Sentencing (Cruelty to Pets)

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) on securing the debate. He has been campaigning assiduously on this issue, and I am sure that his constituents are very grateful to him. I am sure that his cat, which I believe is called Parsnip, is also grateful for the effort he is making.

This is an important matter. Our inboxes this week show, I am sure, how interested the public are in animal welfare. I am sure that, like me, other hon. Members have had several hundred emails about the proposed revisions to the Hunting Act 2004. That confirms for me that we are a nation of animal lovers and that the British public care deeply about animal welfare.

The hon. Member for Sherwood raised the tragic case of a spate of cat poisonings in his constituency. In doing a little research, I found that that is certainly not restricted to his constituency—it is a regular occurrence. Just this year, more than 140 cats have been poisoned across the country. One of the other victims—the hon. Gentleman may know this but I did not until I looked into it—is my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), whose own cat, Jaffa, was poisoned and killed in the same way. I should make it clear, having spoken to my hon. Friend, that it is actually his partner’s cat, but I am sure that it is a loss to the whole family. The fact that several hon. Members have been victims, or at least have concerns about this issue, shows just how common it is becoming.

I worry about the level of animal cruelty. Looking at the Library’s debate pack, which cites some horrific cases, most of them very recent, makes one wonder about the mentality of people who can engage in such actions. Earlier this week, there was a story in the Evening Standard relating to my own constituency. It was about a cat that was thrown out of a car on to the Hammersmith flyover—extraordinary, one may think. There was a happy ending, as it was observed by staff of Notting Hill Housing, who risked their own safety to go out and rescue the cat, now called Bridget and now recovering in hospital, with only a grazed chin, I am told. But it was an extraordinary event, and these are not isolated events—they are very common. I still say that we are a nation of animal lovers, as the response of the public in that case shows, but many cats, dogs and other domestic animals—pets—are not as fortunate as Bridget and are often the victim of horrible treatment, whether through cruelty or negligence, at the hands of owners who end up abusing them.

In anticipation of the debate, I asked the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, a number of parliamentary questions. He confirmed that 752 people were found guilty in 2014 of causing, permitting or failing to prevent unnecessary suffering to animals, but only 76 of those—about 10%—received immediate custody, and I think only about half that number received a custodial sentence of more than three months.

It is clear that the public are increasingly concerned that some sentences do not appear to match the abuse suffered by the animal victims, especially in the case of extreme cruelty. We hear reports from reputable organisations such as the RSPCA, Cats Protection and the International Fund for Animal Welfare about serious neglect, cruelty and violence against animals every day. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is an exemplary piece of Labour legislation, and I believe we can all sign up to it because it advances the cause of animal welfare. We have some of the best animal welfare legislation of anywhere in the world, but that is not to say that sentencing could not be addressed and improved.

The RSPCA states that, during the past five years, the maximum fine imposed on anyone who has been prosecuted under the 2006 Act was a fine of £15,000, which was £2,500 for each of six offences. In the RSPCA’s words, the courts

“increasingly take the position that unless someone can repay a fine and costs incurred within a reasonable period there is no point in imposing large fines. This suggests that the focus should be on prison sentences.”

We have to be slightly careful about saying that, because people might not be able to pay fines, prison is therefore the alternative. Let me suggest two or three alternative avenues that the Minister might like to look at. The hon. Member for Sherwood mentioned that the maximum sentence for some offences is set at 51 weeks. The Government had a change of heart during the progress of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—I served in Committee—in relation to magistrates’ sentencing powers. The previous Labour Government introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the principle that a magistrate should have the power to impose a sentence of up to 12 months for a single offence. We did not activate that section, and the coalition Government proposed to repeal it but, wisely, had a change of heart. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that that section is still not in force. Giving magistrates the power to sentence people for longer on a single offence may be a route to allowing greater sentencing powers on some of the more serious animal welfare offences without making them either-way offences.

[Mark Spencer]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, particularly when he is agreeing with me wholeheartedly, but I think the point is that whatever the maximum sentence is, it has never been implemented for a case of this nature. In one such case, someone had premeditatedly gone out, purchased bait—for want of a better word—and poison and distributed them far and wide. The fact that they received only a very small fine emphasises that some part of the system is not working.

[Andy Slaughter]

There are a number of elements to that, as the hon. Gentleman implies, one of which is the sentencing guidelines. Interestingly, there are sentencing guidelines for some animal cruelty offences and not for others. The advice from the Attorney-General, in answer to a parliamentary question, was that one should read across from those sentencing guidelines to offences for which there are no guidelines. For example, for section 7 offences, which cover poisoning, there are no specific sentencing guidelines, but one should look at guidelines in relation to, say, section 4 offences to see, first, whether existing guidelines are being followed—I am not sure that they are in every case—and, secondly, whether they should be strengthened in any way. That is a matter for the Sentencing Council. The Minister will no doubt want to deal with the use of existing sentencing powers and the question of whether there is any will in the Government to increase sentencing.

There is always danger inherent in the escalation of sentencing powers, not only because of the financial cost of prison places and so forth, but because if we begin to ratchet up sentences for one offence, there will be an immediate demand to do so for others. The Minister might want to look at repeat offending, however. By analogy, we proposed in the previous Parliament that driving while disqualified, which is a summary-only offence, should become an either-way offence with a maximum sentence of two years. Many animal welfare charities advocate a similar proposal for animal cruelty offences, which they think should carry a two-year maximum sentence.

The hon. Member for Sherwood is right that maximum sentences are rarely used. By definition, they are used only in the most serious cases. There is always a discount, usually of up to a third, for a guilty plea, which of course includes remission. Typically, even for a very serious offence with a guilty plea, the offender will receive a four-month sentence and will be out within two months. The only way in which the situation can be remedied, if Parliament’s will is for there to be longer sentences, is to increase the maximum. I am wary of sentence inflation, but in the case of repeat offending, there could be a reason for considering that proposal.

I used the analogy of driving while disqualified because to treat a first offence as a summary-only matter may well be perfectly reasonable. A small minority of people, however, repeatedly abuse the law by driving while disqualified again as soon as they get out of prison, knowing that the maximum that they are likely to get on a guilty plea is another two months inside. That might also apply to the sort of callous and sociopathic people who repeatedly commit serious offences against animals. The Minister might want to consider increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers, and to consider the selective use of either-way offences or the sentencing guidelines. I would be interested to see what he has to say on those matters.

In a similar debate in 2013, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister said:

“The Government deplore acts of animal cruelty and believe that offenders deserve the full force of the courts.”

He expressed his belief that the current legislation was “fit for purpose” and pointed out that judges had

“a great deal of discretion”—[Official Report, 15 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 229-230WH.]

when it came to determining the appropriate sentence for individual cases. That might be what the hon. Member for Sherwood is complaining about—judges may use that discretion in the wrong way.

The Minister in that debate also noted that nobody had been given the maximum sentence available under the law, and that judges would be expected to explain why anyone convicted of animal cruelty offences was not subsequently disqualified from owning or keeping animals. That is an important point. The sentencing guidelines state, in bold type:

“Consider disqualification from ownership of animal”.

I believe that that power is too rarely invoked. I had some personal experience of the matter, because my godson’s young brother’s kitten was savaged and killed in his presence by a dog. The court returned the dog to the owner with a £280 fine, despite the fact that it was a serial offender—or rather, the owner was a serial offender at letting it get out and be abusive in such a way. The dog was being used, effectively, as a weapon, but in such a case or in the case of someone who repeatedly commits animal cruelty, I cannot for the life of me see why any court in its right mind would allow them to continue to keep an animal. I ask the Minister to address whether he feels that the judiciary have heeded his colleague’s words on section 4 and section 7. If not, does he intend to take any actions to encourage the toughening up of the law, or at least of the guidelines? Will he consider asking the Sentencing Council to look at it again?

I would also like the Minister to clarify his position on section 8 offences, which relate to animal fighting. As things stand, the maximum sentence is six months, but it is rarely handed out. Animal fighting offences are some of the most serious offences and there can be very little mitigation for matters such as organised dog fighting. Does the Minister feel that the law in that respect is sufficient, or will he consider reviewing the situation?

There are powers in the 2006 Act to impose deprivation and disqualification orders. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that guidance in that area is updated and republished to ensure that it is used better and more consistently? How can it be right for repeat offenders of animal cruelty, poisoning or fighting to get away without being disqualified from looking after animals and possibly mistreating them again?

I advise the Minister to read the Labour manifesto. His colleagues seem to be dipping into it from time to time, whether it is the Chancellor on minimum incomes or, this morning, the Lord Chancellor on better use of the court estate and amalgamating places where hearings should be held. On animal welfare, we said:

“We will build on our strong record on animal welfare—starting with an end to the Government’s ineffective and cruel badger cull. We will improve the protection of dogs and cats, ban wild animals in circuses, defend the hunting ban and deal with wildlife crime associated with shooting.”

We made six pledges, one of which was to improve the protection of dogs and cats. Our offer on animal welfare was very strong, and I hope the Government are prepared to work with us on achieving some of those aims.

Today we are discussing the protection of domestic pets, and too often we see inadequate dog breeding practices causing suffering to both the animal and its owner. More puppies are being bred than there are good homes available, and large-scale puppy farms and backstreet breeders operate in terrible conditions in which dogs are frequently sick or unsocialised.

[Julian Knight]

The hon. Gentleman has made some fine and balanced points in his interesting speech. On puppy farming, is not one of the points about sentencing and the treatment of offenders that there are major profits to be made for professional breeders and those involved in animal-related issues? He talked about a case that resulted in a £15,000 fine, which is equivalent to five or six puppies of a premium breed. With such potential profits to be made, is it not true that the available sentences and criminal sanctions are inadequate?

[Andy Slaughter]

Indeed, and the maximum £15,000 fine was for six separate offences. Most fines for individual offences are way below that level. I am not sure whether the maximum fine, which was increased to £20,000 by LASPO, is necessarily inadequate. It might just be that the courts are not imposing fines. Fines have to be proportionate, because it is pointless fining people who will never have the means to pay. We perhaps need to find an alternative such as community sentences. There can be no reason for not fining commercial enterprises, or people who are making profits from dog breeding, at or near the maximum.

The unlawful trafficking of puppies with little or no regard for their health means that many fall sick or die shortly after purchase, leaving their owners not only heartbroken but often lumbered with large vets’ bills. Such trafficking also results in unsocialised dogs that present a threat to humans and other animals. Dogs are effectively treated as mere commodities by the people who are selling them. There is ineffective regulation, a lack of information for pet owners and a failure to address irresponsible and cruel breeding practices. The coalition Government struggled with those issues, and I hope the new Government will make headway. If they do, they can count on our support.

We pledged to review the inadequate regulation of the sale and breeding of cats and dogs. Poor breeding and rearing practices contribute greatly to the number of abandoned animals in rescue centres, and tougher sentencing might play a part in stopping animals being abandoned. That will have a beneficial effect down the line, including for animal rescue centres, which do such a fantastic job. We urge the Government to build on the Animal Welfare Act and the strategy we proposed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, just last year, a sentence was handed out to a father and his sons for extreme cruelty to animals. The shock among the community was such that elected representatives such as me, and many others, sought for the case and the sentence to be reviewed. We sought a custodial sentence that reflected the severity of the cruelty. Unfortunately, the reply stated that the judge was unable to give the type of custodial sentence that should have been given because the law did not allow that to happen. What the hon. Gentleman is saying, and what I suspect every other hon. Member has said, is that that needs to be reflected in the law of the land to enable judges, whenever the situation arises, to hand down a custodial sentence that reflects the severity of the cruelty. Society finds the current sentences distasteful when it sees such cruelty. We must ensure that people who commit such crimes receive the correct sentence.

[Andy Slaughter]

As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I hope the Minister will address all those issues in full, including the use of current sentencing powers—not only custodial and financial penalties but preventing offenders from keeping animals and monitoring repeat offenders.

Returning to my point, will the Minister commit to reviewing the existing regulations on the sale and breeding of cats and dogs? This has been an interesting week for animal welfare campaigners, who know that they can always rely on the Labour party. Perhaps they can now also rely on the Scottish National party, but no other mainstream political party can equal our track record on delivering for animals, be they domestic pets or wild animals. Whether it is legislating on hunting with dogs, fighting to protect wild animals that are being exploited in circuses or introducing the Animal Welfare Act, we have a strong legacy.

When the Animal Welfare Act was published, my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), the then Minister with responsibility for animal welfare, said:

“Once this legislation is enacted, our law will be worthy of our reputation as a nation of animal lovers.”

Almost 10 years later, we need to ensure that the Act is working properly in relation to sentencing guidelines, and I offer the Minister our full support in ensuring that that is still the case.

I end by quoting Gandhi:

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

I am glad Bridget is recovering from her traumatic experience and I am glad there are some good stories, but in preparation for this debate I read some harrowing stories of animal cruelty. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s proposals for how we can discourage and punish such cruelty where it continues.

Human Rights Act

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Betts. I congratulate all who have spoken so eloquently today and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing the debate and bringing the matter before the House before the summer recess. I am going to take an unusual course by endeavouring not to take my full 10 minutes. I will do that because the official Opposition’s position is clear, so I would simply be restating it, whereas the Government’s position is unclear and I am sure that the Minister will want the maximum time to be able to elucidate it.

When I was responding to the debate on the Gracious Speech, I made it clear that we will resist any attempt to undermine or repeal the Human Rights Act, or to detach this country from the European convention. More importantly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) made a detailed speech on the subject on 16 June, in which she said:

“The Government has signalled that they want to fundamentally undermine the Human Rights Act. This is what lies behind the announcement in the Queen’s Speech that they would be consulting on a ‘British Bill of Rights’. We think that even the consultation is the start of a slippery slope… I give you my assurance that we are going to be clear with the Prime Minister that he must not go ahead with this. I’ve today written to the Prime Minister demanding that he drops these plans and… Their policy is intellectually incoherent and, worse, it’s wrong in principle.”

It would be at best otiose and at worst lèse majesté for me to amplify or qualify what the leader of the party has said.

The real question for the debate is: what are the Government’s intentions and what is the process to get us there? That is particularly important given the contradictory signals coming from the Government almost daily. Days before the Gracious Speech, the repeal of the Human Rights Act was being presaged as one of the centrepieces of the Queen’s Speech, only to be dropped entirely from the first Session’s legislation. We are now promised a consultation—perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to what form it will take or when it will take place. Will the Minister also publish some of the drafts—I think we are up to about 10 or 14—of the Bill that was being prepared under the coalition Government in private by Martin Howe QC and others on behalf of the Conservative party? Presumably that document will now become a Government one.

The key issue has to be the relationship between the Human Rights Act and the European convention. I will correct, or at least qualify, one thing that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said. He said he hoped that Government policy was not the same as it was last October. I wondered about that, so on 4 June I asked that question specifically of the Leader of the House of Commons—he was the person who produced the original documentation. He responded:

“The Conservative party’s policy on human rights has not changed since last October.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 784.]

For those who have not read the document recently, it states something that will no doubt please the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) about the Council of Europe accepting UK demands:

“In the event that we are unable to reach that agreement, the UK would be left with no alternative but to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, at the point at which our Bill comes into effect.”

Is that now Government policy? It is not inconsistent, for example, with what the Home Secretary said two years ago, although it appeared to be inconsistent with what the Prime Minister was saying. According to press reports, the Prime Minister was somewhat “at odds” with the Home Secretary and the then Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). Now, however, there appears to be some agreement at the top of the Conservative party and the Government that we will at least countenance withdrawal from the European convention, but it is confusing.

The Minister here today gave this response in Justice Questions last week:

“We will legislate for a Bill of Rights to protect our fundamental rights… Our plans do not involve us leaving the convention; that is not our objective”—

only for the sentence to continue—

“but our No. 1 priority is to restore some balance to our human rights laws, so no option is off the table for the future.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 748.]

What is the situation? Within an hour of that reply, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice was on the “World at One” on the BBC saying that it was perfectly possible that we would be withdrawing from the European convention.

I endeavoured to find some record of what the Justice Secretary might have said before coming into his post. This is what I found, from when the convention was incorporated in 2000. I do not know if his views have changed, but interestingly it was written in the context of the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland:

“The Human Rights culture is already spreading in our society, uprooting conventions on which our stability has rested… It supplants common sense and common law, and erodes individual dignity by encouraging citizens to see themselves as supplicants and victims to be pensioned by the state.”

That does not sound like a strong endorsement of human rights, but perhaps the Minister will be able to elucidate in his response.

There are very difficult problems and hurdles. With all due respect to the Chair of the Justice Select Committee, the matters we are discussing are not “theological” ones. Our relationship with supranational law will become an issue if we produce some British Bill of Rights that is the bespoke device of the Justice Secretary and the Minister. Unless they are intending to withdraw from all international treaties and conventions and indeed from the European Court of Justice, whose judgments are far more prescriptive and binding than those of the Strasbourg Court, inevitably there will be two systems running in parallel, a British one and an international one, to both of which our courts will have to pay attention.

The Minister must address the issues raised by the Front-Bench spokesperson for the Scottish National party, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), about the devolved Administrations. He must also address some practical problems, such as how he will get his own colleagues and the House of Lords on board and how—perhaps the central point to have come out of today’s debate—he will explain why any of it is necessary in the first place.

The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has said that most of the problems that have arisen with the European Court of Human Rights over a period of time are in the process of being, or have been, resolved.

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

If it is so impossible to have a British Bill of Rights alongside adherence to the convention, why is it the case that Germany, France and almost every other European country have their own constitutions with enshrined charters of rights that sit quite comfortably alongside adherence to the convention?

[Andy Slaughter]

That question is for the Minister to answer, because we have seen literally nothing from the Government to explain any compatibility. As for the question about “taking into account” raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and how we square the circle between the judgments of the Strasbourg Court, our own higher courts and the sovereignty of Parliament—none of that is in issue any more. The question really, if I may put it back to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), is this: what is wrong with the existing system that allows the law to evolve and the judiciary in this country to influence judgments of the European Court, often in an entirely beneficial way because of the quality of such judgments? Why are we seeking to retreat from, rather than to advance the cause of international law? Why are we seeking not to have the benefit of international law? It seems to be a little England, or little UK approach, and when the hon. Gentleman reflects on it, he might find himself on the side of those who believe that little needs to change, instead of throwing out an honourable tradition of human rights drawn up over many centuries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

I am sure you could.

I also welcome the contribution made by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill). I congratulate him on his election to that post and look forward to being grilled in due course. He counselled us not to treat the Human Rights Act as a holy grail that cannot be questioned. That was a useful injection of common sense into the debate.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who highlighted some of the cases under the HRA that have been of concern to his party. He raised in particular the application of article 8 with regard to deportation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) made some powerful points on section 2 of the Act and on extraterritorial jurisdiction. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) raised the difficult issue of the balance between liberty and security. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) discussed judicial legislation from Strasbourg—he has huge experience of that as a result of his representation on the Council of Europe.

There were other excellent speeches to which I cannot pay individual tribute, but I should also acknowledge the speech made by the shadow Minister, who reiterated his party’s position and lamented the lack of detail in the Government’s current proposals. I say to him gently that one issue with the Human Rights Act, arguably, is that it was rushed through, as it was introduced within six months. As a result of that haste, some problems have now emerged that we were warned of at the Act’s inception. The Government are not going to rush in the way the then Labour Government rushed through the Human Rights Act. We will take a little time, because we want to get it done right rather than quickly.

[Andy Slaughter]

Most people do not think it was rushed but would say that it was 20 or 30 years too late. The effect of the Act is to incorporate the convention, which it does, to use the phrase of the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), in a very conservative way. What is the problem with that?

[Mr Raab]

The shadow Minister makes an interesting point. If, as a new Government, we had introduced a Bill within six months, it would have been argued that that was too hasty.

On the problems that have arisen as a result, a former shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who is no longer in his place, took to The Daily Telegraph just last year to point out some of the problems with section 2 of the Act:

“Too often, rather than ‘taking into account’ Strasbourg rulings and by implication, finding their own way, our courts have acted as if these rulings were binding on their decisions. As a result, the sovereignty of our courts and the will of Parliament have both been called into question. This needs sorting out.”

If the Labour party has U-turned on that rather thoughtful critique of its own legislation and now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, believes the Act to be a holy grail that cannot be touched, called into question or criticised at all, there are some questions for Labour to answer. I know hon. Members in the shadow Minister’s party would not all agree on that matter.

I shall take this opportunity to set out the Government’s position. I should say that I have found the debate very valuable at this still formative stage of the Government’s process towards enacting a Bill of Rights. To answer some of the questions put, we will be consulting formally this Session, including with the devolved Administrations—I am aware that there are some issues there—and I hope hon. Members will understand if I do not prejudge that consultation or its terms in my remarks today.

I remind hon. Members that the United Kingdom has a strong tradition of respect for human rights that long predates the Human Rights Act 1998. The Government are proud of that tradition and will be true to it in delivering our reforms. As I explained at Justice questions, our plans do not involve us leaving the convention. That is not our objective. We want to restore some common-sense balance to our human rights, which are out of kilter, so nothing has been taken off the table.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is, not for the first or for the last time, absolutely right. He was a great Justice Minister and he is absolutely on the button when he makes the point that we need a more efficient administration of justice in the interests of victims, witnesses and taxpayers.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Lord Chancellor has indeed had something to say about the reform of the court system this morning. May I say “Well done” for spotting the gaping inequality in the justice system that his predecessor has created? Did he have in mind the 89% fall in social welfare legal aid cases under the previous Government—legal aid for the very poorest—or his own further cut in criminal legal aid announced last week? The president of the Law Society said that that cut could

“undermine the criminal justice system to the point that it may no longer deliver fair outcomes.”

[Michael Gove]

As usual, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the generous and bipartisan tone in which he conducts these exchanges. I am also grateful to him for drawing attention to some of the reforms that we have made to reduce the amount spent on legal aid. When his colleague and friend the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) was the shadow Justice Secretary, he made the point that the amount that the previous Labour Government spent on legal aid was unsustainable. We will review the reforms that we have made to ensure that we can maintain access to justice and also safeguard the interests of victims, witnesses and taxpayers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

My hon. Friend has been tenacious in his campaigning on this subject. He comes up with an ingenious suggestion. Actually, our concern has been less with the black-letter text of the convention and more with its application. Some of the problems have arisen from judicial legislation in the Strasbourg Court, some of them through the operation of the Human Rights Act, as the former shadow Justice Secretary acknowledged. We want to protect our fundamental rights and prevent abuse of the system.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Sir John Major, giving the inaugural Edward Heath lecture on the subject of Magna Carta last week, said that he respected the “power and significance” of the European convention on human rights, and that where there was conflict with the UK Parliament,

“I expect consultation and compromise to settle this issue.”

Should not the Minister, and indeed the Lord Chancellor, heed the advice of someone with so much experience of running a Tory Government with a wafer-thin majority?

[Mr Raab]

We listen to all the informed voices in this debate. That is why we are going to have full consultation. We look forward to discussing this with the hon. Gentleman and many others across the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question? As far as exceptional funding is concerned, the giveaway is in the title. The fund is meant to be exceptional, but some people have seen it as a discretionary fund. Not surprisingly, therefore, the numbers involved in it have been few.

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is retiring at the end of this Parliament. Let me say what a pleasure it has been to work with him. I may not always have agreed with him, but working with him has always been a pleasure, and I wish him well for the future.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Perhaps the Minister should listen to the Chair of the Justice Committee and read his report that found that the Government had failed in three of their four objectives for legal aid: they have not discouraged unnecessary litigation; they have not targeted legal aid to those who need it the most; and they have not delivered better value for money for the taxpayer. That is what the report says. Does the Minister agree that that abject failure is a fitting epitaph for the least competent Lord Chancellor since the Reformation?

[Mr Vara]

It is always helpful if shadow Ministers do their homework. The proposals to which the hon. Gentleman refers were achieved by the previous Lord Chancellor. As far as his comment on the Justice Committee’s report is concerned, I do not hear him or his boss saying that they will be reversing any of the cuts that we have made. If they want to do that, the shadow Chancellor will have plenty of opportunity so to do in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

So far, there has been an increase in the number of litigants in person. Of course, we have always had litigants in person in our courts. We continue to monitor the situation closely. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), is working hard to look at additional ways of smoothing the processes that people have available to represent themselves. None the less, progress in our courts has so far continued pretty well.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s third attempt to introduce a new contract for criminal legal aid is now stalled in the High Court and looks dead. Will he join the shadow Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), in burying it? Will he work with the legal profession to devise a model that does not put hundreds of high street solicitors’ firms out of business and lead to more miscarriages of justice? Or is this just like prisons, probation and the Courts Service—another of the policy car crashes he is leaving to an incoming Labour Government to sort out?

[Chris Grayling]

The one thing we can always guarantee at these sessions is to hear a load of nonsense from the hon. Gentleman. I have listened carefully to Labour Members’ arguments over the past few months. They oppose when it is politically convenient to do so, but they have absolutely no idea what they would do in our place—and that is why the electorate are not going to give them the chance.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I welcome the return of the Bill to the House so that we can consider the amendments made in the Lords. I have listened carefully and with interest to the debates as the Bill has made progress and I must say that I have been amused by the position taken by Her Majesty’s official Opposition, who have been vociferous in saying that the Bill is pointless and meaningless. When it arrived in the other place, however, they campaigned vigorously against the clause on responsibility. You will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if it is meaningless there is not much point in campaigning against it. The Bill is not at all meaningless. It has a purpose in protecting employers, particularly smaller employers, against the compensation culture and it will, I believe, make a significant difference. If it made no difference at all, why on earth did the Opposition try to strike out the clause? We know that the real reason the Opposition did not vote against the Bill is that they know that it addresses the genuine worries that ordinary people have about the growth of the compensation culture, which they talked about while in government and have conveniently forgotten about.

As hon. Members will recall, the Bill is designed to reassure hard-working individuals and organisations who have demonstrated a responsible approach to safety, who have been acting for the benefit of society or who have intervened in emergencies, that the courts will always take the context of their actions into account when determining whether they have been negligent. In spite of the negative comments about the Bill from the Opposition and in the other place, I am glad that the Bill returns to the House with only two modest changes.

Let me turn to the detail of the changes. Both were Government amendments tabled in response to concerns raised about specific aspects of the drafting and I ask the House to agree with them. Amendment 1 is to clause 3, on responsibility, and amendment 2 is to clause 4, on heroism.

On amendment 1, when clause 3 left this House it provided that the court should consider whether a person had demonstrated a “generally responsible” approach towards safety during the course of an activity in which an act of negligence was alleged to have occurred. The Opposition said that that would erode the rights of workers to sue their employers following injuries suffered in the workplace. On report, for example, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said that the clause was designed to

“allow a defendant to deflect from or evade responsibility in negligence and breach-of-statutory-duty cases.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 689.]

On Second Reading in the other place, Lord Kennedy of Southwark added that

“the legislation could worsen the position of workers.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2014; Vol. 756, c. 1570.]

Those assertions are entirely without foundation.

I want to make it clear that the Bill will not stop irresponsible employers from being found negligent when the circumstances of the case warrant it or stop the courts considering all relevant factors when reaching a decision on the claim. It is simply about ensuring that the courts take a common-sense approach to considering claims brought against hard-working owners of small businesses and others by considering their overall approach to safety in the course of the activity in which an accident occurred.

Although amendments proposed in the other place that would have undermined the main policy objectives of clause 3 were not carried, we agreed to one amendment designed to improve the clarity of the clause—namely the replacement of the word “generally” with the word “predominantly”. We made that amendment following concerns that were raised about possible uncertainty over the meaning of the term “generally responsible” arising from the fact that the word “generally” is capable of bearing a range of definitions.

Lords amendment 1 helps to provide greater clarity. The word “predominantly” is a stronger and clearer term than the word “generally” and, on reflection, better achieves our policy aims. It makes it clearer that a body or individual who takes a slapdash approach to safety on a particular occasion cannot escape liability merely by pointing to a previously unblemished health and safety record. Instead, it makes it clear that, if a hard-working individual such as the owner of a small business is doing his best to keep people safe and something goes wrong in spite of his best efforts, the courts will always consider whether his approach to safety during the activity in question was a predominantly responsible one.

That is the key point. That is why we introduced the Bill and why clause 3 will make a difference. It will provide greater protection to an employer who seeks to do the right thing and to look after his or her employees, and something goes wrong that could not have been foreseen. Of course, the Labour party, in hock as it is to the trade unions, immediately assumes the worst and immediately wants to do down the small business person. That is a sign of the way the Labour party has gone in the past few years. It has moved away from being sympathetic to the interests of small business and instead is back to the days of union domination and saying, “Let’s back the workers.” This is a responsible, balanced measure that ensures that those people who are genuinely wronged retain their legal redress, but that the law is on the side of the responsible employer who seeks to do the right thing.

Lords amendment 2 relates to clause 4, on heroism. As hon. Members will recall, the clause requires the court to consider whether a person was intervening heroically in an emergency when the negligence is alleged to have occurred. We know from polls carried out by St John Ambulance and the British Heart Foundation that worries about liability can deter people from intervening to help others in emergencies. That is something we should all be concerned about, and the clause is designed to give people greater reassurance that the law will be on their side in those circumstances.

We debated a proposed amendment that emanated from St John Ambulance. I listened carefully to the arguments set out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). After we passed the measure, I did as I undertook to do and went away and thought carefully about the measure. I listened to debates in the Lords and decided there was no reason not to accept the St John Ambulance recommendation and the recommendation made by my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend. I hope they accept that we made the amendment in the good spirit of trying to get the measure absolutely right.

When clause 4 left this House, the meaning of “heroism” included a requirement that the defendant must have been acting

“without regard to his or her own safety or other interests”.

My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend questioned whether the drafting of the clause might inadvertently exempt some very brave people who intervened in emergencies only after considering the risk to themselves and others. Initially, we thought it would be unlikely for the courts to interpret the clause in that way. However, in the light of the concerns raised on that point by St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross, and after discussions with those organisations and after considering the comments made in debates in the House and the other place, we decided that, to avoid any possible misinterpretation, the simplest solution would be to omit from the clause the reference to acting

“without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests.”

That means that it will be absolutely clear that the clause applies in any case where a person intervenes in an emergency to assist somebody in danger, irrespective of whether he or she acted entirely spontaneously or after carefully weighing up the risks. The amendment has been greeted warmly by St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross, which have said that they will use the opportunity that the Bill provides to encourage and reassure new first aid volunteers that the law is on their side.

That is what the Bill is all about. It is about saying to three groups of people seeking to do the right thing in our society that the law is on their side—people acting heroically, people acting in the interest of others, and people acting responsibly, particularly employers taking a responsible approach to health and safety matters in their own workplace. For many years in this country, we have faced a compensation culture. The Government have sought to make a number of changes to combat that compensation culture. We have made changes to the way in which legal fees are paid, and we have made changes to the way in which the rules apply. The Bill will add to a positive step forward. [Interruption.]

The fact that Opposition Front Benchers are sitting chuntering is, to my mind, a sign that they really do not care about tackling the compensation culture in this country. They do not care about the interests of small employers, and they do not care about people who are seeking to do the right thing. They are interested only in looking after the vested interests that provide them with their finance and backing. It is a sign of what divides this Government from the Opposition. It is a sign that this Government are on the side of hard-working people and people who seek to do the right thing. Opposite we have a party that simply represents vested interests and does not care about such things. That is why Labour Members have sought to challenge the Bill all the way through. The argument that the Bill was meaningless followed by the attempt to strike out parts of it completely undermined what they said and showed how bankrupt their current thinking is.

The two amendments make a helpful improvement to the Bill. I hope that the House supports them, and that the Bill can pass into law. I hope we send the clear message to those people that this Parliament is on their side.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I do not often feel compassion for the Lord Chancellor, but even he must have approached the Chamber this afternoon with how sad steps. Today, on the heels of the dismissal of the chief inspector of prisons comes the resignation of the conflicted chief inspector of probation, and so, on the first full day of probation privatisation, we have no one in charge of standards in the service.

The Lord Chancellor is scattering confidential data around like confetti, he appears to have changed at whim the burden of proof in criminal cases, and this afternoon, one of his favourite private contractors, Capita, was fined £16,000 by the president of the—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is meant to be speaking to the Lords amendment. I normally give quite a lot of leeway for a general introduction, but he must speak to the amendment.

[Mr Slaughter]

Indeed, that is what I intend to do, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply making the point that, with all of that going on just in the past few days, here we are talking about the Lord Chancellor’s heroes Bill. He is fiddling while Rome burns: more Nero than hero.

We are all sick of the Bill. I suspect the Lord Chancellor is sick of the Bill. Like many of his projects, it began as an exercise in public relations and a nod towards the tabloids, and a coded attack on the rights of the individual to find redress through the law. Both the ridicule and the incredulity with which it has been met on both sides of both Houses, and from almost every expert commentator, has exposed its pointlessness and fragility.

The Bill will be locked away from public gaze, elided by the courts and ignored by everyone else until some future Government finds a space in the legislative timetable to repeal it. The noble Lord Pannick said that he could not

“remember a legislative proposal that has been the subject of more sustained ridicule and derision.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2014; Vol. 758, c. 16.]

The chair of the Law Society policy board today wrote that there were two views of the Bill: that is was

“vague, meaningless and otiose”

or

“so ill-defined that it is dangerous to the point of mischievousness”.

Given that history, do the two minor amendments do anything to improve the Bill? They certainly do not make it any worse, if that is any comfort to the Lord Chancellor, so we have no reason to vote against them.

Amendment 2 has been urged on the Government since Second Reading on 21 July 2014, when the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) pointed out the unhelpful nature of the final words of clause 4. I moved to delete the offending words—

“and without regard to the person’s own safety or other interests”—

in Committee, supported by a very strong argument from St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross. However, it was not until Report in the other place that the Government finally gave in, stating:

“This will put beyond doubt that the clause applies to anybody who intervenes in an emergency to help somebody in danger, regardless of whether they acted entirely spontaneously or weighed up the risks before intervening.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2014; Vol. 758, c. 44.]

I am not sure that that was the point of the objections; rather, it was concern that the Government were encouraging bystanders to intervene, even when it was not safe to do so, and when more lives might be placed at risk, including those of professional rescuers. The Government have at least removed one howler, whatever their motive or excuse for doing so, so we welcome amendment 2. It is just rather late in the day in coming.

Crime Reduction Policies

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I normally start Thursday afternoon debates by saying that we make up in quality for what we lack in quantity. At one stage, it looked as though it was going to be me and the Minister, which would have tested that view to destruction, but fortunately we were joined by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), so we can be assured of a forensic and testing debate, but also, I hope, a well-informed one. I commend both of them on their speeches, made on the back of their report.

We welcome the aims of the report, which are to

“to examine the nature and effectiveness of crime reduction policies”

under this Government. It is an authoritative report, and the Opposition are studying it carefully with a view to implementing parts of it if we have the opportunity later this year. Although I welcome the hard work put into the report by the Committee, after reading the Government’s response, I fear that a lot of it might be falling on deaf ears at the moment.

We know that the current Lord Chancellor has a way with words, but yesterday he excelled himself when he suggested that his lack of legal training enables him to “take a dispassionate view” of matters. That undermines the legal profession and writes off genuine concerns about the effect of his legislation as mere self-interest. That is not helpful. Probation workers, lawyers, prison officers and magistrates are all let down when this Government take that sort of attitude, and particularly by the Lord Chancellor’s approach.

Ministry of Justice policies over the past four years have not been well evidenced and are guilty of a distinctly short-termist approach. The Government were warned repeatedly that their probation reforms were rushed and concerned more with structure than with outcomes. If probation is in a state of chaos, our prisons are in a state of crisis, as we have heard. The quality of prison provision has deteriorated rapidly under the current Justice Secretary.

I note that page 14 of the Committee report points out that reoffending was falling in 2010 but has flatlined under the current Government. Page 6 of the report says that we are still lacking a

“lack of rigorous assessment of where taxpayers’ money can be most effectively spent in cutting crime”.

That is quite an indictment: after almost five years of coalition Government, the Government still cannot define where they are spending public money. They could not even tell MPs how much the Transforming Rehabilitation plans would cost when they asked Members to vote it through the House.

As the report notes, the Secretary of State published no modelling or projections to support his claim that Transforming Rehabilitation would save money. That raises obvious concerns that savings will not be made and the Government will therefore not be able to afford to fund probation for offenders serving under 12 months. Those changes—that is, the creation of the community rehabilitation companies—were not driven by cost-effectiveness but by what the Secretary of State called his gut instinct to privatise the service and see what happened next.

We agree with the Select Committee that crime reduction needs to be a cross-departmental priority, but by the time someone reaches the criminal justice system, it is already too late, in many ways: somebody has already been a victim of crime. Our approach, through a victims taskforce, will be to recast the criminal justice system as a criminal justice service fit for victims. A lot of good work is going on; I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and Sir Keir Starmer, alongside the shadow Lord Chancellor and Baroness Lawrence.

The previous Labour Government were building strong cross-departmental practice in work on female offending prior to 2010. That included working with women at risk of offending, to prevent crime before it happened. Unfortunately, as the Committee noted in its previous report on Corston, the current Government disbanded the cross-departmental structures working in this area, which I am afraid is evidence of more short-termism.

We have pledged to appoint a Minister with responsibility for mental health in the Ministry of Justice, to join up the health and criminal justice agendas. We agree with the Committee that it is important for probation to be represented on health and wellbeing boards, and we look forward to the Minister’s response to the Committee’s recommendation that that representation should be statutory.

[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]

Labour welcomes the work being done on liaison and diversion. The intention to divert offenders with mental health or substance misuse problems into treatment, or to ensure correct support through the criminal justice system, is laudable, and it is supported by Members from all parties. I hope that the Minister can give us an update on the roll-out of liaison and diversion services.

I will move on, briefly, to Transforming Rehabilitation. The Transforming Rehabilitation plans were rushed through and they were based on no evidence of what works to reduce crime. The Government did not test them to check if they worked at all before rolling them out; I think one of the first acts of the Justice Secretary was to cancel the piloting. Now probation services are firefighting and having to deal with additional strains on the system caused by the rushed fragmentation of the service, rather than focusing on reducing crime. As one witness, who is quoted on page 36 of the report, said of every time that providers change:

“We have…to take a few steps back and start again.”

Furthermore, despite the Justice Secretary arguing that the point of all this activity was to allow for supervision of offenders serving less than 12 months, the sell-off has been rushed through and there is still no certainty about how the increased supervision will work.

Later, I will refer to the views of the Magistrates’ Association, but one thing that I picked up from yesterday’s meeting of the all-party group on the magistracy is that there is a lack of clarity as to exactly when the new proposals will start. I do not know whether the Minister can confirm the start date today. What we were told yesterday was that offenders sentenced from February onwards will be subject to the new regime when they come out of custody. If we are talking about very short sentences, that could be in February itself, although it seems unlikely that we will see the results of this policy before the general election.

The successful bidders for the community rehabilitation companies are due to take over on 1 February and contracts are about to start. Labour has expressed numerous concerns about the various “sweetheart deals” and “poison pill” aspects of the contracts. Frankly, it is ludicrous that Ministers have tied the hands of future Governments to multibillion-pound contracts for a decade or more. There was no testing or piloting to see if this system would work. It means that every IT problem and failure in communication is now being dealt with on a national scale.

What is even more concerning is that the fragmentation of the service has built new problems into the system, as the Justice Secretary was warned it would. The chief inspector of probation found that processes are slower and more complicated than they were before. Staff are worried that the service is now less readily responsive to risk, and less able to protect the public from repeat offenders. However, the concerns of experts and probation staff have been ignored.

The situation is no better in our prisons. Despite the Justice Secretary’s protestations, prisons have been badly managed by this Government and are undeniably in crisis. Let me give an example. Last autumn, there was a report into the prison in my own constituency, Wormwood Scrubs. The outgoing chief inspector’s report revealed that Wormwood Scrubs is not a safe place to be and does little to rehabilitate prisoners. That is bad not only for the inmates themselves but for the whole of society, because eventually the inmates are put back on the streets without the means or attitude to reform or improve their lives. Those are some of the headlines from that report, but I am afraid reports of that kind are now published almost weekly or monthly.

The report showed that Wormwood Scrubs had declined significantly in almost every aspect. It was not safe enough, with 22% of prisoners saying they felt unsafe at the time of the inspection; over a third of prisoners reported victimisation by staff; there were five suicides in 2013 alone; almost half the prisoners surveyed said they had felt unsafe at some point during their time in the prison; only one in 10 prisoners said that they had been helped to prepare for release; during the previous three months, more than a fifth of prisoners had been released without a suitable address; many prisoners were allowed out of their cells for only two hours each day; more than 40% of prisoners were locked up during the working day, with nothing to do; there were too few activity places, sufficient for only half the population; and administrative failures meant that many prisoners attending learning and skills activities were not paid for long periods. And yet, during the same short period the population of the prison increased by 8%, from 1,170 to 1,258. Earlier this month, I received a petition from prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs, protesting about the fact that the excellent art and design department is to be closed.

The “rehabilitation revolution” that the Government promised is proving as illusory as their being the greenest Government or building the big society, or, in the case of the Liberal Democrats, abolishing tuition fees.

Page 45 of the Committee’s report shows how the chief inspector found that the overall prison system was under “strain” and that

“activity outcomes were poor and falling; too many prisoners spent too long locked in their cells, and evening association was increasingly curtailed”

and

“there were too few activity places”.

Tragically, since that report was published, things have got much worse. Page 21 refers to “prison population projections” that suggested the population was going to fall. In fact, in the week that the report was published the Government had to instruct already overcrowded prisons to take in even more prisoners, because they had closed prisons—17, I think—and were taken by surprise by the rise in the prison population.

The Justice Secretary’s prisons are not doing enough to challenge criminal behaviour; in fact, prisons themselves are increasingly violent places. Also, rehabilitative work is being cancelled because there are not enough staff to safely unlock prisoners and escort them to rehabilitation programmes.

[Sir Alan Beith]

If we are to deal with the kind of problems that the hon. Gentleman described, which exist in many of our prisons, does he accept the Committee’s general contention that we ought to use prison only for those whom it is essential to lock up for significant periods, and that we should make more use of robust community sentences rather than continuing to increase the prison population?

[Mr Slaughter]

Sentencing has to be appropriate. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a need to ensure the safety of the public. That is what indeterminate sentences for public protection were designed to do. In some respects they worked, but unfortunately in others they did not work. It is a continuing problem for all Governments, and it is the No.1 priority; that has to be where we start.

As for less serious offences, it is the job of the Government to set sentencing policy, but it is the job of the courts to ensure that in each individual case sentencing is appropriate. Regarding prison numbers, the problem that we have had over the last four years is not so much the number of people in prison as the fact that prison closures, including the closures of successful prisons that were achieving rehabilitation, have been driven by a financial agenda.

That was done by a Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman is a supporter, so none of us can entirely wash our hands of responsibility. However, the objective—I think it will be shared by all of us—must be to bring down offending rates and to increase rehabilitation. That is achieved through a combination of what happens in prisons and what happens outside, but the lesson from the Select Committee’s report is that neither is working at the moment, because of the short-term solutions and, particularly in the last year, the cuts in the number of prison staff, some of whom are now being re-recruited.

Whatever the Government’s genuine intention, and I am sure that Ministers share our genuine intention to increase rehabilitation and decrease reoffending, they must have known that, after the cuts they made in October 2013 to prison resources, that was simply impossible to achieve.

Finally, I will say a few words about courts. There is a section in the report on the Courts Service, and there has been an interesting response from the Magistrates’ Association. The Minister was unable to attend a meeting of the all-party group on the magistracy yesterday due to other commitments, but we had an interesting discussion, although he would have been no more cheered by it than by what he has heard today about the Prison Service and the probation service.

Increasingly, the Courts Service is not functioning, and that is partly due to a lack of staff, ranging from ushers, who ensure the smooth running of the courts day to day, to justices’ clerks, who supervise the entire court system. Furthermore, up to one in five defendants in magistrates courts are not represented, because of cuts in legal aid, and more such cuts are planned.

However, the issue that concerned the magistrates most was what they regarded as the Government’s lack of respect. We have seen that in the cuts in training, in the attempts to cut remuneration and, most of all, in the issue of increasing responsibility, with magistrates having to take on serious amounts of work without, effectively, being allowed to run their own courts.

I was very interested in the section in the report on problem-solving courts. In terms of the ability of magistrates—not just district judges, but lay magistrates—to be involved in, and take charge of, that process, one observation the magistrates make is that there is not even a magistrates representative on HM Courts and Tribunals Service, despite the fact that they are its largest customer.

Leaving aside the financial constraints, there is a need to ensure that we use the skills that are there in the court system, and particularly those of magistrates, who give their time for nothing, who have a huge reservoir of expertise and who are hugely committed to all the principles the report deals with in terms of improving the criminal justice system. Increasingly, however, they are simply used as a convenient tool to get through the substantive work load.

We take the report seriously, and we applaud the Committee’s work in scrutinising the court, probation and prison reforms. On page 39 of the report the Committee expresses the concern—we have heard it again today—that, when choosing their language, Ministers should bear in mind the

“gulf between hard line rhetoric and the practical policies”.

I cannot imagine who the Committee had in mind—not the Minister here today, who is always very emollient. Notwithstanding the fact that we are approaching a general election, if those involved took a slightly less bombastic, heated approach and had a slightly more measured discussion of the key issues, as evidenced in the Report—I use the word “evidenced” advisedly—that would not only improve the level of debate, but increase the extent to which we achieve the aims we all share.

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

It may assist Members if I explain that, due to earlier uncertainty about the time the debate was expected to begin, I propose to call the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington before we move to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

These are 12-month pilots at the moment in the three constabularies that I mentioned. There is involvement from local government, either county-wide or in some cases with a unitary authority, and from the Crown Prosecution Service regarding those who break the terms of a deferred prosecution. The police are also involved, as are a lot of NGOs and the voluntary sector, and the NHS. We are about four months into this 12-month pilot and some interim work will being coming forward. However, it is interesting that chief constables and police and crime commissioners are saying to me, “Can we join this now?”, because the anecdotal evidence is coming through.

Of course, I am a Conservative politician and am perceived to be, even though I have never been asked on the doorstep whether I am right, centre-left or centre-right, or whatever. I am passionate about this, because it brings an old-fashioned term back into the justice system for the victim: “natural justice”. They can see—it is tangible—that a person will pay back while still in the community and, even if they break that, they have had every chance. It gets offenders on to the drug or alcohol rehabilitation schemes—sometimes both together. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington was in the Chamber when I made an intervention on the Chair of the Select Committee, but I said that these are complex areas. There are people with learning difficulties, mental health conditions and alcohol addiction. We have all seen that when we visit the different projects in our communities, and it is difficult.

I remember visiting an excellent charity in my constituency—Members have probably all heard of it —called Druglink when I was first elected. I said, “You have been funded to tackle the drug rehabilitation side, but surely you have a twin problem here, because I know from the community I grew up in that drink is as big a problem.” Druglink said, “Absolutely, but we are not funded to deal with drink. You are the first person to come and raise that point.” It is important that we have a joined-up process, and the deferred prosecutions are an enormously positive thing.

We are having this debate on an opportune day, because the national crime statistics have been released and they show that crime is down again—by 25% over this Parliament and by 11% in the past year—in nearly every area of the country. As the Police Minister, I praise the work that the police are doing in the 43 authorities I am responsible for. They do a fantastic job, day in, day out, with most of it unseen by the public. The public see their bobbies and their police community support officers, but we all know that that is a tiny proportion of the work that the police do on our behalf every day.

I fully accept, as does the Secretary of State, that the rehabilitation of our courts, how they are structured and the whole of that area need to be looked at. Why do we have a magistrates court 400 yards from a Crown court? That does not make sense. I know that the Committee is particularly interested in the need to join up the IT in the criminal justice system.

I am involved in the replacement of the Airwave product, although I will not be the Minister who takes the decision on that, no matter who the Government are, because Airwave is based in my constituency. I thought it would be improper for me to take that decision, so I asked to be removed from that. Airwave is the police comms system—it is not a radio system, but a comms system, because we have to move data through it as fast as we can. We need to have the camera data that PCs have at the scene of an incident—I will come on to body-worn cameras in a second, because a lot is changing there—spread through a comms system. We need a streamlined communications and IT system that takes the data through the courts, into probation and out the other side. That platform, which is being worked on at the moment, will be vitally important. Government IT programmes are always difficult to talk about. I have been there; I was a shadow Health Minister when Spine was being discussed.

I will touch on some of the equipment and technology that is coming into front-line policing and which will transform certain areas of the criminal justice system. I will give two examples, one of which I have already mentioned. First, we are undertaking serious pilots of body-worn cameras. In legislative terms, we will need to move very fast on them, no matter who is in Government. That technology is out there and is protecting our officers. There are real signs that when people realise that a police officer is wearing a camera, their aggressive attitude to the officer completely changes. A gentleman has rightly gone to prison for a very long time for attacking an officer, and that conviction was largely based on the video evidence of a lady police officer in Hampshire, who was wearing her camera when she arrested the man for a domestic violence incident. He was handcuffed and was under the influence of drugs, and just like that he grabbed her by the throat and pushed her to the ground. She became unconscious after the fourth hit of her head on the kerb. He smashed her head on the ground another five times. The video evidence not only helped convict that gentleman, but helped secure the length of sentence that I think all of us here in the Chamber would agree he deserves.

We need, however, to see how we can take the technology forward. For instance, there is the evidence around statements. Kent police want to take a statement at the scene of an incident on camera and use that as evidence going forward. We should be able to do that, but we cannot under current legislation, and we are going to see whether we can change that. One reason why they are looking at doing that is simply because when people see, even when they are sitting with their lawyers and representatives, what they were doing the night before, it becomes—I am sorry to use strange language in the Chamber—a no-brainer. In such situations, the solicitor leans over to the client and says, “You are going to say you did not do it, but there it is. Now we need to move on.” The technology will transform what happens in every space.

We have to look carefully to ensure that when such evidence is used in court, it is used in the correct way and is not ruled inadmissible for technical reasons when the evidence is there. To give an example—the gentleman is serving 18 years, so I am sure he will not mind me commenting on the fact that he was found guilty—in another piece of footage I have seen, the police were called to a house. The neighbours had heard a lady screaming, and not for the first time. When the police knocked, a gentleman in his mid-50s opened the door and was asked whether his wife was in. He used every excuse in the book not to let them in. When he eventually did let them in, the police found his wife who had been pummelled—that is the polite way of describing it. She was unrecognisable. They could not see her eyes or her lips. She was petrified and did not want her husband prosecuted, until she saw the video of what she looked like when the police arrived. She said, “Enough”, gave evidence against him and he went to prison. That is how we can use technology in a positive way to get people to come forward.

[Mr Slaughter]

The Minister is making an interesting speech and we probably all applaud what he is saying, particularly on the increased use of technology, but two things are running through my mind. Are the Government now regretting their privatisation—or abolition—of the Forensic Science Service? It was one of the greatest mistakes that the Government made when it comes to ensuring that serious criminals are brought to justice.

Secondly, the Minister mentioned the crime figures released today. There has been a long-term decline, particularly in high-volume crime, but he is talking specifically about some serious violent crimes, and the numbers of such crimes are up. In particular, the number of sexual offences is up, but we are seeing a lower level of rape prosecutions. Will he address those points?

[Mike Penning]

I welcome the shadow Minister’s intervention. I know it will sound strange, but I welcome the reporting of more rapes and sexual assaults. If we asked any of the 43 chief constables or PCCs around the country whether there has been an increase in sexual assaults or rapes, they would say that there has not. It is about people having the confidence to report such crimes to the police and other authorities so that the perpetrators can be caught. In addition, 25% of the sexual assault allegations are historical. It is important that people now have that confidence—they clearly did not in the past, which is a real shame. Those people are male and female, which is also important, because male rape is serious and is probably one of the most unreported crimes in the country. That is one reason why we gave the first ever funding to male rape centres in England and Wales.

I do not agree with the first point that the hon. Gentleman made, which was on the Forensic Science Service. I know I cannot use props in the Chamber, but in my pocket I have the second piece of kit that I will refer to today—I am happy to show it to any Member after the debate—which will end up being called a “drugalyser”, although that is a trade mark. It is a roadside drug-testing kit for our police, so that they can arrest at the roadside based on a test, not an assessment.

I can speak from experience on this matter, as can the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), to whom I have shown this piece of kit—he is also a former fireman. I attended so many incidents over the years I was a fireman where we knew someone was on something. We assumed it was drink, and they were breathalysed; they passed the breathalyser test—sometimes only just, but they did pass—but the officer still felt that the person was impaired way beyond the level given by the breathalyser, and the assumption was that the person was under the influence of drugs of some description. It could have been an illegal drug or a legal high, although legal highs did not exist so much when I was in the fire service, or it could have been a prescribed drug at a level at which they should not have been driving.

In our manifesto commitment at the previous election we proposed to introduce roadside drug-testing equipment. I was pleased, just before Christmas, to announce type approval for that piece of kit. It looks like a small pregnancy-testing kit. If an officer does a breathalyser test and the person is under the legal limit, the officer will test them for drugs. The officer asks the person to open their mouth, dabs the piece of kit on their tongue—it is a saliva test—and gets a result within six minutes. I did one the other day at the Home Office laboratories, and within four a half minutes the kit gave an indication. I was not personally tested, but we did a test—[Interruption.] I did offer, but my civil servant said no, although I would be more than happy to line up with colleagues to take the test. I know I am digging a hole here, so I will stop.

Chief officers are now buying the kit. I have suggested that they buy them on a national basis. It is entirely up to them how they buy them, but they will want to push the price down. The kit is type approved and the legislation will be on the statute book I think on 3 March, so the police will be able to use it at the roadside. Every police officer I have spoken to, including a lot of the bobbies here who have worked on traffic over the years, have come up to me and, first, asked to see it—no one has actually seen it before—and secondly, said, “What fantastic news for us,” because it takes away the risk of wrongful arrest and gives them the confidence to say, “I know you’ve got something in your system. I know that’s why you were in this accident. I know that’s why you hurt this person. Let’s move on.”

Technology is moving on fast. I have been asked to try some of the new technology. The Select Committee’s report talks about the use of out-of-prison methodologies for people who, for instance, have been involved in a drink-induced incident and have to stay off drink and away from drinking establishments. How do we prove that they have not been drinking? We can do a urine test or a blood test, but that can be difficult. Technology has come up with a non-invasive bracelet—there is no penetration of the skin—that can record alcohol levels in the bloodstream over a period of time, and the information can be downloaded. That will then allow much more confidence in those sorts of determinations, and I think it will make individuals more aware of how much alcohol they have in their system. Such technology is not hundreds of years away; it is around now, and we are looking to type approve that so that we can use that equipment.

I raise that, because such developments make me wonder: could a drugalyser that tests saliva be used in prisons? That is an obvious place to use one. On the subject of prisons and drugs, I was at the Mount prison just outside my constituency—a lot of the officers live in my constituency. Traditionally it has been a north London category C prison. I have been trying to get prisoners from my constituency moved there, closer to their families, for many years, but it has always been difficult, not least because they have to have 18 months left before they can go there. The Mount prison is now going to be a training and rehabilitation prison—one of the 89—and numbers will go up. The building work is taking place at the moment. This will be transformative for the people in my part of the world and in north London. We are going to provide training and skills and they will be released closer to their home. Prisoners have said to me, “I get released, I get given a little bit of money, but I am miles away from home.” Or they say, “I don’t want to go home. How do I start a new life elsewhere?” We can work together on that as we form different units.

Lastly, the report rightly states that we need to break down the silos of different institutions, different parts of Government and different parts of local government, and bring them together to see what they can do together, rather than individually. This has been particularly difficult in the area of domestic violence. Domestic violence tends not to be a one-off. The assessment of risk for someone in such an environment tends to get done, but who takes responsibility?

I was truly amazed when I went to see Project 360 in Leicestershire. If the Select Committee would like to visit, we could arrange it. I sat in a room not only with people from the police, probation and the local government antisocial crime unit, but people from adult care services, the mental health unit, and lastly someone from the university of Bedford, I think—I apologise if I have got that wrong or missed someone out—all meeting to assess whether the scheme was working. The Chair of the Select Committee has seen the Government response: we are not going to have a fully independent panel. However, there will be an evidence base from some of the great universities, so that, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd mentioned, we have the evidence so say what has and has not worked. At the moment, it is all anecdotal—as the shadow Minister said, it is gut instinct—but we will have the evidence.

We will not be able to get an evidence base for every single thing, but if we are going to spend money—the Chair of the Select Committee is absolutely right— we have to make sure that we get best value. The Treasury is all over us daily about that. That is absolutely right and proper, because it is taxpayers’ money. If we can show that it is not just us saying it, but this is actually what is going on—I am perhaps stretching it here—some of the scepticism about the use of the private sector or the voluntary groups that are massively involved in the probation changes might dissolve, and we might win over some colleagues on the Committee.

Absolutely the last thing I will touch on is mental health, because what is going on in government at the moment is exciting. No matter who wins the next election, I pray that the next Government push things forward. Throughout my life, I have been desperately worried about people such as ex-servicemen coming home with post-traumatic stress, for example. My generation of servicemen coming home included Simon Weston, who came back from the Falklands, and some of my closest friends. There were guys and girls at school who we all knew had real problems; they needed help and it was not there. All those years on, we are now starting to get somewhere.

The triage is done in different ways in different parts of the country—some paid for by the police and crime commissioners, some jointly funded by the mental health trusts and the police. There is no doubt in my mind that we are absolutely in the right territory of ensuring that people with mental health conditions and people with learning difficulties—sadly, the public often do not know the difference—get to a point of safety that is not a prison cell. A prison or police cell is not a place of safety.

The police have been the first resort for too many years. We have to turn the thing on its head and look at it through the other end of the telescope, so that the police are the place of last resort. I am simply thrilled that 17-year-olds and younger will not be held in police cells overnight, whether they have a mental health condition or not. There will be real pressure on local authorities to ensure that they have those places of security. It will be crucial for the young people to get the support that they need.

I have seen the triage working. I was in a large custody suite in Stoke only the other day, where two mental health professionals were embedded. Coming into a custody suite can be among the most difficult things for someone with a mental health condition, so we want to be able to move things on. Also recently, I was in Holborn with the Metropolitan police. A man had assaulted his girlfriend. She told the police as we went in the door that he was schizophrenic and had almost certainly not been taking his drugs. So we knew straight away.

I asked the sergeant, “Traditionally, what would have happened?” He said, “We would have arrested him, taken him back and only then called in the mental health professionals.” In this case, the man was taken to an accident and emergency unit that the police knew had mental health professionals attached—not all A and Es do, and it is dangerous to take people who need such care and attention to an A and E where there might not be the necessary expertise. Frankly, they will be back out in two hours’ time and the whole cycle will start again.

The people who are most vulnerable in our community need to be looked after. The report highlights some of the real difficulties and pressures in the criminal justice system. I am generally pleased, although we can always pick on bits, or, in any positive story, find the negative one—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith, found the negative story today in the crime figures. I do not think the figures are negative because I am proud of people who have the confidence to come forward and say that they have been assaulted, wanting the person to be prosecuted. At the end of the day, everyone in the House has a job of work to do, a job that needs a lot of scrutiny and a lot of compassion. All too often, the compassion is missing.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I have experienced at least two examples of third-party groups seeking to argue that a form of consultation was not absolutely accurate and that it should have been done slightly differently, when it made no difference to the eventual decision. In one case, it was clearly a delaying tactic to avoid a necessary change. A judicial review should be brought when it is a matter of genuine material error or failure by the Department concerned, not a minor technicality. That is what this measure is all about. I believe that it is necessary. Ministers in the last Government regularly argued for change because judicial review was being used inappropriately. This reform will bring a degree of common sense to the system without undermining the core purpose of allowing people who are wronged by public bodies to challenge the decisions taken about them in the courts. That is why I commend our amendments to the House.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On 1 December last, in our previous session of ping-pong on this troubled Bill, I started my comments by referring to the latter stages of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill in April 2012, and the parallels continue. After the Lords defeats on Report on that Bill were overturned in this Chamber by the enthusiasm of the Lib Dems to support their coalition partners in hobbling access to justice, their lordships inflicted three further substantial defeats on the Government and, just like today, this Chamber had the opportunity to consider again the wisdom of the Government’s insistence on getting their legislation through unrevised.

I say “unrevised”, but we do have amendments to consider, as the Lord Chancellor set out in his speech—amendments not freely given, but wrung out in the forensic unravelling of the Bill in the other place, and by the requirement, following their lordships’ double insistence, to make some concession if the Bill is to make progress. On the basis of our LASPO experience, I urge caution in accepting any assurance from this Government that they have made genuine concessions. In 2012 they promised a review of the no win, no fee cost regime as it applied to mesothelioma claims, but three months ago and at a cost to the taxpayer of £50,000 the High Court found that that purported review had not been carried out.

In 2012 the Government claimed to have broadened the evidential criteria for accessing legal aid in domestic violence cases, but the hurdles have proved too high for many victims, and that concession, too, is now subject to litigation. So the Lord Chancellor will forgive my scepticism when I say that the proposals today look like the bare minimum that he thinks he can get away with and, if they are approved by both Houses, they are likely to provoke not a working compromise, but more bad-tempered litigation.

Let me begin with Lords reason 74B and the amendment in lieu that the Government have proposed. First, I shall set out the context. The Prime Minister said yesterday that his priority was “a Britain living within its means”. If Ministers were serious about living up to that, they would not be wasting £85 million on a flawed plan for a secure college which does not have the support of a single independent expert. I remind the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) has done before, that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and nearly 30 other leading children’s charities have publicly condemned these plans as “expensive and dangerous”.

Even the Government’s own impact assessment accepts that the idea is untried and untested. Throwing girls and the youngest children into this mix, when they would be in the overwhelming minority, would make for an incredibly intimidating atmosphere and be an accident waiting to happen. We agree that improvements need to be made in youth custody. Reoffending is still too high, and education can and should play an important role in the rehabilitation of young offenders. The chief inspector of prisons has today published another concerning report highlighting conditions at Feltham young offenders institution, where 48 separate gangs are said to operate. Not enough good training is being delivered, and too many offenders there are spending all day locked up with nothing to do, a quarter of them in conditions that amount to solitary confinement.

The Government should be focusing on that problem, on improving standards in existing institutions, rather than on this vanity project dreamed up by the Secretary of State, so it is disappointing that the Government have insisted on ploughing on regardless. Ministers are still unable to offer any concrete plans or assurances about how their very lofty ambitions for the secure college will be achieved in reality. It has not gone unnoticed that whenever anyone has raised a reasonable and substantial objection to these plans, the Minister’s only answer has been to retreat to repeating the fact that 68% of offenders released from youth custody reoffend within 12 months, and that something must be done—the secure college is something, therefore it must be done. The whole House will see that for what it is: a very weak argument with very little evidence behind it.

We on the Opposition Benches are clear. We remain opposed to the secure college in principle. If we are elected, we will not wish to go ahead with it if at all possible, and we agree with the common-sense conclusion that the other place has reached twice now, that the secure college would be unsuitable for girls and children under the age of 15.

The Minister made a rather confused argument when the House last debated this point. On the one hand, he argued that the plans will deliver “substantial benefits” to these groups and that they should not be denied access to the secure college, but on the other he said it was not his intention to introduce girls and children under 15 into the college from the start. Why not? Which is it? He cannot have it both ways. If the Government still feel that there are problems with incorporating these groups, that would first need to be worked out in a pilot. This rather confirms the fears that many independent experts have expressed.

Even the noble Lord McNally, until recently a Minister and now chair of the Youth Justice Board, has warned against the approach that the Government are pursuing. He told the Justice Committee:

“I would want to advise the Secretary of State to think very hard about whether young females should be there”—

that is, in the secure college. He went on:

“Of course, co-education has its attractions, but I would not want the scheme to fail because of difficulties in trying to accommodate mixed groups.”

We hope that the Government will see the sense of their own former Justice Minister’s comments and not pursue this poorly thought-out idea any further.

Having said that, we note that the amendment provides that girls and 12 to 14-year-olds could not be placed in secure colleges without further parliamentary approval by way of affirmative statutory instrument. Although I suspect that this solution has an eye to the convention that the other place does not pass fatal motions on secondary legislation, I will give the Lord Chancellor the benefit of the doubt and postpone this discussion until another day. We will not vote against the amendment to reason 74B.

Turning to judicial review, the proposed amendments are even less satisfactory. I think that the Lord Chancellor will concede that he has not acquitted himself well in explaining the purpose and effect of this part of the Bill to the House. Lords amendment 102B provides that the court “may”, instead of the Bill’s original “must”, refuse judicial review if it concludes that it is “highly likely” that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred. The court will retain its discretion to decide whether to refuse the judicial review on the basis of the “highly likely” test. The amendment was carried with a majority of 69 votes in the Lords—an increase in the majority for the original vote.

The Government’s proposed compromise is to give the courts discretion to hear the judicial review, but limited to circumstances where this is

“for reasons of exceptional public interest.”

There is an echo here of what the Lord Chancellor wrongly told this House last time the Bill was debated, when he said:

“The ‘exceptional circumstances’ provisions would allow a judge to say, ‘This is a flagrant case and must be heard.’”—[Official Report, 1 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 82.]

Much has been made of the Lord Chancellor’s inadvertent misleading of both this House and the other place on this important issue. I say magnanimously that we all make mistakes and I do not make a point on the fact of the error. However, I did raise a point of order on 10 December because I thought that the Lord Chancellor should have done more than reply to the Member on whom he was intervening when he made the comments I have quoted: first, because he repeated the error elsewhere in his speech; and secondly, because had he simply corrected the record, as I believe he should have done, Members of both Houses would not have remained under a misapprehension.

There is a wider point that goes to the heart of both sets of Lords amendments. Their lordships set out to restore discretion to the courts. The Bill as originally drafted is the enemy of judicial discretion; it relies on “must”, not “may”. So what are we to make of the Lord Chancellor apparently thinking that there was, albeit limited, discretion in clause 64, when there was not? In trying to answer that question and square this circle, the Government have come up with their amendment to the Lords position, but it refers not to “exceptional circumstances” but to “exceptional public interest”. Exceptional circumstances are one thing and public interest is another, but what is exceptional public interest?

I fear that this does nothing to address the criticisms of the original wording of the Bill. It will still encourage the rehearsal of substantive issues at permission hearings. It will still lure judges into second-guessing how decision makers might have approached the substantive decision if taken lawfully. It will increase costs and delay at permission stage. It will lead to more satellite litigation on what constitutes “exceptional public interest”. It is a concession on the point of principle, albeit one the Lord Chancellor thought he had already made, but in practice it will make little difference to the restriction on the fundamental operation of judicial review as an administrative remedy. For that reason, we will vote against the Government’s proposal.

Turning to Lords reason 106D, we accept that there is an attempt by the Government to compromise, albeit only because of the double defeat at the hands of the other place—but again, it is more plastic than real. The Government’s proposed concession is that the means of third party funders would have to be disclosed only if the financial support to be provided exceeds or is likely to exceed a sum set out in the rules of court or the tribunal procedure rules. The tribunal procedure rules are made by independent committees, but the rules they propose can be allowed or disallowed by the Lord Chancellor. That gives us little comfort.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill: Carry-over Extension

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

This is a significant Bill; there are even parts of it with which we agree. We are pleased that both Houses have had an extended opportunity to debate its controversial parts and have made clear on numerous occasions their opposition to part 4, particularly the provisions on judicial review, and those on secure colleges.

There is a slight irony in the fact that when the carry-over motion to bring the Bill into this Session was first proposed, we thought the reason the Government were doing that with this and some other Bills was that there was so little legislation in this Session and they were trying to pack it out. Well, this Bill has certainly fulfilled its role. It has had such a chequered existence, ping-ponged between the Houses because of the appalling proposals in part 4 in particular, that the Minister can be satisfied that it has at least made this zombie Parliament look slightly less sleepy.

Like the Minister, I do not intend to detain the House. We have made our arguments. I of course hope that the carry-over motion is necessary because the Members of the other place will be batting the Bill back here for a third attempt. Obviously the Government fear that, too, or they would not be looking so anxiously at the time running out on the Bill. We will not oppose the motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am giving careful consideration to that matter in the wake of the Lords debate. In the new year, I intend to return to the House with further thoughts on how we take matters forward. As my hon. Friend will understand, I will not set out those plans until I have carefully considered with my colleagues what we are going to do.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

How does the Secretary of State intend to respond to what the Daily Mail calls his latest humiliation yesterday at the hands of the Master of the Rolls and the Court of Appeal? Having lost seven judicial reviews, does he now think it is time that he as Lord Chancellor stops acting unlawfully? In January, he will have a third chance to abandon his attempt at muzzling judicial review following two defeats in the other place. But will he tell us now—he does not need to wait until then—whether he intends to protect the rule of law or carry on getting confused by his own legislation and behaving like some tin-pot dictator?

[Chris Grayling]

May I start by extending my commiserations to the hon. Gentleman? It was widely expected on the Government Benches that he would become the shadow Attorney-General. He did not manage that, and we all express our disappointment about that and extend our commiserations to him. By retaining him on the shadow Front Bench, we will continue to enjoy in these sessions on a monthly basis the usual load of nonsense that he so often comes up with.