Football Governance Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

Yes, that is right; the regulator has to take into account the views of fans and look at the proposals. If it considers the proposals to be good, that change can take place.

Under the new regulator, fans will no longer face the prospect of seeing their club signing up to ill-thought-out proposals, such as the European super league, which several Premier League clubs tried to join in 2021. The House was united in recognising that those proposals for the new competition were fundamentally uncompetitive and would have undermined the football pyramid, against the wishes of fans. This regulator will prevent that kind of closed-shop league from ever getting off the ground.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I respect what the Secretary of State is trying to do, but there is a huge inequality of arms between billionaire owners of clubs and fans’ organisations. I have been the MP for Queens Park Rangers for nearly 20 years, but my small borough also contains Chelsea and Fulham, and in my political lifetime all three of those clubs have faced either being folded up by greedy owners or losing their ground in perpetuity. I do not see what in the Bill is going to prevent that from happening in the future.

[Lucy Frazer]

All the measures in the Bill, cumulatively, will ensure that clubs are well managed and run; therefore, they will be there and will not go into financial insolvency and administration, which decimates communities. All the measures we have set out, be it the owners and directors test, or the measures to ensure that clubs have a financial plan, will ensure that clubs are properly run. We are introducing the Bill to ensure that the situation whereby we have had 64 administrations since the Premier League was founded in 1992 is not continued. We are not saying that clubs are never going to get into financial difficulty, but we are saying that we are going to put a strong framework in place to ensure that all constituents can be confident that their clubs will have a certain level to which their business is run—that they will be run well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who says that the Bill is about financial resilience. Obviously, Bristol Rovers is my local club, and I listen to what it has to say, but I also listen to what fans across the country have to say, and they are clearly very upset about that decision. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made his views on this extremely clear, because we really think that replays are part of the game. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He has said that replays are an important part of our game, and we can hear that in the reactions of my right hon. and hon. Friends behind me. However, as the hon. Gentleman says, replays are not part of this Bill, and we are focused on financial resilience. He will know how much I have enjoyed being at Bristol Rovers. I was on the terraces only the other week watching them lose to Reading, but that is part of the joy of football—that and the pies—isn’t it?

I want to talk about how revenue is distributed throughout the football pyramid, because that is an important consideration of this Bill. One of the many ways the Bill sets out a future for the regulator is on financial distribution. It is down to the leagues themselves to reach a deal on broadcast revenue distribution, but it saddens us all that, at the moment, a deal still seems a long way off. It seems that there has been something of a breakdown in communication. I have met many of the interested parties and listened to concerns, and I appreciate that this is complex and not easy, but I urge both sides to come to an agreement.

However, if those negotiations cannot result in a deal once the Bill is enacted and the regulator is in operation, the regulator will have the power to select one of the two options put forward by the parties. That important backstop power should be used as a last resort, but it is clearly important that such a power exists. Given how important the backstop is, will the Minister say what work has been undertaken to ensure that that specific part of the Bill works in practice? Is it legally watertight? Are there questions that still have to be answered? From my engagement with stakeholders there seem to be many important questions that still need to be answered and we will be exploring them further in Committee, but will the Minister give us a bit more of an indication at this stage regarding what work has been done and what that will mean in reality?

Proportionality will be key for us all. As many Members across the House have said, we want the game to succeed and to continue in the great future that it has for the whole country. Proportionality is important. With all legislation and regulation we must strike the right balance, and nowhere more so than with the licensing scheme for clubs. That is the mechanism through which a majority of the regulation and enforcement will be delivered, and it is right that the regulator will be able to tailor a club’s obligations proportionately, especially when it comes to clubs in the national league—many hon. Members represent constituencies in which there is a national league team. We support an appropriate transition period, to enable clubs to prepare for this process. We must bring clubs of all sizes into the system in an appropriate way.

Colleagues have also mentioned sanctions. As the Bill stands, the regulator will not be able to impose points deductions on clubs that break the rules. Labour backs that decision, but I know how much this issue matters to colleagues across the House and to fans up and down the country who are understandably devastated when their clubs are hit with points deductions as a result of decisions that the fans have no power over. After the formation of the regulator, the leagues will continue to have their own financial rules, and there is nothing to suggest that points deductions for breaches of the league’s own rules will not continue. Nobody wants to see points deductions for corporate or financial mismanagement, least of all fans. I hope, and I know fans hope, that the regulator and licensing scheme will mean that clubs are more financially sustainable, and that breaches of league rules and the associated points deductions are much less likely. Again, if the Minister would like to address that when summing up the debate, that would be helpful.

Football clubs are the pride of our towns and cities. They are an important part of our civic identity and the heart of our communities. New owners often bring important investment, but I know from speaking with clubs that it is about more than that. It is a big responsibility and honour to be the custodian of a football club, and owners should take that seriously. I know that is how it feels for the owner of my local club, Bristol Rovers.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. One other thing that clubs do through their community arms—in the case of QPR that is QPR in the Community Trust—is regenerate an area. In one of the poorest communities in the country we have Andy Evans and his team. It is big business, and they make a massive contribution to the local community. However, they and the club fear that the poor governance and financial inequality of football puts all that at risk. Is that what is at stake in the Bill?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. So many things are at stake in the Bill, which is why it is so important we get it right. I know Fulham well, and the important work done by football community trusts, supporters clubs, and so many people involved in the game who help to regenerate their communities. However, they cannot do that on their own, or if their club is not sustained financially. That is what is at stake, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I have seen that for myself in what Bristol Rovers does for our local community. I met the owner of my local club recently. It was a pleasure to meet him and to hear from him and fans about the importance of growing the club sustainably and investing in the local community. I was impressed to hear the number of ways that the owner, management and fans have engaged with each other and learned from each other. There is always more to do—I am sure all clubs would acknowledge that there is always more they can do to hear what fans have to say, and what their community trusts are doing, as well as how they can be enabled and supported to do more of what they do so well.

Although the vast majority of owners act in the best interests of their club, some do not. That is why Labour has been calling for new checks on owners and directors. The Bill stipulates that those checks will: look into whether prospective new owners have sufficient financial resources to be a suitable owner; review their finances to ensure they are sound; check whether prospective owners behave with honesty and integrity; and assess officers’ competence and whether an owner’s source of wealth is connected to serious criminal conduct. Again, will the Minister address those points when summing up the debate? What does all that mean in practice? The Bill is not clear whether the tests will be objective or subjective in nature, and some of them appear to be distinctly subjective. How will the tests be conducted and what will the criteria be? Will that issue be addressed in Government guidance or the regulations? Does the Minister expect it to be addressed in the code? I would be grateful if he clarified that.

Media Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

There are a number of new clauses and amendments in my name that I wish to speak to, but principally among them I will speak to amendment 2, which relates to the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Acts 2013. With the will of the House, I will press the amendment to a Division later today, but first I will briefly address some of the other amendments.

Amendment 1 is not actually linked to the debate about section 40, or indeed the Leveson inquiry; it is about something very different. It simply states that Ofcom, when considering and assessing the public service remit, should also have regard to the framework convention on national minorities. That is because the current framework acknowledges the importance of languages in this country and their recognition under the framework convention on minority languages, but it omits the framework convention on national minorities. That is of particular importance to places such as Cornwall, Scotland and Wales, where the culture and identity goes beyond just language. I hope the Government will consider addressing this matter in the other place as the Bill progresses.

New clause 3 addresses the simple reality that although the Government have said that they intend to repeal section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, Ministers have confirmed to me that the Government remain committed to the continued existence of the royal charter on self-regulation of the press. That royal charter was established by David Cameron when he was Prime Minister, in response to the recommendations of the Leveson inquiry. Conservative Members voted to put in place section 40 in order to create an incentive to join the royal charter. Given that the Government have said that they want to repeal section 40, which created that incentive, but that they remain absolutely committed to keeping the royal charter, surely they should at the very least have a call for evidence to examine what other possible incentives might encourage publishers to join that royal charter.

If the Government did not believe in the royal charter on self-regulation of the press, they would simply bring forward Orders in Council to disband the royal charter, as is provided for under article 10 of the charter. The Government do not want to do that, so if they remain committed to the royal charter, let us at least explore those options. They could include giving publishers access to arbitration so that they can get a fairer share of the advertising revenue for the news content they produce. That remains an open problem; some Government legislation seeks to address it, but it could go further.

I wish to focus principally on amendment 2, since that is the one I intend to press to a Division. The amendment would simply put in place a more precise cut to deliver the Government’s objectives. Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 had two parts. The first part—subsection (2)—created an incentive for publishers to join because it gave them protection against those with deep pockets. There was a carrot and a stick in section 40. The carrot was that if, for the sake of argument, a Russian oligarch threatened a publisher and said, “We’re going to get Carter-Ruck to write expensive letters to you. We will see you in court if you publish this,” that publisher would have had protection because they would have been able to say to the rich and powerful, “We have confidence in our story and are going to run it, and if you don’t like the story, we will see you in arbitration; we won’t see you in court. If you insist on taking us to court and bypassing that arbitration, you will pay the publisher’s costs as well as your own.”

That was the carrot—the bit that the press never objected to. No one ever raised an objection to that. But there was also a stick—subsection (3) of section 40. The stick basically said that publishers who do not join a recognised regulator have more cost exposure to ordinary citizens who have had their lives and privacy violated and have no redress other than to bring legal action. The press never objected to the carrot; they only ever objected to the stick. Because they are a glass-half-empty type of industry, they of course tended to focus on the bit they did not like rather than the bit they did like, and they lobbied furiously to have that part of section 40 removed.

Then we come to the 2017 Conservative manifesto—let us be honest: it was not the best manifesto the party has ever drafted. Probably due to a drafting error, that manifesto pledged not just to remove subsection (3) of subsection 40, which was all that was required and which would have delivered the spirit of that manifesto commitment, but committed to remove the entirety of section 40, which was completely unnecessary.

Amendment 2 would remove the stick but retain the carrot. It would remove subsection (3) of section 40. In that, it would deliver everything the press have ever wanted, and therefore also satisfy the Government’s intentions.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

This is a point that I have often made. The hon. Gentleman’s “carrot”, as he calls it, seems very similar to anti-SLAPP legislation, which has been welcomed generally on both sides of the House, and I cannot see why anyone who supports anti- SLAPP legislation would not also support amendment 2. I certainly will support it and I hope that it gets support across the House.

[George Eustice]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Anyone who truly believes in a free press, as he and I do, would want to ensure that we can protect genuine investigative journalism, and that the rich and powerful would not be able to intimidate and bully publishers with limited financial resources—many of them losing money—into not running a story that was essentially true.

Were amendment 2 to be agreed to, those publishers that chose not to sign up to a recognised regulator would have nothing to lose; they would be no worse off than they are today. Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, has had a very strong position that he would never join a recognised regulator. It would be open to him not to; he would be no better and no worse off than he is today, as if something ended up in litigation he would not be paying both sides’ costs.

A publication such as Private Eye, which famously has never joined anything, would also be free to stand aloof from any kind of regulator, and it would be no better or worse off than it is today. Publications such as The Daily Mail, which have wealthy benefactors standing behind them—people with deep pockets who are willing to pay for litigation and backfill the loses that such companies make—would be no better or worse off than they are today, in that they could decide not to join a regulator.

However, those small, plucky publishers that do not have wealthy benefactors standing behind them, and that seek to do genuine investigative journalism that might attract the attention of those threatening legal action, would have the option of joining a recognised regulator, so that they could get protection against that type of strategic litigation brought by the rich and powerful—people with deep pockets—against them.

So I say to the Minister that I can deliver everything that the Government seek, in a way that is fitting with the spirit of the Conservative manifesto but that keeps open the option of small publishers being able to gain some protection.

Let me remind the House why we ended up with section 40 in the first place. There was a public outcry about what was called the phone-hacking scandal—the widespread recognition that a culture had developed that enabled publishers to hack into people’s phones. It was David Cameron, the Conservative Prime Minister, who established the Leveson inquiry. It was David Cameron who chose Lord Justice Leveson to chair it, because Lord Justice Leveson was known as somebody who was not hostile to the press. Lord Justice Leveson invested huge amounts of his time in coming up with a very sensible set of proposals. It was David Cameron who then said we would implement those proposals, with cross-party support from all parties in this House, and it was the Conservative Whips Office that actually whipped the Conservative side of the House to implement section 40, as David Cameron wished to happen.

Let us remember that in that Leveson inquiry, dozens of victims of phone hacking came forward to give evidence, and they did so because the Prime Minister had set up an inquiry and they felt that it was sincere and genuine, and that they could contribute. We all have had constituency cases in which people have been through extraordinary tragedy, and it is painful for them; but often people who have been through such tragedy want to know that something good has come from it. Many of those witnesses who gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry were the parents of children who had been murdered, who had had their life rifled through by the media, and they wanted something good to come out of that; so they went through the trauma and the painful experience of sharing those experiences, to try to help Parliament wrestle its way to a sensible compromise.

So let us have no nonsense from the Government Front Bench, trying to create some sort of wedge issue. This is a provision that the Conservative Government put in place, and the royal charter on self-regulation was a very Conservative approach to dealing with the challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who, like me, is a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He speaks with authority on many of these issues, although I did not agree with everything he said. However, I certainly agree with him about broadcasting highlights of major sporting events, and I hope the Government are listening.

I welcome the position taken by Labour Front Benchers, who have said they will support amendment 2. I am delighted that they have been listening to those of us who have been involved in this issue for a number of years and who have supported the work of Hacked Off. I claim only a minor supporting role; other Opposition Members have done far more than I have. None the less, I have been at those meetings and in those discussions. At times, I have taken part in debates in which I have committed to support the aims and objectives of people who have been fighting hard through Hacked Off, and I am delighted that we are not closing the door on them completely today.

I commend the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) not just for his amendments, but for the way he has negotiated with others on this issue to get us to what I consider to be a compromise position—one that can allow us to go forwards and not close the door completely on the issue of an independent press complaints system. As he described earlier, his amendments remove the stick element, which is the element that is most opposed by people working in the press. I think it would have given them the incentive to join a proper independent complaints system. None the less, it is a sticking point and, in this compromise, removing it is the right thing to do at this stage.

Then there is the issue of the carrot. Many of us have taken part in debates in this place about SLAPP orders, which enable those with a great deal of wealth at their disposal to abuse our legal system in order to shut down independent reporting that exposes wrongdoing and shines a light into the places that need it.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend underestimates his own role in this area, which has been very strong. I suspect that, like me, he wishes that we were seeing section 40 commenced rather than repealed today, as I am sure do the McCanns, the Dowlers, Christopher Jefferies and all the other historical victims of press abuses. Given that we are going for the carrot rather than the stick—the carrot is better than nothing—can my hon. Friend explain why there is not universal support for that across the House?

[Clive Efford]

I will leave it to others to explain why they are adopting their position, but I do take issue with some of the assertions that have been made by some Government Members, who say that the current system is an improvement on what we had before. As I pointed out earlier, the IPSO system received over 14,000 complaints in 2021, but only 88 of them, or 0.6%, were upheld—less than 1%. I challenge anyone to say that it is a satisfactory situation to have so few complaints upheld.

I met a mother, Mandy Garner, for the first time yesterday. Her daughter was killed in a hit-and-run. In the 24 hours after Mandy was given the news and tried to relay it to her family, the Daily Mail went down to the scene of the crime and managed to purchase CCTV footage from a nearby shop that showed the accident taking place. The Daily Mail did not actually show the moment of impact in the media, but within that 24 hours, it posted that recording for people to watch under a clickbait headline.

That happened in 2020, 10 years after Hacked Off started its campaign. Mandy described her experience in an article:

“the Daily Mail published the CCTV footage of my daughter’s last moments the morning after her death with a lurid clickbait headline—just as we were trying to explain to our other children what had happened. I complained that it was an intrusion into grief and therefore in breach of IPSO’s code on this. I thought it was an open and closed case. Clearly, it was a breach. If it wasn’t, what actually would constitute a breach?”

Months of to-ing and fro-ing with the Daily Mail followed, while Mandy was mourning her daughter. She went on:

“Eventually…IPSO ruled that it was not a breach of their code. One of the reasons given was that you couldn’t make out my daughter’s face because the footage was ‘grainy’”.

There was nothing about how the footage would impact on the people who knew what had happened and knew who was involved, or about the family’s concern that the brothers and sisters of the young woman who had died would see the footage. If that is a satisfactory complaint system, I fail to understand what people think we were seeking to achieve when we went through all of Leveson and supported setting up the royal commission.

Media Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I was pleased to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and to take part in a session on his local radio station. As he knows, the BBC is operationally and editorially independent but, of course, local news is important. We have measures in this Bill to protect local news.

Because listeners increasingly listen to radio using smart speakers, the Bill will require that major smart speakers ensure that the UK radio stations that listeners love remain available on request. The Bill will also remove a number of outdated and burdensome regulations that are holding back the commercial radio sector, while strengthening protections for local news and information.

Finally, one of my central priorities as Secretary of State is to protect media freedom so that our world-leading media can continue to thrive. The Bill has media freedom at its core. One of its most significant measures is the removal of a long-standing threat to that freedom by repealing section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Section 40 and the possibility of publishers having to pay the legal costs of the people who sue them, even if they win, has hung over our media like a sword of Damocles. The Bill removes the sword for good.

The Labour party, of course, is no friend of the free press. The shadow Secretary of State has, in the past, called for boycotts of some of this country’s most well-respected papers. The Labour party has accused the Government of muddying the waters of this crucial legislation by including the repeal of section 40, but for us the water is clear. The position is clear: we will protect our free press.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

At Justice questions earlier today, the Government were again lauding anti-SLAPP legislation that protects small publishers and investigative journalists from oppressive conduct by wealthy individuals and organisations. That is exactly what section 40 does, and the Minister has completely mischaracterised it. Is it not inconsistency, amounting to hypocrisy, to repeal that provision?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable on this point, and I am always grateful for his interventions. I am proud that, together with the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), I have brought forward provisions to strengthen the anti-SLAPP regime via a taskforce. The Ministry of Justice has proposed further legislation and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who is extremely knowledgeable, will know that currently it applies only to economic crime. Section 40 applies across the board, and SLAPPs are strategic lawsuits of a particular client, so repealing section 40 is necessary. I am proud to be bringing forward that repeal in this Bill.

I am sure that today we will hear significant contributions on this important Bill, and I look forward to the debate. We should be under no illusions about the urgent need to press ahead with reforms. Success today is never a guarantee of success tomorrow, and it is our job, as a Government and as a House, to enact reforms that keep our broadcasters at the top of their game in the years ahead. That is what the Bill will do: levelling the playing field, removing threats to the media’s sustainability, and opening up opportunities for them to maximise their potential and unlock growth. I commend this Bill to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

Of course, the sentencing of such individuals is a matter for our independent criminal justice system, but we have an offence of nuisance on the statute books, as well as offences such as obstructing the public highway, the powers of which have been increased to 12 months’ imprisonment. The Public Order Bill is going through Parliament, which I was rather surprised that the Opposition did not support. As I have said, we are determined that those who seek to disrupt the normal lives of citizens meet the full force of the law. That is what should happen and that is what is happening. The Crown Prosecution Service and the police, as the operationally independent authorities, are working extremely hard in close partnership to bring those people to justice and see that they receive the punishment that they richly deserve.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I welcome the latest team of Law Officers to their places? I think I missed a stray Solicitor General in the summer recess, between the incumbent and the hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), but it is very hard to keep up these days.

We all know there are well-trusted laws to criminalise this type of behaviour, but is the Conservative party now opposed to all public protest and free speech? Reading its 2019 manifesto, I would have expected to see the Solicitor General and the Attorney General on the picket line opposing fracking, but last night they voted to allow fracking to go ahead, including, I presume, in their constituencies. If the Law Officers are prepared to break a clear promise in such a blatant and cynical way, what example does that set to others in upholding the rule of law?

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Gentleman’s question is not of course on point to the question asked, but the reality of the matter is that the Labour party is embarrassed by the fact that it is on the side of the protesters, rather than those people who wish to go about their lawful duties, and that is why it did not support the Public Order Bill. The offence of public nuisance is available, it has a wide array of penalties available to it and we know the courts will use those powers. I think the Labour party ought to focus on supporting the British public, who wish to go about catching trains, driving along roads and going about their lawful business.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

Actually, what we are seeing as a result of pioneering operations such as Soteria is a closer collaboration between police and prosecutor. What we know works is when a prosecutor has a good, clear case strategy, has a grip of the case and has properly identified the challenges, and when the police are supportive and involved in the investigation. Close collaboration, early investigative advice and support for the victim is what will cut down the timelines and ensure that victims get justice in a swifter way. That is why I am very proud of the section 28 roll-out.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The last time we debated this issue in this Chamber, the Attorney General told me that

“any allegation of domestic abuse or sexual assault on victims is horrendous. On no account does anyone in this Government condone that behaviour.”—[Official Report, 26 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 414.]

So why did the Attorney General not call for the Prime Minister’s resignation when she found out that he had turned a blind eye to an allegation of sexual assault by one of his own Ministers, but did call for his resignation to launch her bizarre leadership campaign live on TV last night? Does that not just sum up how she has debased the office she holds and put political ambition before the rule of law?

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Gentleman could have asked about domestic abuse victims; he could have asked about RASSO; he could have asked about crime prevention and keeping the British people safe. Instead, he used his opportunity to score cheap political points—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. He is a doughty campaigner on this subject and I commit to looking more into what can be done.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I add my welcome to our friends from Ukraine?

In January, the Attorney General told the House:

“This Government take tackling domestic abuse and hate crime extremely seriously”.—[Official Report, 6 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 142.]

Why, therefore, has she spent the months since then taking the BBC through the High Court to protect an MI5 informant who attacked one partner with a machete and another partner predicted will kill a woman if he is not challenged and exposed? One of his victims is now taking her case to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, but does this not demand a fuller investigation? Rather than disregard the interests of domestic violence victims where the security services are involved, will the Attorney General support an inquiry by the Intelligence and Security Committee into the handling of this case and whether it raises wider concerns that agents are able to use their status to evade criminal responsibility?

[The Attorney General]

Of course, any allegation of domestic abuse or sexual assault on victims is horrendous. On no account does anyone in this Government condone that behaviour. I was very pleased with the result at court of our application for an injunction, because there are national security interests, and it is vital that those are balanced in any matter.

The Government are taking huge steps to support victims of domestic abuse. We passed a landmark piece of legislation, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which brought in key measures, key duties and investment to support those who are victims of this heinous crime. I hope the Labour party will get behind that ongoing work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. He has almost taken the words out of my mouth. I am very pleased in my capacity as leader of the Bar to be working with the Bar Council. There is a huge opportunity to build on the wealth of expertise in the English legal system. We have renowned experts in public international law, and I echo the call made by the chairman of the Bar for all of those in private practice who wish to serve, whether through working with the ICC or to support the Ukrainian Prosecutor General, to get in touch with the Bar Council and the Law Society so that we can channel their efforts to the best possible use.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Levelling Up Secretary has been boasting for weeks that the Government will seize oligarchs’ mansions, but they have no idea how to do so legally, and by the time they work it out the culprits will be clean away. The Justice Secretary is a sudden convert to anti-SLAPP legislation, biting the hands that used to feed the Tory party, but shows no urgency to legislate. The Attorney General is investigating her own Serious Fraud Office for failures to prosecute, yet the SFO is so starved of money that its yearly budget would not buy one of Abramovich’s yachts. It is pathetic. Do the Government lack the means to bring international criminals to justice, or do they just lack the will?

[The Attorney General]

I am very disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s charge, which is completely unfounded. The reality is that the actions that we have taken are world leading. We introduced emergency legislation not so long ago. We are considering the confiscation of assets, of course at all times within the legal remits and according to due process. What we are doing, and the effect of our actions, is clear: we are starving the oligarchs and those who are funding Putin’s murderous activities of access to their finance. We are going after his corrupt cronies and key businesses directly. We are paralysing the military-industrial complex, and that will be how we strangle the economic funding for this brutal activity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

We will of course look into that case. Sentencing is a matter for the independent courts, but there is a power to refer cases if they are unduly lenient. I am happy to give that case close attention.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Lord Agnew resigned as a Government Minister because the Treasury

“appears to have no knowledge of, or little interest in, the consequences of fraud to our economy or society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2022; Vol. 818, c. 20.]

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy should resign for saying that fraud is not a crime people experience in their day-to-day lives, but what about the Law Officers’ culpability? Will the Solicitor General tell us why, according to the latest figures we have obtained from his Department, the Crown Prosecution Service has cut the number of specialist fraud prosecutors by more than a quarter in the past six years, from 224 at the end of 2015 to 167 at the end of 2021?

[The Solicitor General]

I send our best wishes to the shadow Attorney General as she recovers.

The hon. Gentleman is not right in the way he characterises the Government’s approach. He did not mention, as I respectfully suggest he ought to have, the £100 million that was invested in the taxpayer protection taskforce. That is 1,200 staff who have dealt with 13,000 inquiries in respect of fraud and recovered £500 million already and expect to recover significantly more. It is not just about the CPS; what about the National Cyber Security Centre, which took down 73,000 scams last year? I am pleased to note that the CPS has received an additional 12% in funding over the course of this spending review period. It is ramping up its capability and taking the fight to fraudsters.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

The Prime Minister has made his position clear and I am not going to add any more in the light of the live police investigation. The hon. Lady mentioned the rule of law; fundamental to the rule of law is democracy. I am proud to support this Prime Minister, who has honoured democracy by delivering Brexit and is now leading not just the UK but the world in beating covid. Had the Labour party been in charge, it would have cancelled Brexit, not delivered it, and we would have been in more lockdown, not less. On the big calls, Labour gets it wrong.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Thanks for that peroration but, to come back to reality, this week the Leader of the Opposition was obstructed while entering this House by disorder on the streets outside following the Prime Minister’s inflammatory remarks at that Dispatch Box. It is the Attorney General’s job to advise Ministers, including the Prime Minister, on acting in accordance with the rule of law, so what advice does she have now to prevent his behaviour from leading to any further breakdown in law and order?

[The Attorney General]

All violence is unacceptable, and I am grateful to those police officers who stepped in to assist the Leader of the Opposition. No one should have to endure that experience. The Prime Minister has spoken on the subject; I am not going to add any more to his comments. What I will say is that on the big calls Labour gets it wrong, and on the things that matter, this Prime Minister and this Government are leading us through covid and international diplomacy against Russian aggression.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome to the Dispatch Box the shadow Minister, Andy Slaughter.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be shadowing the Solicitor General—we have missed him in Shepherd’s Bush.

Last month the Court of Appeal ruled the conviction of Ziad Akle, prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office, unsafe because there was a material failure of disclosure that significantly handicapped the defence. The court described this as a serious failure by the SFO to comply with its duty and said it was particularly regrettable given that some of the documents withheld had a clear potential to embarrass the SFO. It is difficult to imagine a more damning series of judgments on a prosecuting authority. The Attorney General, having recently expressed full confidence in the director of the SFO, has belatedly announced an inquiry, but the Attorney General superintends the SFO and her office line-manages the director, so will the Solicitor General confirm that this inquiry will be fully independent so that it can examine the Attorney General’s own role in this fiasco as well as that of the SFO and the director?

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his kind welcome. That judgment was a significant one and we take it extremely seriously, but he is wrong to say that there was a delay, because the Attorney General moved very swiftly to institute a far-ranging and sweeping inquiry. That will take place, and it will take its time because we will need to consider extremely carefully what emerges from it. The SFO is an important prosecuting authority; it needs to do its job properly and fairly, and we will make sure it does exactly that.

Events Research Programme

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Commons Chamber

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

My constituency is home to internationally-known theatre and music venues and exhibition centres. They tell me they are still waiting for promised Government funds, an insurance scheme that gives them certainty on reopening and, specifically, the publication of the events research programme report. One industry source told me today that failure to publish

“is both creating confusion and eroding confidence across the events industry.”

What should I tell them, their customers and their staff?

[Nigel Huddleston]

As I mentioned, we are considering the indemnity issues. The sector has had support through, for example, the culture recovery fund, which is a £2 billion fund, as well as other support from Government. The whole purpose of the events research programme was and is to enable the sectors to open as soon as possible.

It is important to stress as well that under step 3 of the road map, indoor events of up to 1,000 people and outdoor events of up to 4,000 people or, in some cases, 10,000 people, can happen. We have not gone back—that is still possible under step 3 of the road map. Many events are taking place right across the country precisely because of that.