Draft Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment) Regulations 2023

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 General Committees

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a joy to have you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. You will understand our initial disappointment that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), a legend of north London, could not be with us. We therefore rely on you to help us on the Opposition Benches stand up to the mighty powers of the Executive, knowing that we only have limited resources on the Opposition side.

At the outset of my remarks, I want to praise those on the Opposition Benches who have come in to this Committee to help scrutinise the Government’s efforts in this area: my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester, for Blaydon and for Liverpool, Walton, and on this occasion let me praise my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith too.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The first time ever.

[Gareth Thomas]

That bit hurt, but we have got to get over it. I am genuinely grateful to have the opportunity to discuss the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment) Regulations 2023. I confess I initially struggled to find the controversy in this statutory instrument, as it seems to be exclusively concerned with replacing slightly outdated legal phrasing for 107 pieces of primary legislation. From what I understand, all this statutory instrument actually does is bring into effect the use of the phrase “assimilated law” instead of the phrase “retained EU law”.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Three weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Justice told me from the Dispatch Box that Russian war crimes would be pursued via Ukrainian domestic courts and the International Criminal Court, even though that denied the possibility of prosecuting Putin and his inner circle for the crime of aggression. At the time, the Attorney General appeared to share his view. Last week the Foreign Office welcomed the special tribunal necessary to try Putin, saying it would “complement established mechanisms”. That is welcome, and I think it is what the Attorney General has said today, but can she—because we know her to be a candid and thoughtful person—explain and confirm what by any definition is a screeching U-turn in Government policy?

[The Attorney General]

I am afraid I really would not describe this as a screeching U-turn—[Interruption.] No, not at all. This is a development in a very difficult area of international law. [Interruption.] I would just listen to this for a moment. It is a very delicate area of international law. This is a live and brutal conflict—we are all agreed on that—and it is right that most of the prosecutions take place in Ukraine, with real-time evidence and with witnesses present. Those prosecutions are going well, and I think we all support the Ukrainian judiciary in that. I hope very much that there will be an international moment of accountability following this war. I suspect that many courts will need to be involved, including both the ICC and any special tribunal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Solicitor General.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I welcome the new Attorney General to her position. However, the backlog is still going up. Last week a solicitor was jailed for 12 years for a £10 million fraud after a private prosecution that was brought because the CPS had taken no action. Last year the prosecution rate for fraud, the most commonly experienced crime, was 0.5%, and for the past five years the average number of prosecutions initiated by the Serious Fraud Office has been four. Is the Attorney General’s solution to the backlog not to prosecute cases at all, and is this not a pathetic record of inaction by a Government who have gone soft on crime?

[The Solicitor General]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s last two points. We all want to see the backlog reduced as quickly as possible, and the Ministry of Justice is leading the development of a cross-Government Crown court recovery plan. It is through, for instance, technology, sentencing blitzes and pre-trial case resolution hearings that we can help to reduce the backlog.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

On that basis, I accept that now is not the time to be mandating the Government to join the EEA under the terms of Lords amendment 51. If negotiations fail, or if they seem to be going nowhere after the June EU meeting, this would be an appropriate issue to be decided in the Trade Bill. Until that point, however, the Prime Minister should be given the chance to negotiate fully and to come back with her proposals for us to consider.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

One reason why we need to make a decision now is that businesses are already relocating. International broadcasting contributes £1 billion to this country and it is prominent in my constituency. It dominates Europe, and it will move to Europe because it will not be able to get the licences that it needs in this country. That is happening now. We cannot wait three or six months.

[Mr Djanogly]

I accept that business wants consistency and answers, and that it wants to know which way it is heading. However, even under the amendment it would not have that, so I still say that we should stick with the Prime Minister, who has her plan.

The Lords amendment on the customs union is a more complicated scenario, as it does not mandate us to join a customs union, as the amendment to the Trade Bill would. Rather, the Lords’ proposal in this Bill is simply that a Minister should lay a report outlining the steps taken to negotiate a customs union. In theory, therefore, the Minister could comply simply by reporting that steps had been taken, even though they were leading nowhere. On the other hand, I appreciate that having this amendment would give some comfort that the Government had not written off a customs union as a fall-back if Brussels were to reject the Prime Minister’s proposals. It also makes a statement that this House rejects the concept of a hard Brexit—a lesson that needs to be understood by many Members of this House.

However, it has been put to us by the Prime Minister that any vote on this issue will, in her opinion, seriously undermine her negotiating position in Brussels. I was told directly that such an amendment could lead Mr Barnier to throw out the Government’s negotiating proposals on the basis that the EU could say that it was being manipulated by them. I would dispute that interpretation, but I also accept that it is ultimately the Prime Minister who is going to negotiate for us on what I believe will be a fair basis.

Furthermore I recognise the Government’s concession a couple of days ago, after no little debate, in allowing the Lords amendment if the words “customs union” were changed to “customs arrangement”. That also needs to be put into the context of the Government’s concession on Northern Ireland in the amendments to Lords amendment 88. Importantly, those amendments require everyone to act with regard to the December 2017 UK-EU joint report. So I suggest that, if we add the “customs arrangement” wording to the Irish compromise in the joint report, which will need to be applied throughout the UK, and throw in the Irish backstop proposals for good measure, we will be much closer to a customs arrangement resembling a customs union than we were before. I note that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and various other hon. Members have made the same point.

For all those reasons, and despite all the confusion, the lack of policy and the Brexiteer antics, I have decided to back the Prime Minister in her June EU meetings, and I will vote with the Government on these amendments.

Belhaj and Boudchar: Litigation Update

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

This has been a shameful episode. The Attorney General is right to express his sympathy and thanks to Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar. He should perhaps extend his sympathies to other victims of rendition such as the al-Saadi family, and his thanks to those who have represented them, such as the Reprieve organisation and Leigh Day solicitors, often in the face of great hostility from some politicians and sections of the press. This case has also shone a light on the Justice and Security Act 2013. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) took that Act through the Commons. I led the Opposition in Committee, and we expressed grave concerns about the ambit of that Act and the extension of closed material procedures. The Belhaj case over the past five years has justified those criticisms. Is this not the time to review that Act and the extent of closed material procedures, particularly if they look like they will encroach on criminal as well as civil proceedings?

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Gentleman heard me say that the process of resolving this case has taken considerable effort by not just the claimants themselves and others in the Government, but lawyers on both sides, and I am happy to repeat that. In relation to closed material proceedings, I am not sure that I would go as far as he does; I do not believe that this case demonstrates the lesson that he draws from it. I hope he will forgive me if I do not return to the arguments of 2013 around the Bill, not least because I wish to preserve the sanity of my right hon. and learned Friend, the Father of the House.

European Convention on Human Rights: UK Membership

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I certainly agree that there have been cases in both Luxembourg and Strasbourg with which we have found difficulty and which we have sought to contest. It is certainly right, as my hon. Friend suggests, that not everything about our membership of the European Union is wonderful, and the Home Secretary made that point very clearly yesterday. However, it is a question of deciding whether, on balance, it is right or wrong to be in the European Union—whether, on balance, it is better or worse for the United Kingdom to be there—and he and I have come to different conclusions on that.

On my hon. Friend’s specific point about the charter of fundamental rights, he will know that the charter covers areas where European law is applicable; it does not cover other areas, so it is not quite the same as our membership of the European convention on human rights.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

One thing we can say about this Government is that we are not short of a choice of policy on the European convention on human rights. The Prime Minister reminded us yesterday that he wants to see reform of the ECHR—not, we note, withdrawal. The former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who is on the sensible wing of the Tory party, called the ECHR a

“central pillar of foreign policy.”

When the Ministry of Justice clarified its position in February—that took some time—its line was:

“Our plans do not involve leaving the convention”—

and the Justice Secretary has repeated that today. However, the Home Secretary was absolutely clear yesterday that we should leave the ECHR, whatever the outcome of the EU referendum. What status do the Home Secretary’s remarks have? Are they Government policy? Do they bind the MOJ and the Government, or is it just the Home Office that is coming out of the convention?

It is always a pleasure to see the Attorney General, and I mean no disrespect when I say that this is rather like “Hamlet” without the prince—or the princess. Why could the Home Secretary, or even the Lord Chancellor, not have clarified Government policy, as they have caused the confusion? [Interruption.] It would be comic if it were not tragic.

The Home Secretary has set out a series of legal nonsenses. She claims there is no connection between the EU and the ECHR, but it is a requirement of EU membership that countries joining the EU sign up to the ECHR. She elides the fact that European Court of Human Rights judgments are advisory and that the UK Parliament remains sovereign. She wrongly dismisses the importance of Britain’s membership of the convention as an example to Putin and his ilk, downplaying this country’s record on human rights and its influence in Europe. She also ignores the success of the Human Rights Act in incorporating the ECHR into UK law, giving a remedy to vulnerable people suffering discrimination.

I thought the legal, moral and practical arguments had persuaded the Government to abandon attempts to leave the ECHR. We are not going to deal with the legal and technical arguments today, but will the Attorney General say when the consultation will be published so that we can get down to that? Will he at least clarify today what the Government’s policy is? If what the Home Secretary said is not Government policy, what is the status of her remarks? Are they just a stump speech for the Tory party leadership?

[The Attorney General]

It is, of course, an immense pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman too. I pass over what I am sure my hon. Friends, at least, will regard as the supreme irony of being lectured by a member of the Labour party about unity and common purpose.

What the hon. Gentleman will find is that I am saying, the Home Secretary is saying and the Lord Chancellor is saying that the status quo on human rights law is not acceptable so we are bringing forward proposals for reform. We will do that when they are ready. The contrast is marked between what Conservative Members say, which is that there is a deficit of common sense in much of human rights law, and what Labour Members say, which is that the status quo is fine, all is well and we should leave it all alone. The hon. Gentleman will find that many of his constituents, like many of mine, do not think the status quo is acceptable and do wish to see reform. That is what we had a mandate for in the general election, and that is what this Government will deliver.

Legal aid

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Riordan, and to be opposite the Solicitor-General. It has been a privilege to listen to so many well-informed speakers from both sides. Although it invidious to pick out people, I will do so by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) showed their decades of experience in dealing with such matters. I hope that the Minister will listen to them and to other contributions that are made during the consultation process, and realise that mistakes have been made in the proposals to cut legal aid.

I pay tribute, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who is standing down as chair of the all-party group on legal aid, for her unrivalled record in pursuing such matters and for securing the debate today. Like her, I will mention my not-for-profit agencies. For the past 20 years, I have had the pleasure of serving on the management committee of Hammersmith and Fulham community law centre, which does a fantastic job. Threshold housing advice and the Shepherds Bush advice centre were also excellent but were closed this year because of the withdrawal of local authority funding. The law centre, too, has lost all its local authority funding and is therefore under threat. I am talking about a pattern that is all too familiar.

The practitioners of legal aid, many of whom are here today, will be among the most astute and trenchant critics of all Governments when it comes to supporting the service. Even they would concede that Labour Governments, over the 60 years since the service was introduced, have—perhaps by taking two steps forward and one step back at times—increased the scope and eligibility of legal aid. Having said that, and, to save the legs of any Members on the Government Benches who want to stand up and read the Whips’ briefing about what we would cut, I shall add, “Yes, we were in a period of retrenchment and yes, there would have been cuts.”

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Slaughter]

I will not give way because there is only a short time left. There would have been cuts under a Labour Government. In some respects, we would have made cuts to private family law, although we should look again at the definition of domestic violence, as the hon. Member for South Swindon said. We would, I think, have taken a much more forensic look at criminal legal aid, which has just been brushed over. However, we would not have made cuts to social welfare legal aid. I pay tribute here to Lord Bach who, over a period of years as Minister, supported, defended and spoke out for social welfare law, and, as a Government, we did a very good job in protecting it and we would have gone on protecting it. Given the short time that we have to debate this subject, I shall devote my remaining comments to that area and follow the lead given by Members speaking today.

The briefing from the citizens advice bureau states that

“proposals to exclude most social welfare law issues from scope will mean over half a million fewer people getting help every year”.

That is the first statistic. What types of people are we talking about? Many examples of them have been cited this morning, including parents going to special educational needs tribunals; tenants facing problems of harassment or disrepair; disabled people whose welfare benefits have been cut; and people who have been unfairly dismissed. In the vision section—I am sure that no irony was intended—of the business plan for the Department, it says the aim of the programmes is to have a legal aid system

“that supports those at greatest risk, not those who are most litigious.”

Rather than being the “most litigious”, I see such people as being the most vulnerable in society.

When the Lord Chancellor made his statement to the House on 15 November, he talked about the back-to-basics principle of the Green Paper. This is very basic indeed. A truer account was given in the Sunday Telegraph the day before—if one wants the fullest account of Government policy, one should always look in the papers the day before the statement is made to the House. The Sunday Telegraph, which is no great friend of legal aid, said:

“Legal Aid for civil cases will all but disappear.”

I do not think that that is an exaggeration. There are to be cuts of 23% in the Ministry of Justice, which is one of the highest cuts of any Department, and a cut of a third in the civil legal aid budget and a 42% projected fall in the income of legal aid practitioners. The impact assessment that goes with the Green Paper says that there will be a cut of up to 92% in the legal aid funding for the not-for-profit sector.

How can the Minister defend, or explain, cuts of that order, which effectively wipe out the not-for-profit sector? Effectively, there will be a 15% cut in the CAB’s funding. For law centres, there could be a cut of up to 50%. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) pointed out, the financial inclusion fund faces an uncertain future. What is the future of that fund in the new financial year, because it alone provides 10% of CAB funding? Moreover, it was praised by the National Audit Office very recently as providing good value for money and a high-quality service.

I do not have time to go through each area of practice. I am very grateful—and I am sure that the Minister is—for the briefings that have been provided by Shelter on housing, the Special Educational Consortium and many others because they highlight the effect that these cuts will have on issues such as disrepair, allocations and the challenging of rogue landlords. The SEC’s briefing gets rid of the idea that it is a litigious organisation or that it is intent on making mischief and going to court for no reason. It states that

“most parents win their appeals (82%) once they reach the Tribunal itself, and in 30% of registered appeals the local authority concedes before the case reaches Tribunal stage.”

That is very much the case as regards clinical negligence as well. We must look at the defendants in many of these cases and consider why they are fighting them. A highly respected practice of clinical negligence solicitors told me that once legal aid is withdrawn, it will not be economic for it to take cases in which damages will be less than £100,000.

In the few moments that I have left, let me run through a few of the practical problems that the Government have not addressed when they put forward their glib response to making cuts in this area of civil legal aid. Some 10 problems have occurred to me over the course of 10 minutes. Will other agencies pick up the cases that will no longer be covered by legal aid? The Government say that the Child Poverty Action Group, Age UK, Shelter and the Disability Alliance will, but have they been approached and what have they said in response? We have been told about other funding streams. I began my remarks by talking about what had happened in my own constituency and that picture is repeated all over the country. Other funding streams have already been cut. Law centres are surviving on funding from the Legal Services Commission, because local authority funding has already been cut.

Several Members have explained that such matters are complex and often inter-related. A debt problem often arises because there has been a benefit or employment problem. Tackling one but not the other is not an option. What about the economic viability of the not-for-profit sector? Is it feasible for the Government to make swingeing cuts but cherrypick the parts that will remain? I do not believe that it is, or that many law centres or private firms will survive under such a situation.

The issues of self-representation have been raised by Ministers in regard to this matter. In response to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), the Minister with responsibility for legal aid said:

“In most cases individuals will be able to”—

this is talking about welfare benefits—

“prepare their appeal to the First-Tier (Social Security and Child Support) Tribunal without formal legal assistance.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 115W.]

I am afraid that the Government are living in cloud cuckoo land, and their own figures do not support that claim. Some 40% of cases going to incapacity benefit appeals are successful with no representation and 67% are successful with representation. One of the solicitors firms that briefed us in preparation for this debate said that it had an 82% success rate in challenging employment support allowance cases, as against a national average of 40% where there is no representations.

The gateway has been mentioned. There is nothing wrong with telephone advice, but it cannot take the place of advice that is provided in person. With telephone advice, documents cannot be shown and people who have learning or language difficulties simply cannot use the telephone for that service.

Vulnerable people are not considered in this Green Paper. Unlike in the Bradley report in 2009, which dealt with people with learning difficulties and mental health difficulties in the criminal law system, no regard seems to have been given to those people in the Green Paper. Little regard has been given to the equality impact assessment, as demonstrated by the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North. The eligibility criteria are so restrictive that very few people will get any access to free advice in this sector at all. The cost issues have also been raised, including the fact that this change is, in effect, a false economy that will cost more in the long run than it saves.

Another point that has not been raised yet is the fact that courts and tribunals will be clogged by litigants appearing in person and legal practitioners—the Solicitor-General was a legal practitioner for many more years than I was—will realise that this change will be a nightmare for the judicial and court system.

Those are only a few of the issues that need to be raised. I hope that the Solicitor-General can respond to many of those points and if he cannot do so, I hope that he will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North and to other Members who have taken part in this debate.

This is only the beginning of the debate on legal aid; the debate will continue until the end of the consultation period, in the first instance. However, I hope that the Government realise that there are serious issues that have not been properly addressed in the Green Paper and they need to be addressed if we are to have a continuing civil legal aid system in this country.