Assisted Dying

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr McCabe.

I start by thanking everyone for their contributions to today’s debate. Members have spoken with personal sincerity and faithfully represented their constituents’ views on a very emotive issue. We have heard passionate speeches this evening, proving that the topic of assisted dying is a compelling one for those on both sides of the argument.

I am sure that Members will forgive me if I do not mention everyone who has spoken, but I must acknowledge my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who opened the debate with a dignified, moving and well-researched contribution. Although 31 Members spoke, I think around 50 Members were present at the beginning of the debate. My maths is not brilliant, but there were about 20 on one side and 11 on the other, which may be interesting given the vote the last time this matter was debated.

Seven years ago, I wound up for the Opposition—that shows how far my career has progressed—on Rob Marris’s Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill. That is not the last time that this issue was debated—there was a Westminster Hall debate a couple of years ago, and the other place has debated it even more recently—but in 2015 there was a five-hour debate in the main Chamber, which ended with a vote.

Perhaps today is an opportunity to review how things have moved on in this contentious area. The answer is in some ways substantially, and in others hardly at all. It is clear now, as it was clear then, that—in the words of the noble Lord Faulks, who spoke for the Government in 2014—

“any change in the law in this emotive area is an issue of individual conscience. In our view, it is rightly a matter for Parliament to decide rather than government policy.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2014; Vol. 755, c. 919.]

That must be right, but it is also right that for Parliament to decide properly requires the Government’s co-operation and consent. I will come to that in a moment.

As a number of Members have mentioned, the higher courts have been consistent in their view that this is squarely a matter for Parliament. However sympathetic they may be to the harrowing cases that have come before them, they look to us to set policy in this matter.

Let us look at some of the areas where change has happened. Many more jurisdictions have legalised assisted dying: all six Australian states, seven more US states, New Zealand, Canada and Spain. Over 200 million people in those and other democracies are covered by such legislation. That shows not only the direction of travel but allows more evidence to emerge of the effect of legalising assisted dying, and whether the fears surrounding it—especially those around coercion, the so-called slippery slope and the challenges for the medical profession—have been proved well founded. On the whole, those concerns have not materialised.

One of the biggest arguments against assisted dying is concern about the possibility of coercion. Vulnerable adults nearing the end of their life could be at risk of pressure from family members who feel incapable, for whatever reason, of providing care and support for a terminally ill person. We must be alert to such possibilities. If Parliament is to decide on this matter, it is essential that there is a plan for robust safeguards against that, backed by evidence that they work. Again, we are in the fortunate position that other countries have walked this path before us and we may be able to use their knowledge and experience to our advantage. The petition makes it clear that such safeguards are essential.

The opinion of significant parts of the medical profession has moved to a neutral or more supportive view of assisted dying, with the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians joining the Royal College of Nursing and several other royal colleges in adopting a neutral view. More evidence has emerged of the traumatic effect of the current restrictions, including travel abroad to die for those who can arrange and afford it, high suicide rates among the terminally ill, and many people dying without effective pain relief and in distressing and degrading circumstances.

Public opinion is overwhelming and clear, with over 80% supporting assisted dying. This is an issue where the gap between opinion in this place and in our constituencies has been at its widest. I wonder if it is now narrowing. When 5,000 people were polled on the subject, 84% of respondents were supportive of assisted dying, with strong support across all demographics. This petition, sponsored by Dignity in Dying, received over 155,000 signatures in support of legalising assisted dying. It proposes the narrowest form of assisted dying, for those of proven mental capacity nearing the end of their life. Some jurisdictions permit assisted dying in cases of chronic suffering, but that is not proposed here.

Some 75% of the public support a parliamentary inquiry into assisted dying. That perhaps tells us where we should be heading. An inquiry would allow us to learn more about the subject, hear from people with first-hand experience of the scenarios we have been discussing and look at the data from the countries that have legalised assisted dying to get greater insight into how it is working.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, once we have assisted dying in this country, it will change the whole nature of the debate between GPs and old people? At the back of every GP’s mind, and for every old person, there will be that question: “Should I end it?” That is not a burden that we should place on GPs.

[Andy Slaughter]

I not only do not accept that; I find it the most appalling scaremongering. I have never met a GP who I do not think has a duty to their patients. They may vary in their competence and skills, but in their duty to their patients there is a very honourable tradition among general practitioners, and indeed the whole of the medical profession in this country. To throw such comments into this debate is not helpful to the right hon. Gentleman’s own side, let alone anyone else’s.

It is right that recently, under the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who spoke earlier, the Government undertook research, but they have so far not found the time or resource for a proper investigation and debate, potentially leading to legislation. I am a supporter of good local palliative care, and for several years I have been fighting to retain it for my constituents against attempts to restrict it. We should strive to provide the very best palliative care to all those who are nearing the end of their lives. For many families, palliative care and respite care for family members is essential, but in order to offer the very best palliative care, we need the tools, the people and the money to sustain it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) has recently spoken about Labour’s plan for a national care service. To offer people real dignity in dying, we need a focused approach to care and end-of-life care, which a national care service could provide. Pembridge Hospice and Palliative Care in North Kensington served my constituents for many years until, several years ago, the in-patient unit was closed because it could not recruit a consultant. That is where we should look for problems. Assisted dying is not an alternative to palliative care; the two complement each other.

[Danny Kruger]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Health and Care Act 2022 included the amendment proposed by my noble Friend Baroness Finlay of Llandaff to ensure that palliative care becomes a commissioned service in the NHS for the first time in its history? Does he welcome that?

[Andy Slaughter]

I heard that from one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues earlier and I absolutely welcome it. However, as I said, we need not only a policy commitment but funding—and that includes workforce planning, because palliative care consultants are in short supply.

This should not be a debate only between different attitudes, religious practices or medical treatments; it should be a debate about ensuring that the needs of the terminally ill are met in the most appropriate and compassionate way. I understand the strongly held views of those who oppose assisted dying, but I am a firm believer in freedom of choice and bodily autonomy—issues that have come to the fore in the wake of the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and not just in the US. This is a matter of conscience. It is one of the most sensitive that we have to deal with, but we must not shirk our responsibility on those grounds.

I agree with the petitioners’ request for the Government to grant the means to debate and, if there is the will in Parliament, to reform the law in the interests of those who find themselves at the end of their life and in a perilous position. Whatever our difference of opinion here, we all agree that those nearing the end of their life deserve our compassion. There is more that we can do, not just in the debate on assisted dying, but in how we care for those who are terminally ill.

As the world changes around us, we cannot stand still. We have a duty to bring this matter before Parliament again and allow it to decide. How we begin that process is down to the Government. I hope the Minister agrees that, if the necessary time is made available in Parliament, we should be able to debate, vote and, if there is the will, legislate on this issue. It would be perverse if Scotland, Jersey and the Isle of Man had legislated on this matter before we have even had a chance to discuss it in a meaningful way. This has been a very good and measured debate, but the next stage must be to allow the voices of our constituents, which are very strong on this matter, to be heard—not just this in Chamber, but the main Chamber, and therefore through legislation.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I thank those who have worked to improve this Bill during its progress through both Houses. Without embarrassing him, I would single out my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who volunteered to lead on the courts part of this Bill—that is, most of it—before he had even finished with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. I would also mention the efforts of our colleagues in the other place, particularly my noble Friends Lord Ponsonby and Baroness Chapman and senior Cross Benchers, who are a large part of the reason why we are discussing successful Lords amendments today—all credit to them.

In the spirit of consensus that has been a feature of much of our proceedings, I thank the Minister and his team for at least listening and entertaining our views, even if we did not in the end see eye to eye, and for their significant concession in removing the presumption from clause 1. Since the Bill was first introduced, I have also been lucky enough to work with many individuals and organisations with particular expertise on the issues covered. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Public Law Project, Inquest, Justice, Liberty, the Bingham Centre, the Law Society and the Bar Council, but that list is not exhaustive.

The majority of amendments before the House today—Lords amendments 6 to 10 and 12 to 22—are Government amendments that amend part 2 of the Bill. For the avoidance of doubt, we do not oppose these. We had issues with part 2 of the Bill, but these were mainly procedural and are, I hope, open to correction in the light of experience. Our objections to part 1 are more fundamental, and we are grateful to the other place for highlighting these in Lords amendments 1 to 5. I will deal with these and then come on separately to Lords amendment 11.

First, by way of a little context, we see no purpose whatsoever in clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill, and it would be our preference to remove these clauses from the Bill entirely. Our attempts to do so in Committee were not successful, but our principal objections were reflected in the Lords amendments. Lords amendments 1 to 3, in the name of the noble Lord Marks, remove prospective-only quashing orders from the Bill.

One of the ways that the Government wish to change—they say improve—judicial review is to introduce a remedy that only rights a wrong for the future, without looking to compensate the complainant or those who have come before them. This has rightly been described as having a chilling effect on meritorious applications. It was not recommended by the independent review of administrative law that was supposed to found the basis of part 1 of the Bill. It does not, as the Government somewhat disingenuously claim, add to the armoury of the administrative court; it simply seeks to restrain its powers. That fact is given away by the clunking fist of the presumption in favour of prospective orders and of suspended orders, which clause 1 also sought to introduce. In a step bordering on the disrespectful, the Minister sought to tie the hands of the court in applying its discretionary powers, so I am delighted the Government have seen the light and do not today oppose Lords amendment 4, in the name of Lord Anderson. That extracts the worst of the sting in clause 1.

Lords amendment 5, in the name of Lord Etherton, was a pragmatic attempt to make sense of the Government’s proposal to abolish Cart judicial reviews in clause 2 of the Bill. It met both the Government’s complaint that these were too profligate and the real concerns of practitioners and others that errors of law would lead to human tragedies. It would also have mitigated the concerns about unnecessary and unwelcome employment of an ouster clause. Cart judicial review, as Members here know, is engaged when the High Court reviews a decision of the upper tribunal to refuse permission to appeal a decision of the first-tier tribunal.

Clause 2 abolishes this type of judicial review altogether, yet most cases that satisfy the threshold for Cart are compelling. In many examples, as we discussed in Committee, these are asylum or human rights cases—issues of mental health, special educational needs or entitlement to basic incomes and support needs—which have serious consequences for the claimants if errors of law have been made and are sometimes matters of life and death. Lords amendment 5 narrows the ambit of Cart so that in the majority of cases there is no onward right of appeal. The only exception would be where the case raises a point of law of general public importance. In that situation, the claimant could apply to have the case considered by the Supreme Court.

The amendment represents a compromise between the Government’s desire to save the cost of Cart judicial reviews and the need to preserve an essential judicial check against serious errors of law. All that has been argued in the other place, and votes won—albeit narrowly—on amendments 1 and 5. In discussions, the Government have conceded on the presumption. We accept that that is a significant concession, and we do not intend to press any votes on the Lords amendments clauses 1 and 2 today.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 11. Eleven days ago, on 15 April, we marked the 33rd anniversary of the Hillsborough tragedy, where 97 people lost their lives at a football game. For 33 years the families of those who were lost have fought, and continue to fight, for justice. They faced cover-ups and fundamental failures of our legal system, which only prolonged their suffering. Many campaigners—prominent among them the Mayors of Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region, former colleagues of ours in this place—are asking for a comprehensive Hillsborough law, which we support. Lords amendment 11 addresses an important plank of the Hillsborough law, but it goes beyond that by providing equality of arms for all bereaved families at inquests and inquiries.

The amendment would require the Government to provide public funding for bereaved families where the state is represented. It is remarkable that, even with the cuts in legal aid that we have seen over the past 10 years, current rules do not provide that. This is an issue not just of access to justice, but of basic fairness. How can it be that state bodies have unlimited access to public funding for the best legal teams and experts, while families are often forced to pay large sums towards legal costs, or risk representing themselves or resorting to crowdfunding?

Five years have passed since Bishop James Jones delivered his report on the experience of the Hillsborough families. In that report, Bishop Jones made 25 recommendations, which included publicly funded legal representation for bereaved families. In May 2021, the Justice Committee recommended that for all inquests where public authorities are legally represented, non-means-tested legal aid or other public funding for legal representation should be available for people who have been bereaved. The inquiry by the all-party group on legal aid last year reached a similar view, and many voices are saying the same thing: it is time to level the playing field when state actors are represented in inquests.

The Government have acknowledged that there is more to do on this issue. They are minded to offer non-means-tested legal aid for early advice and representation where exceptional case funding is engaged. With respect, that is not enough. It would not help—to give only some examples—in the situations of families of those who suffer healthcare-related deaths in detention, self-inflicted deaths of voluntary patients in mental health settings, those under the direct care of a mental health trusts in the community, deaths in supported accommodation, or care settings where the person has been placed by a public body or local authority. It would not have helped Coco Rose Bradford, a six-year-old girl with autism who was taken to hospital in Cornwall and died unexpectedly on 31 July 2017. In January 2022, the inquest into her death concluded, finding it to be due to natural causes—something Coco’s family disputes. Coco’s mother, Rachel Bradford, told the inquest how she watched her daughter die in front of her, and how the hospital dismissed the family’s concerns, even though Coco was in glaringly obvious pain. Rachel gave evidence that Coco’s autism played a role in how she was treated by medical staff, and that the professionals wrongly viewed her as being unco-operative and non-compliant.

Members of the local community donated to contribute towards the family’s legal costs for the inquest. Coco’s mother said in a personal statement:

“Without our barrister offering to act pro bono at the inquest hearing we’re not sure what would have happened. It seems desperately unfair that we have had to crowdfund to cover our legal fees, and rely on our barrister waiving her charges, when the hospital’s legal team are paid for by our taxes.”

Cases such as those are daily injustices in our coroners courts. We can no longer ignore the voice of Bishop Jones or Rachel Bradford. I urge members of this House to retain Lords amendment 11 because it is the right thing to do. If the Bill passes without the inclusion of Lords amendment 11, we will miss another opportunity to ensure that fairness is at the heart of our legal system.

From the day this Bill was introduced, we have puzzled about why the Government were wasting time interfering with judicial processes that are designed to improve the quality of executive decisions, rather than tackling the record backlog of cases in our courts and protect the victims of crime. By supporting Lords amendment 11 the Government could make a small but significant step to improve the court system and the experience of bereaved families.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Front-Bench speakers in this short but important debate. I welcome the Government’s stance on presumption and their acceptance of the amendment made in the Lords. It is worth remembering that Lord Faulks, who chaired the independent review that gave rise to all these proposals, took the view that no harm was done by removing that presumption, and that thereafter the discretionary power to have a prospective-only order that can be considered by the courts if it meets the interests of justice was, as I think he put it, an extra club in the bag of the judiciary. That is the whole point of it: it extends the remedial powers available. At the end of the day the presumption was not perhaps necessary, and the Government have taken a sensible and pragmatic stance on that. The principle of having that extra flexibility in the remedy is not objectionable, and I am glad the Opposition have not opposed it.

Some of the other changes made by the Government in the Lords are welcome. The ability to make payment for pro bono representation in a number of cases is welcome, and I am glad the Government have moved in that direction. Practitioners and the judiciary alike will welcome the changes to make online procedure rules easier and swifter to deal with, so those are practical changes.

Two issues then remain, including Cart appeals and litigation. I must respectfully differ with the shadow Minister and their lordships on that, and it is perhaps worth quoting what Lord Faulks said about it in the other place—after all, he examined this issue with probably more care than anyone. His stance was that the independent review into administrative law

“came to the firm conclusion that Cart ought to go. It did so carefully considering the fact that Parliament should be slow before reversing decisions of the Supreme Court.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 March 2022; Vol. 820, c. 1736.]

That was its view, having carefully considered the evidence, in adopting a cautious approach to such a change.

Cart was controversial at the time, and it remains controversial. Lord Carnwath, who has given evidence to the Justice Committee in the past, raised questions about the Cart appeal, with his specialist knowledge of the genesis of the upper tribunal. The general view of many is that, to quote a phrase used by Lord Hope in Committee, it was a “legal misstep”. There are, of course, a tiny number of successful cases, but those should be set against the very real burden that falls not on the Court of Appeal, where Lord Etherton— for whom I have great respect—served, but on the justice sitting in the Queen’s bench division. That is where the judicial pressure is, and we should look to remove something that many practitioners, and in private many members of the judiciary, regard as an unhelpful burden on them.

In immigration cases in particular, convention rights will be engaged, but they will have been engaged from the outset. By the time we get to the Cart appeal, they will have been argued and considered by the first-tier tribunal and by the upper tribunal which, as Lord Carnwath pointed out, was designed to be a superior court, and to have in effect the judicial weight and equivalence of the High Court. An anomaly arises from the Cart decision, and it is right and proportionate to remove it.

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to the very moving speech he gave in this Chamber over the summer. On the schemes being superseded by the ACRS and ARAP, if I may, I will discuss that with him outside the Chamber, because I just want to be clear about what schemes he is responding to. Our aim throughout is to get eligible people to the United Kingdom as quickly and as safely as possible, and then to settle them well within our country.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Around 200 Afghan constituents have contacted me since August. In the main, they have either dependents stuck in Afghanistan or relatives who are at serious risk because they worked in support of coalition forces but do not qualify under the restrictions of the ARAP scheme. Can the Minister explain how those groups will be helped by her scheme? To me, and I suspect to them, it looks like a brick wall.

[Victoria Atkins]

Again, I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot analyse 200 cases off the cuff at the Dispatch Box. The ACRS has now been launched and the ARAP scheme was launched some time ago, and assessments are being conducted to refer eligible people to those schemes. The family reunion rules are set out in the immigration rules, and we are working with third countries and other international partners where we can to try to secure routes outside of Afghanistan to the United Kingdom.

Metropolitan Police: Stephen Port Murders Inquest

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I have to confess that I object to this characterisation that I do not care or that we do not care about these individuals. It is completely unfair and completely untrue, not least to those members of the Government who happen to be of that description themselves—[Interruption.] No, many of us have worked on these issues addressing all sorts of communities, whether it is domestic murders or murders in minority communities. The murders of all sorts of people are profoundly important to us. That is why we have set murder as a national priority. If it is of interest to the House, last week I got the police chiefs of the seven biggest contributors to the murder total in this country around a table to talk about how we can further drive murders of all types down. This is a particularly unpleasant murder—[Interruption.] I understand the alarm and distress it will have caused across the country. We need to learn the lessons from it and we are determined to do so.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister’s response to the urgent question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), which should have been a statement from the Home Secretary, is extremely disappointing. I have dealt with the Met for more than 30 years, as a lawyer and as a politician, and I can remember few cases as serious as this, both because of the callous incompetence of the investigation and because of the consequences in the loss of lives of those young men.

All I have heard from the Minister today, and from the senior members of the Met—London MPs are just about to go to talk to them—are platitudes. I have heard platitudes specifically because they will not address the homophobic nature of these murders. That is not being addressed because it will not be included in the inquiry, and the Minister will not establish a full inquiry. He needs to order that now. A BBC series on this issue is starting on 3 January; it is not going to go away. He is entitled to his view that the Met is not institutionally homophobic—I would take a different view—but he is not entitled not to investigate that and to sweep this issue under the carpet.

[Kit Malthouse]

First, it is not the case that this matter is not being investigated further. As I have outlined several times, a number of lines of inquiry are being pursued, both about the Met’s investigation generally and its culture more specifically, and the IOPC may or may not reopen the investigation into the officers. So it is not the case that this has reached some kind of dead end, as some Opposition Members seem to be implying. It is simply not true to say that we are not bending every sinew to try to identify those who are likely to murder, in all different circumstances, whether domestic or through drugs—whatever the circumstances are. As I say, just last week I sat the seven biggest forces down and we had a three-hour session to look at what more work we could do to identify those who are likely to go on to commit such crimes: what their precursor behaviour is; what indications there are in their background; what data pools we could put together, whether that is their background offending or intelligence about them, that would give us clues towards what they were likely to do and allow us to intervene before. That enormous project of work has been under way for two years, and I hope and believe it will drive down murder numbers in the next few years to come. It is very unfair to accuse us of not taking these murders extremely seriously—that is exactly what we are doing and we are determined to make sure that they do not happen again.

Protecting the Public and Justice for Victims

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]]

The Select Committee on Justice, of which I am a member, is working on reports on court capacity, legal aid and the withering of access to justice, probation, recovery from the disastrous privatisation experiment, the long-unresolved failings of the coroner system, and our crumbling prison system, in particular its effect on women, young people and the mental health of those in custody.

The Lord Chancellor’s priorities seem rather different: at the behest of a Prime Minister who has little respect for the rule of law, he is busy interfering with the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the independence of the courts—dangerous constitutional tinkering while the justice system grinds to a halt. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill undermines fundamental civil liberties, while the further review of judicial review looks like an obsession in avoiding scrutiny, as we have seen again today with the findings of the judicial review of the Cabinet Office Minister’s conduct and yesterday with the exposure of that same Minister’s secret “clearing house” for freedom of information requests: bad priorities, and the wrong priorities.

We have heard about the backlog of cases in the Crown and magistrates courts and there are similar logjams in the civil court and tribunal systems although they are less well recorded. It is true that the Crown court backlog has been this high before, but then the court system was operating at a much higher volume and numbers of outstanding cases fell quickly. They rose again before the pandemic because of deliberate Government actions in closing courts and reducing sitting days. With the acceleration of the backlog in the past year, they lack the means to tackle it. Belatedly they introduced testing at court on a purely voluntary basis. They set up Nightingale courts, but perhaps a tenth of the number required, and a fraction of the number closed in the last decade. There are insufficient judges or lawyers to cope with the needs of the justice system because cuts in both legal aid and the CPS have left a skeleton service. Victims are waiting up to four years from offence to disposal. This is a question not just of quantity but of quality of justice. Memories fade, witnesses get cold feet, victims want to move on with their lives, trials collapse.

There is a lack of urgency and direction at the Ministry of Justice. The decision to spend £4 billion on new prison places while letting existing prisons decay, and the lack of facilities, of training and education, of proper healthcare and of basic living conditions in so many of our Victorian prisons are a disaster for inmates, for underpaid and overworked staff and for all of us. The failure to rehabilitate prisoners and to reintroduce them to society with housing and employment support is a recipe for recidivism.

It is only possible in these debates, and with the time we have, to skim the surface of these issues, but the inquiries of the Select Committee and some of the APPGs, such as the all-party group on legal aid, show the depth and complexity of the challenges we face. Unless the Secretary of State starts to look critically at his Government’s record, he will be just another Tory Lord Chancellor who has presided over the further decline of a justice system that once was admired and copied around the world.

Independent Review of Administrative Law

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience as a deputy leader of a major London borough and a long-standing member of the Local Government Association. He will see that there will be many advantages as a result of the proposals. For example, as I have mentioned, the ability to suspend quashing orders is a very pragmatic and sensible step. It means that minor administrative errors will not result in the entire policy being struck down, leading to great uncertainty and often administrative headaches for local authorities and others. I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his background in local government, will look at the consultation document and come up with further sensible suggestions.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]]

The amount of time and resources spent by successive Conservative Governments on restricting judicial review is extraordinary. It is one slender means that the individual has to challenge the power of Government when they act unlawfully. Rather than saying, “There’s nothing to see here,” does the Lord Chancellor want his legacy to be one of undermining judicial discretion, the common law and the rights of the citizen in order to make the Executive safe from challenge and scrutiny?

Courts and Tribunals: Recovery

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course he knows that sentencing guidelines are a matter for the independent Sentencing Council, but he will be delighted to read the sentencing White Paper, which includes further measures to deal with the incarceration of serious violent sexual offenders for longer periods before release. The necessary legislation will follow in the new year to take a range of measures on serious crime, and I know that he and his constituents will be supporting them enthusiastically.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The statement had the air of the Lord Chancellor congratulating himself in case no one else remembered to, but that may be somewhat premature. The criminal courts recovery plan claimed that 266 trials a week would be completed in October, but the actual figure was 160. The Justice Committee was told this week that we will not be getting back to pre-covid backlog figures at any time soon, nor should we be. Does not that sound more like complacency than competence?

[Robert Buckland]

No, it certainly does not. The hon. Gentleman is, I am afraid, wrong when he talks about the figure of 266. What that was about was courtrooms. In fact, it was 250 courtrooms to deal with jury trials. We exceeded that target at the end of October. As I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee, the overall figure with regard to effective trials, cracked trials and trials that are vacated because of a guilty plea acceptable to the Crown or a plea to the indictment, is now well in excess of 300 a week and is coming back to pre-covid levels. I am not complacent, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been working daily on this issue and I care as much as everybody else about our courts and prison system, hence the urgency that we have placed upon the work that we are doing.

Ministry of Justice: Legal Aid Spending

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh, and to follow the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill); the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck); and a fellow member of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). We have the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), a shadow Home Office Minister and the shadow Justice Secretary to come. I hope the Minister is taking that on board and realises the quality, if not the quantity, of what he has. I hope he is not thinking, “Oh, it’s Thursday afternoon in Westminster Hall. It must be Members from London and the home counties present.” I know he is a better man than that.

To save time, I would like him to make a series of admissions. I think he probably would admit that the cuts to the Ministry of Justice have been some of the highest, if not the highest, in any Government Department over the past 10 years, that legal aid has been in the frontline of those cuts and, indeed, that those cuts have gone too far. I think that is axiomatic: given that the Government are rowing back from some of the cuts now, there must be some appreciation of that fact.

I do not know whether I can stretch my luck and ask the Minister to admit that the premise of LASPO and the criminal legal aid changes that followed it was the wrong approach. As Members present will know, the main feature of LASPO was that it overturned 70 years of practice in legal aid. Instead of allowing matters to come within scope unless they were specifically excluded, it required matters to be entered into. The consequence was that the majority of welfare law, private family law, social welfare law, and a whole range of other disciplines—housing, immigration, and so on—was wiped out, or almost entirely wiped out. In practice, those disciplines were wiped out, because most firms could not keep going with what little remained in scope. That was a mistake, and I hope the Government will come to admit that. If they do not, I hope that a future Labour Government will reverse that trend, which has been detrimental to access to justice and equality of arms in the courts ever since.

I do not want to dwell on this too much, so I will race through what I think have been the developments over those 10 years. I am afraid that Ken Clarke, now Lord Clarke, who we all appreciate for his stand on Brexit and other matters, was the axeman in these cases, as he so often was in other Governments. He cut a swathe through civil legal aid in particular; that was not his area of practice, so I wonder whether that is a case in point. He was followed by the next Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who caused the chaos and confusion in criminal legal aid that we are still living with to this day, not just through the cuts in funds but through the way in which it has been so shambolically reorganised. Of course, his reverse Midas touch is known across the piece in the MOJ, and is now a matter of legend.

A number of concessions were allegedly made in response to the Government’s many defeats in the House of Lords when LASPO was going through, which turned out to be nugatory. There were a number of significant—but again, small—victories in the court under judicial review in the areas of domestic violence, children’s law and refugee law, which corrected some of the worst features of LASPO. There have been several very moderate and well-reasoned reports over the years, such as the Bar Council report and the Low commission, which have tried to appeal to the Government’s better nature by saying, “At least look at these areas of law in which the most suffering has occurred.” Those reports have mainly fallen on deaf ears.

Finally, we got the review of LASPO, slightly beyond the five-year period in which it had been promised during LASPO’s passage. I distinctly remember that report, because it was a well-written report by civil servants that gave all the justifications for why LASPO was wrong, and then threw a few crumbs on the table at the end of it. Yes, it is welcome to have £3 million to support the now huge number of litigants in person; yes, it is great to have £5 million for innovation in the justice system; but compared with the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been sucked out, those sums of money really do not touch the sides.

I am struck by the fact—I noticed it in one of the briefings we had for today’s debate, from the Bar Council—that there has been a slight change of approach by the professions, perhaps because they have been bashing their head against a brick wall for 10 years. In the Bar Council’s spending review submission, to which it alludes in today’s briefing, it is almost starting from scratch: rather than saying, “Can you put this back into scope? Can you change this back?” it is saying, “This is the basis of what a modern legal aid system should look like.” It talks about access to early legal advice, non-means-tested legal aid for all domestic abuse cases, and early access on social welfare issues. Those are laudable aims, but I would nevertheless urge the Bar Council, the Law Society and other representatives of the profession not to give up yet, because I do not think we can turn our back on LASPO quite yet.

I heard what the hon. Member for Henley said, but my understanding of the briefings I have read is that there has been a cut of about 38% in legal aid funding over the past 10 years, from about £2.6 billion to about £1.7 billion. At its lowest point, it was £1.6 billion. In any case, there have been such large cuts that they have threatened the whole sustainability of the field.

The changes to the means test have excluded many people on low and moderate incomes from having any access to legal aid. We have the abhorrent the innocence tax. I am sure that if the Minister were speaking freely, he would say it is wrongly conceived and executed. It is a sin crying out for justice, if not vengeance.

The Chair of the Justice Committee said quite a lot about criminal legal aid, so I will not say a great deal about it. The most striking figure is the 8.75% cut in fees—until very recently there had been no increase in fees for about 20 years. There was a cut in 2014 and the net effect of that—the median net profit for practitioners after that—was minus 3%. In other words, businesses were on average running at a loss. Where else would the Government, even in their most intolerant mode, expect people to work for nothing or less than nothing and not complain about it?

It is equally true on the civil side. The number of providers of civil legal aid has been cut by half over the last seven years, but the number of cases starting has gone down by more than 80% over the period 2010, when austerity first came in, to 2017. A particular point of sorrow for me is the way that law centres and other advice agencies have been treated. I declare an interest as a non-practising barrister, but also as somebody who sat on the management committee of Hammersmith and Fulham law centre for nearly 30 years, and have seen it struggle for survival. Organisations whose very existence is to help other people in need were themselves living hand to mouth from month to month, just to keep going. Frankly, sometimes they were not able to provide anything like a comprehensive service. I am pleased to say that, thanks to the generosity of the local authority and others, but in no sense thanks to the Government, our law centre is now growing and thriving again. It is now almost entirely reliant on grant aid and charitable funding rather than legal aid starts.

The reviews that are under way have already been mentioned and we welcome them. I am pleased to be taking part in the Justice Committee and the all-party parliamentary group reviews. I hope they will throw up some arguable points to bring to the Government. I am also aware that the Government are themselves undertaking a series of reviews. Will the Minister tell us a little more about the scope and timetable of those reviews and their ambition? Part 2 of the criminal legal aid review was announced in August—part 1 did not do very much—but there is no timetable. Two years after we were first promised a review, there is still no timetable for the principle of sustainability and the majority part of that review.

We have a review of the means test—again, long overdue—but that was paused in June. What is happening on that? Although we do not have a formal review of civil legal aid, I will here quote from the Select Committee’s brief, which, as always, is extremely useful. The Lord Chancellor’s cover letter, which is attached to the Government’s response to the legal professions report, states that, alongside the legal aid means test review, the Government are

“looking into the sustainability of the civil legal aid system and will consider the delivery and contractual model for civil legal aid within this work.”

Again, that is long overdue. Can the Minister say a bit more about what is promised from those reviews?

In a way, it is dispiriting that we are still looking at reviews 10 years on. We all know about the level of need, but it is in the Government’s hands. Can we at least have a sense of urgency and a promise that if it is a fair review and serious problems are found, as I think will be the case—underfunding, or the way that the Ministry acts with the profession—they will be seriously corrected?

I repeat what the chair of the all-party parliamentary group, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North, said: it is not an auspicious time when we have the Home Secretary, and indeed the Prime Minister, making frankly childish and incendiary remarks about lefty lawyers, legal activists and things of that kind. It is trivial and it is what we have come to expect, particularly from this Prime Minister, but it has serious consequences, as we saw with the attack on lawyers’ offices. The specific aim of the attack—a man has been charged with serious criminal offences as a consequence—was to punish people for simply doing their job. Given the Minister’s distinguished career in the profession, I know he will share those views. I hope he is able to say them publicly.

We are told that the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General have expressed their reservations privately to the Home Secretary. I know the Minister is a trusting and ambitious man in Government, and perhaps he will want to put on the record that he also deprecates those attitudes. It is a serious matter. We cannot expect the Government to deal fairly with the profession and, more importantly, with its clients—particularly their poorest clients, who go without representation now—if at the same time they are denigrating those who are trying to carry out this essential work.

Probation Services

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to highlight the stark figure for the financial cost of reoffending—of course, it does not deal with the emotional, physical and mental cost of reoffending. Reducing reoffending means fewer victims of crime. We have succeeded in reducing it in certain parts of the criminal justice system, but I am afraid there is still a lot of work to do, particularly with offenders on short-term sentences. The focus will be very much on reducing reoffending levels among that cohort in the years ahead.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I want to stand up for the Lord Chancellor, who is being attacked from both sides of his own Benches today. Either it should not have happened at all, or the renationalisation should not be happening now. Why have we waited until now, when most of the service was taken back in-house last year? Does he want to take credit for that? As he is known—perhaps more than some of his colleagues—for his candour and thoughtfulness, will he admit that this privatisation has been an unmitigated disaster from start to finish?

[Robert Buckland]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman is the champion of the leading question, and I am not going to fall for that old trick. As he knows, I do not take an ideological view of this. There are aspects of the last few years that have brought much new learning and experience that we will incorporate into the National Probation Service. I am talking about the people who have delivered for the CRCs on the ground. There are plenty of examples of local best practice that we want to hold on to and propagate and that we will expand through the dynamic framework.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

I welcome another new Member to the Chamber today for MOJ oral questions.

We have made it very clear that we remain committed not only to providing legal aid to those who need it, but to developing further means of legal support including the expansion of early legal advice to help some of the most vulnerable people in society with social welfare problems such as housing. We are committed to finding effective solutions, because it is often early legal advice that makes the difference.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will the Minister share with us any plans she has to reverse the hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts to legal aid budgets under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 that have been so destructive of access to justice in this country?

[Wendy Morton]

I think it is fair to say that I have been setting out some of the action points that we are taking forward. We have had the post-implementation review of LASPO, and are looking at various means of legal support to help with social welfare issues. We could not be clearer that we support legal aid and legal support for those who need it, and we will continue to do so.