year, but clearly the reporting mechanism we envisage is intended to provide a sense of how many times the provisions will be used in that way.

I shall focus on a number of points raised during the debate and characterise some of the themes that emerged. The first is the question of whether there should be a formal renewal process. The Opposition have sought to interpose an annual renewal through new clause 4, but even if we accept the principle, that is simply too short a time period for the reasons given by many right hon. and hon. Members. The House would not be able to assess the effectiveness and operation of the provisions, given that we are talking about cases that are likely to run for an extended period of time.

When we considered the timing and effectiveness of a renewal provision, going back as far as the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, we looked back at what happened under control orders, which is perhaps the closest parallel to an annual renewal debate on which we can draw. I recall the annual debates on control orders and I am sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will agree that some of them were sub-optimal, to say the least. In many respects, they became—[Interruption.] They were not, perhaps, the kind of fully formed debate that the hon. Member for Hammersmith is seeking through new clause 4, because, in essence, they became a cursory discussion at the time for the annual renewal of the provision. The debates were often short, were not necessarily well attended and did not necessarily apply the level of scrutiny that he is looking for. It is difficult to see, if he is talking about a renewal 12 months after Royal Assent, what information would be available to inform consideration properly of whether the legislation was effective. If we put aside the detail of the principle, there is a clear issue with the timing.

[Mr Slaughter]

I do not think that the Minister’s saying that the poor quality of debate in this House is a good reason for not having annual renewal is his best point. Will he deal with a point on which I do not think he agrees with me? New provisions have been introduced to the Bill, in Committee, where they at least received some debate, and today. Amendment 46, in particular, seems to allow material that is irrelevant to the proceedings to trigger a CMP, which is a massive change that has not been debated at all because we have not had time to do so. Is that not a reason for allowing renewal after a short time?

[James Brokenshire]

I hesitate to tread on amendments in the previous group, but ultimately it is for this House to determine the appropriate way to examine legislation. With other legislation, it might simply be the process of review through Government activity or Select Committee activity, but in certain cases, because of the sensitivity, import or nature of the legislation, there might be some form of additional statutory provision. We have certainly touched on areas of legislation where that has had some application. For example, some sort of mechanism or review for reporting back to the House how the legislation has been used applied to previous terrorism legislation and the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. Because of the sensitive nature of the issues in this case, the Government have accepted that the normal scenario whereby Select Committees or other bodies are part of the general rolling assessment of legislation is not sufficient for this particular Bill. That is why we have sought to introduce the new clauses this evening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place in the Chamber. Let us have a bit of order so that Members may actually be heard—it is something to do with manners.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

T2. As the Minister seems to love contracting out work to the cosy cartel of G4S, A4e, Serco and Capita, does he not think that transparency should extend to those companies as much as it does to the public sector?

[Mr Maude]

We can, of course, build appropriate levels of transparency into contracts when services are contracted out. That process was taken a lot further by the previous Government, so it is not a feature of the coalition Government. I will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s concern to my right and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Justice.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that that will be necessary, but perhaps in future the hon. and learned Gentleman would face the House. We would all be greatly obliged.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is my pleasure to stand in for the shadow Attorney-General, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)—I understand that she has informed the Attorney-General, if not the Solicitor-General. Reports from the media, the courts and interpreters themselves show that, contrary to the Solicitor-General’s briefing, problems with ALS are getting worse, not better. The MOJ intends to publish its analysis of ALS’s performance this week, based on data that I understand were collected by ALS itself. Will the Law Officers conduct their own investigation of the collapse of the interpreting and translating service in our courts, one that will put the interests of justice before the self-serving interests of the Ministry of Justice and its contractor?

[The Solicitor-General]

No, I genuinely do not believe that to be necessary, and I think that the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. The ALS contract is working well. If he knows of any particular instances where it is not, no doubt he will tell the Ministry of Justice about them, but I think I am prepared to believe my hon. Friends in the MOJ a little bit before I believe him.