Points of Order

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says and understand the extreme seriousness with which he treats that extremely serious occurrence. I hope he will understand if I say that I do not think we want to get into choreographed responses on matters of this kind. I think it should be taken as read that such a matter is extremely serious, and I do not myself imagine for one moment that any member of the Opposition Front Bench intended any discourtesy. The hon. Gentleman has underlined one important point: Members should be sensitive to the mood of the House and the nature of the matter being raised. It was and is a very serious matter and I thank the hon. Gentleman both for his question and for raising it in the seemly fashion he has just done. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) is chuntering from a sedentary position, although I note that on this occasion he has not said what he ordinarily says, which is, “It’s a disgrace!” and that itself is a notable change—

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman says it is. If there are no further points of order, we come now to the ten-minute rule motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member. He must know by now that points of order come after statements. In any case, I always enjoy saving up the hon. Gentleman for later.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 3, page 1, line 13, leave out

“or other interests of others”

and insert “of employees or bystanders”.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 13, at end insert

“in relation to the circumstances leading up to the alleged negligence”.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 9, leave out clause 3.

Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 1, line 17, leave out from “danger” to end of line 18.

[Mr Slaughter]

I will deal briefly at the end with the amendment relating to clause 4. It raises the issue posed by the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) about St John Ambulance and its concerns about the Bill. Amendments 2 to 5 deal with what is effectively the Bill’s only operative clause, clause 3. Again, I make no apology for saying that these amendments were put in Committee.

Amendments 2 to 4 propose ways of improving the drafting of what everyone from the Law Society to legal practitioners and commentators has described as one of the worst-drafted pieces of legislation they have ever seen. Our concern is that clause 3 is drawn very widely. It states:

“The court must have regard to whether the person, in carrying out the activity in the course of which the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred, demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others.”

That is hedged around with many generalities. What is a “generally responsible approach”? What does the “safety or other interests” of others mean? Our amendment 4 attempts to clarify the clause by adding the words

“in relation to the circumstances leading up to the alleged negligence”.

The Minister was made aware of this point in Committee so I shall not explain it at length, but the purpose of our amendments is to ensure that if material other than that specifically relating to a particular incident is taken into consideration, it should have a direct causal link—through time, location or type—to the incident being complained of. Otherwise, we risk opening up many cans of worms. In relation to an accident at work, for example, the entire conduct of an employer or employee over a long period could be taken into account, as could working practices and conditions, as well as “other interests”, whatever they might be. I suspect that, in trying to keep the ministerial team happy, the parliamentary draftsmen have been scratching their heads and trying to come up with something. Our amendments are meant to be genuinely constructive in trying to improve the drafting of the Bill—if that is possible. But I shall say no more about that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is always helpful if answers are comprehensive, but they do not have to include the kitchen sink.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

5. What assessment she has made of the effect of recent changes in the level of neighbourhood policing.

NHS

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Perhaps I may help my right hon. Friend by saying that the campaign in North Norfolk began on the Minister’s website after the excellent campaign run by the Labour prospective parliamentary candidate, Denise Burke, who pointed out how deficient local services were—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have been watching carefully. Dr Coffey, I fear that you are catching what I can describe only as Gove-itis. You are normally regarded as a rather cerebral soul, and I invite you to try to contain your irascibility for a period, if you can.

[Mr Slaughter]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the Government for still classing A and Es as such when, like the one at Charing Cross, they are in practice closing and turning into GP-run clinics? The Government are still calling them A and Es, and people are misled. That will lead them to go to the GP-run centres when they should be going to properly staffed A and Es, and we will get tragedies such as the one at Chase Farm.

Points of Order

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that. He will, I hope, have heard the statement from the Chair. To put it very candidly and bluntly, these announcements should be made to the House, not by the mechanism of Twitter. I think it is pretty clear.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are used to the Government making announcements to the press before they come to the House to make them. What happened this morning is different. The press have been privately briefed and the Secretary of State for Health has come to the House still not prepared to tell the House what is in the Keogh review. Is this the first time this has happened? Do you agree that it should not happen again? Will you now order that the Keogh review is put in the Library today, so that we do not have to wait till tomorrow to find out what is in it?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He asks whether this is the first time that this has happened. There are very few firsts in this place; most things have happened before at some stage or another. I am not sure that it is within my bailiwick to insist upon the deposit of the report today, as the hon. Gentleman rather earnestly beseeches me to do. I hope that he will not take offence when I say that he is rarely satisfied about anything. He is an experienced parliamentary hand and he knows that Members apply for permission to put urgent questions, and it is for the Speaker to decide whether to grant the urgent question. I did grant the urgent question, which carries its own message about my sense that it was important that the issue should be aired in the Chamber today. The hon. Gentleman took part, I believe, in the exercise, and I think we will leave it there for today.

Changes to Health Services in London

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is destroying services in four great London hospitals, two of which are in my constituency, in the biggest closure programme in the history of the NHS. Why is he closing A and Es in two of the most deprived communities in London—Brent and White City—and why, rather than certainty, is he installing chaos into Ealing and Charing Cross hospitals? What is happening to the 500 beds at Charing Cross? What is happening to the best stroke unit in the country? What does he mean by A and Es that are different in size and shape? When will he answer those questions? This is a cheap political fix. How can anyone have confidence in the Secretary of State—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We understand the general drift of the observations—[Interruption.] Order. I understand how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels, but he should really ask one question. The Secretary of State is a man of dexterity and no doubt will meet the hon. Gentleman’s needs as he sees fit.

Accident and Emergency Departments

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I first thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) for picking up the baton and sponsoring the debate? It was first proposed to the Backbench Business Committee before Christmas by me and colleagues from other parties as a London debate, and it has had the feel of a London debate. However, colleagues from elsewhere in the country should not feel excluded, because a lot of what is being tried out in London will soon be spreading to the rest of the country if they are not careful.

I had to attend the Justice and Security Public Bill Committee, which meant that I was not here at the beginning of the debate, but I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. Balancing whether to oppose the Government’s attacks on civil liberties or the Government’s attack on the health service is difficult, so it is nice to be able to deal with both in one day.

I will not get involved in a hierarchy of misery. Many Members have spoken passionately about their own experiences, but I will say that both the A and E departments at the world-class hospitals—Hammersmith and Charing Cross—in my constituency are marked for closure. Charing Cross hospital, which in many ways has the best site and some of the best facilities in north-west London, is marked for almost complete closure. All 500 beds will go, the A and E will go and the specialist services will go, leaving an urgent care centre and other services high and dry, such as the Maggie’s cancer centre and the mental health services. To its shame, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust is supporting those closures because it will provide a very valuable piece of real estate for it to sell and thus improve other campuses.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) said, it is not the case that community services have been improved before these closures will take place. Indeed, the White City collaborative care centre, which should have been the first polyclinic in the country is, thanks to a Conservative council, six years late and with a fraction of the services it should have. It is still not open and will not adequately replace any of those services.

What is happening in north-west London flies in the face of the facts. Most hospitals in the area do not meet the four-hour target, owing to the demand on their services. Ambulances are less safe and effective than A and E care. For patients, it is clearly better to be in A and E than in an ambulance. Longer journeys and journey times need to be avoided. There is no evidence that when a good A and E closes most cases get dealt with better via centralisation. There are good data suggesting the opposite is true, as local A and Es have the capability to select patients who require more specialised care, easing the pressure on large units, and to stabilise those patients in the critical intermediate period.

In a nutshell, my constituents are being offered a second-class service. There is no clear demarcation. The health service itself cannot tell us which conditions should go to an urgent care centre and which should go to an A and E. The majority of my constituents will have a worse health service, and that particularly applies to poorer constituents who do not have access to private transport.

Let us look briefly at the process we have gone through, which has been utterly scandalous. As soon as the coalition Government came in they started preparing these closures. They gave millions of pounds to McKinsey to draw up the plans, yet when I asked it about those plans I was lied to about the fact that hospital closures were being prepared and was even told that I had been consulted when I had not. We have heard already about the phoney consultation, the 80,000 signatures that were ignored and the 3,000 or 4,000—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting for one moment that he was lied to in the House of Commons.

[Mr Slaughter]

Absolutely not. As part of the consultation process that was undertaken, it is on the record in the documentation that I was consulted. I was not consulted on those matters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Monday 17th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I suppose that the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) deserves credit for consistency. I cannot think of many things that I was saying in 1988 that I am still saying today, but there you go.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Nor can I, Mr Speaker—I am trying to think of something, but I cannot.

My local council thinks that £40,000 should be the cut-off figure and that that will solve the housing crisis. However, it has just responded to a freedom of information request from me by stating that, in the past five years, it has let just under 8,000 properties and that only nine of those can be identified as for people on incomes of more than £40,000. Is this not just a smokescreen to cover up the fact that council properties are being sold off when they become empty, knocked down and not replaced, and that measures such as the Growth and Infrastructure Bill are actually reducing the availability of affordable accommodation? This is a piece of nonsense and propaganda.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

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?

National Planning Policy Framework

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Mike Slade, the chairman of the Conservative property forum, has given more than £300,000 to the Tory party over the past decade individually and through his property company Helical Bar. Mr Slade says:

“You do run the thin line of someone saying: I’m only doing this to have access and influence, but that was what politics was always about. It’s a little unfair, but there must be 20 per cent truth in it.”

It is easy to see what is in this policy for the Tory party and the developers. What is in it for my constituents?

[Mr Speaker]

I think we got the question at the end, but I must ask Members to use their opportunity to ask a question.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Tuesday 21st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the next speaker, let me point out to the House that the Minister is being asked quite a lot of questions—which is absolutely fine—and if the House wants to hear the answers, I think he will need five minutes to provide them.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I agree with all the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, with the exception of the Minister.

As I understand it, the Government’s justification for prosecuting the bedroom tax against even very vulnerable people is that it will free up social housing and relieve the shortage. If that is the case, someone in a constituency such as mine—where 8,000 people are on the waiting list with no possibility of being housed in the private sector because of costs—should welcome such provisions. However, we know, because no alternative properties are available, that this is in fact simply a cost-saving measure. As for the idea of a property being empty for 20 years, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) described, properties are not empty for 20 minutes in Hammersmith before they are snapped up.

Everything that this Government are doing, whether it be the cuts to the social housing grant, the changes to affordable rents—I should say that the affordable rent at 80% of the open market value of a four-bedroom property in Hammersmith would require an income of £96,000 a year—the changes in homelessness legislation or the provisions of the Localism Act 2011, weakens the security and provision of social housing. What we are discussing is another measure to make social tenants second-class citizens and social tenants on benefit third-class citizens.

If I may do so in just one minute, I would like to give as an example my own local authority—a Conservative-controlled local authority and the favoured local authority of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. In the last two weeks it has given approval for more than 3,000 new houses to be built. Not one of those 3,000 properties will be a new social home for rent; rather, they are replacing 750 good-quality homes, which are in the process of being demolished, so we are already seeing downsizing at work. The authority received £100 million for that demolition from the property developer and another £100 million was received for selling off 300 good-quality social homes on the open market by auction, and it is building 25 new council homes. However, even though those council homes are on estates and will be low-cost homes that therefore could be rented, they will all be for private sale.

EU Criminal Policy

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure if not a luxury to have so much time on the Floor of the House to discuss a communication from the Commission to the European Parliament. It appears to have pride of place in Government business for the House this week.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I very gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that no fewer than seven Back Benchers wish to speak in the debate. I feel certain that he will tailor his contribution accordingly.

[Mr Slaughter]

I started at a leisurely pace, Mr Speaker, and perhaps you anticipated that I would continue at such, but I take the hint. We have only an hour and a half, but I will not take that much time.

EU criminal policy is a significant topic and in other circumstances it could provoke lively and controversial debate, but I suspect it will not do so today for a variety of reasons. First, the document is only a communication—it opens the door to communication rather than decides its outcome. As the Minister has said, it is non-binding. Secondly, there are rightly so many caveats, conditionalities and reservations in the UK position on EU criminal policy that any controversial proposal could be effectively filtered at one stage or another.

The European Scrutiny Committee concedes that in supporting the Government’s cautious approach, and in appearing to take principal exception to the language of the document. I do not want to be drawn into a discussion of the linguistic inelegance of “Euro crimes” or whether the EU should have the temerity to express its wish to foster freedom, security and justice. Those are peripheral issues.

The third reason why I believe this is an uncontroversial proposal is that there has been—even on the Lisbon treaty and the criminal justice decisions flowing from it—broad consensus between the parties. That remains, and the Opposition do not intend to press the motion to a Division.

On the substance of the Commission document, we are pleased to note the emphasis that the Commission places on respecting the general principles of subsidiarity, necessity and proportionality in its memorandum. Those should be at the forefront of the Commission’s mind in deciding whether to propose criminal sanctions to ensure effective implementation of EU proposals. That was the intention of the Lisbon treaty and the exemptions that the previous Government negotiated.

The previous Government were clear at the time of the Lisbon treaty that EU co-operation on criminal justice and policing should not affect fundamental aspects of our criminal justice system. The extended opt-in arrangements that we secured at the time mean that we have complete choice on whether to participate in any justice and home affairs measure.

As each proposal for new EU JHA legislation comes forward, we urge the Minister to consider carefully whether it is in British interests to participate. From the “Report to Parliament on the Application Of Protocols 19 and 21”, which was released this week, we see that the Government have operated in exactly the way we envisaged when negotiating the opt-in. The document makes it clear that:

“Over the past year, the Government has taken 17 decisions on UK participation in EU JHA legislative proposals. In total the UK has opted in to nine proposals…including one decision to opt in to a measure post adoption…The Government…decided to not opt in to eight proposals.”

The Opposition do not always agree on individual proposals—we did not agree with the Government’s decision on the right to a criminal lawyer—but we agree on and indeed instigated that opt-in process.

In any event, and as the Minister has acknowledged, there is a recognition by the Commission that EU intervention in criminal justice is a sensitive matter, hence the emergency brake, the two-step approach and the fact that additional “Euro-crimes”—if I may use the shorthand—will be added only by unanimous decision. It is clear that that is a matter of last resort.

There is broad agreement on areas on which it is important to act on a European level. The Opposition support co-ordinated action to tackle organised crime and terrorism, and to provide greater protection for children and ensure the security of our borders. Such co-operation continues to be driven by the challenges we face today. Tackling crime, countering terrorism and securing our borders are not issues of mere domestic concern; they have an international dimension. We need to work with our allies in the EU to ensure that we achieve our objectives.

As the European Commission states in the document:

“In view of the cross-border dimension of many crimes, the adoption of EU criminal law measures can help ensure that criminals can neither hide behind borders nor abuse differences between national legal systems for criminal purposes.”

There are more contentious matters than this one, such as the European arrest warrant, which the House debated relatively recently. The Opposition hope that the incremental approach continues. A clear example of that—on insider trading, insider dealing and market abuse—is given in the bundle. The Government, in commissioning a report to look into that matter, are taking a sensible line. That is a good example of a matter on which legislation might assist the Government and the country, because we have taken steps when other European countries have not done so.

On that basis, I shall bring my remarks to a close to allow other Members to take part in the debate. I welcome the opportunity to debate these matters, but there is little controversy on the principle, even if controversy on individual decisions to opt in remains.

Pub Companies

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, of which I have given you and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) notice. Hammersmith flyover in my constituency has been closed for three weeks. Although we hope for good news as early as today about the reopening, it is clearly a serious matter for my constituents. The hon. Lady has convened a public meeting—nothing wrong with that—to discuss the matter, but she has advertised and convened it in my constituency. She has invited various public bodies, but not me, to the meeting to discuss these matters—she has not invited me to be on the panel.

This goes beyond the ordinary trespassing that Members sometimes commit. I have never heard of an event of this kind. In reality, it means that the public bodies may not attend, because the meeting is now party political. I ask for your guidance, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady is a new Member and might not know the protocols of the House as well as others do.

[Mr Speaker]

I will restrict my understanding thus far, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for notice of his intention to raise the point of order. It will almost certainly not be a matter of order for the Chair, but, reserving my position, I think it only right before I say anything further—I am sure he will accept this—to ask the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) to offer her own thoughts, of which I have had some notice, on the Floor of the House.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This public meeting is being held purely to help local residents. It is for Transport for London and Hounslow and Hammersmith councils to update local residents and help them. Frankly, that is what I came into politics to do.

I am extremely disappointed that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) has attempted to threaten, intimidate and bully me into doing what he wants and play political games. He knew what was happening—I told him at the earliest opportunity. I invited him to the meeting verbally and in writing. He said initially that he was happy with the plans for the meeting.

I have worked well recently with my Labour Hounslow council and expect to have a very positive working relationship with the new hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). It is really sad that we cannot help our local residents without an hon. Member trying to stop us. We should work together for the good of our local residents and our constituencies.

[Mr Slaughter]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I assume the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is on an unrelated matter. [Interruption.] Order. Before the hon. Gentleman jumps to his feet, let me say this: I am grateful to him for his notice and for his attempted point of order, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she has said to me via e-email and on the Floor of the House. I do not think this is a matter of order for the Chair; it concerns a matter that is operational, outside of the Chamber of the House. I would want to reiterate the exhortation to Members to co-operate on matters affecting neighbouring constituencies and to observe the customary courtesy of informing other Members about actions and visits proposed in another Member’s constituency. These are, however, not rules of the House; they are conventions. I intend to leave this matter here for today. I say this with no discourtesy to any hon. Member, but because there is pressing business of the House to which we need to move.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

It is good to hear the Minister talking about possible future concessions in this area. To be fair to him, he has always said that the Government’s aim is to protect the most vulnerable. How does he square that with the fact that he has orchestrated the talking out of the main group of amendments today, which affects many of the lowest-income and most vulnerable people in this country? Why are we not getting on to talking about other areas of social welfare law? Is it to protect the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), whose law centre is losing all its funding? Is it to protect the Minister’s coalition allies from withdrawing—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that we have got the gist of it.

[Mr Djanogly]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that I have enjoyed listening to my hon. Friends and to some of his hon. Friends this evening, in what has been a very informed debate. We have heard some expert contributions, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, who started by saying that he had acted in 100 clinical negligence cases. I do not think that there has been any time wasting at all—not nearly as much time wasting as when the hon. Gentleman held a three-hour debate on the first group of amendments on the first day in Committee.

Points of Order

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Monday 10th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I think he well knows that I have no such powers, but it is decent of him to think that I might be granted them. I say to him that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and his colleagues will, if memory serves me, answer oral questions on Thursday. I look forward with interest and enthusiasm to seeing him in his place on that occasion.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 20 December, the day before the House rose, the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement on the route of the high-speed rail network and said that the main interchange would be at the Old Oak Common depot in my constituency. He visited that depot before coming to the House. Although that is the largest ever civil engineering project in the area, he did not inform me of that visit. He did, however, inform the press, to which he made statements; the local Conservative party, which then publicised the visit; and the local authority. Given that that appears to have breached not only the custom of informing Members but those of not making statements before coming to the House and of not using announcements to party advantage, can you help me understand how it can be prevented from happening in future?

Courts Service Estate

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am pleased to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box for this important statement on the delivery of justice in local communities. I thank him for a copy of his statement in advance.

We missed the Minister in the debate on legal aid in Westminster Hall this morning. Members from all parties spoke passionately in defence of their law centres and citizens advice bureaux, which, like local courts, are facing wholesale closure. He will be pleased to hear that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General did as well as the Minister would have done in carefully avoiding responding to the many points that were raised.

Launching the consultation on court closures in June this year, the Minister said:

“The Government is committed to supporting local justice, enabling justice to be done and seen to be done in our communities.”

I agree with that statement, but his statement today does not achieve that ambition. Perhaps a clue as to where the Government started to go wrong can be found in the next paragraph of the statement launching the consultation, which said that

“we increasingly use the internet and email to communicate…and we travel further…to do our weekly shop.”

Perhaps we do, but that misses two points. First, courts are not like Facebook or Tesco. They are an important part of many communities in the same way as people regard police stations and town halls.

Claimants and defendants, witnesses and victims will all be inconvenienced and, in many cases, disconcerted by the loss of the local criminal or civil court, or both, only to find them replaced with anonymous court centres many miles away. Secondly, not everyone has the mobility or resources to travel long distances to find justice, especially in rural or remote areas. My first question to the Minister is to ask him to produce the calculations that have been done to determine the time it will take and the distance that will be covered in travelling to the replacement courts. He says that only a minority of court users will be disadvantaged, but that is not the view of the Lord Chief Justice or of his own colleagues. Responding on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Goldring noted that poor public transport meant it would be difficult for many people to

“arrive at court before 10am or return home after 4pm”.

Will the Minister look again at travel arrangements and the times of journeys to the remaining courts after the Department for Transport and council cuts have taken effect?

The Minister consulted on closing 103 magistrates courts and 54 county courts, 30% of the total in England and Wales. He said today that 90% of that number will close—some 142. That would give an annual saving, based on his previous figures, of about £13 million, which is not significant in the context of the wholesale cuts going on in other parts of his Department but is a sizeable proportion of the running costs of lower courts. Will all this simply be handed to the Chancellor in the compliant if not willing way the Lord Chancellor has taken to adopting in asset stripping his Department? Or will some be reinvested in the remaining courts estate to improve the service to the public that the Minister says he wishes to see and to cope with the increased traffic from the closed courts?

The Minister said that some capital will be reinvested in specific projects, but there is no allowance for the extra pressures on remaining courts. Is that not proof that this is no more than a crude cost-cutting exercise with none of the benefits that he half-heartedly claims? He also said in July that

“Providing access to justice does not necessarily mean providing a courthouse in every town or city.”

We would not disagree with that. Needs change and buildings wear out or prove unsuitable. It is right to seek economies while maintaining access and making the administration of justice more efficient. Although every closure decision is difficult, and many older courts have a historic and nostalgic importance, in government we were prepared to close less well-used or poorly functioning courts. We were endlessly criticised by the Minister for doing so, but the difference between our programme of review and his wholesale massacre of the local justice system is clear both from the quantity of closures proposed and the haste with which they will now proceed.

What is the Minister’s timetable for shutting the doors of those historic courts? Why has he not published the results of the consultation before today? What impact assessments have been done? Is he prepared to defend the debilitating effect that longer journey times and unfamiliar surroundings will have on the frailest in our society, who often attend courts as victims and witnesses? Many domestic violence courts and family courts will have to move or close. What arrangements has he made to ensure that they go to suitable locations?

Under the previous Tory Government between 1979 and 1997, courts closed at the rate of 25 a year and, under the previous Labour Government, that fell to 13 a year, but now the Minister is proposing to close almost 150 in this Government’s first year. To be fair, his colleagues have been as critical of the closure programme as Opposition Members, none more so than the Solicitor-General, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr Garnier), who told his local paper:

“I urge residents of Harborough and the surrounding locality to respond to the consultation…we need to organise and get the campaign rolling.”

The International Development Secretary was even more incensed about the proposed closure of Sutton Coldfield court. He told his local paper that the

“very strong arguments which successfully defeated the attempt to close Sutton Magistrates’ Court eight years ago will be just as strong, if not stronger”.

The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), criticised the Treasury. He said:

“The Ministry of Justice seem to have made serious errors with their figures…it’s not just us they’re after, but 102 other courts across the country. Yet I believe the fight is worth having—and that we can win.”

No critic was stronger than the former shadow Justice Minister, who is now Attorney-General. He said:

“It makes a mockery of British justice that this government is considering closing 21 magistrates courts, despite the serious problems of violent crime and anti-social behaviour we face.”

Conservative and Lib Dem Members have all sounded off in their local press and in the House, but as reported in the Evening Standard, this is an

“I back cuts - but Not In My Backyard”

policy. Opposition to the Minister’s policy is growing all over the Government Benches, including from those on the Front Bench. Opening the gates of the prisons and handing ballot papers to the few left inside looks positively—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I trust that the shadow Minister is in his final sentence. He has taken almost as long responding to the statement as the statement itself took. Members must realise that this is not a debate. A response to a statement is a brief response and a series of questions. I hope that that is now clear for the future, because sight has been lost of it, and must be regained at once.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am most grateful, Mr Speaker—you predicted absolutely correctly that I am coming immediately to the end of my response to the Minister’s statement.

This wholesale closure sums up the Government’s approach to cutting local services in this and every other area—“Let’s get on with the cuts and worry about the effects later.” This programme of closures amounts to a wholesale destruction of this foundation stone of much of British justice, and the Minister should be ashamed to bring it before the House.

Academies Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Monday 19th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to correct two things that he said? The first relates to Burlington Danes, which has traditionally been a very good school. It got into special measures, and became an academy, but did not improve. It has now improved with a new, second, head. Will he accept that often it is not being an academy that makes the difference, but having a good head teacher and a good ethos in the school?

I come to the second point on which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to correct him. We have two outstanding schools with a very deprived intake in my constituency. Both have decided not to become academies. Privately, the schools’ governors have said to me that they believe that special educational needs children and non-teaching staff would be discriminated against if the schools became academies, because they have seen that happen in other academies. So will the Secretary of State not be quite so arrogant in pushing academies on every level?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. From now on, interventions need to get a bit shorter. The debate is very heavily subscribed, and interventions should be brief.

Points of Order

Debate between Andy Slaughter and John Bercow

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I know that my response to his point of order will disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I must tell him that the nature and quality of statements are for both the Minister concerned and others to assess. They are not, in this instance, a matter of order. There is a genuine dispute, and it is a dispute about which the hon. Gentleman feels passionately. He is entitled to do so, he has put his point on the record very clearly, and I have a feeling that he will share it more widely with those who have recently re-elected him.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you require the Secretary of State to come back tomorrow and make a proper statement on this matter? I asked about spending in my constituency, and the Secretary of State did not answer the question. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who has now given me the answer—all 13 projects have been stopped—but I should not have to ask such questions; I should be given the information here. There was plenty of time for that during the extended session on the statement.

As you will see if you look at the statement, Mr. Speaker, the first four pages are about what the last Labour Government did. It is point-scoring waffle. There was plenty of time for the information to be given, and if it had been given, we could have asked questions based on it. Will you ask the Secretary of State to come and make a correct statement on the matter?

[Mr Speaker]

I have been very explicit about the parts of the handling of this matter that I regard as unsatisfactory. What we cannot do—or it would not, in my judgment, be a proper use of the time of the House later in the week for us to do it—is rerun the statement.

The hon. Gentleman is a man of great ingenuity and indefatigability, and I feel sure that he will find ways in which to highlight his concerns—if not tomorrow, later in the week or on other occasions. I feel sure that as soon as he leaves the Chamber, he will be dedicating his grey cells to precisely that pursuit.