Human Rights Legislation Reform

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Scott Benton]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the Government are actively considering that. To be entirely honest, I wish the Government had moved ahead on the issue at different points over the past 12 months, but we have had consultations and things that rightly need to be considered in the round. Today we have a new Prime Minister. It will be up to him and his team to set out the new direction forward. I am sure those comments will be reported back to the Department by the Minister. The overreaching ECHR is tipping the balance away from national security and effective border controls in favour of serious criminals and terrorists who are abusing the legislation to avoid deportation. Various ECHR articles have been expanded beyond their original intention. What most frustrates me and the residents of Blackpool is the expansion of article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life, which serious criminals are using to make mockery of our broken asylum system.

In 2020, the Strasbourg court made the controversial decision to allow a Nigerian national who was sentenced to four years in prison for drug offences and had a conviction for battery to remain in the UK on health grounds. That has set the dangerous precedent that if the state wishes to deport an individual, it must be able to show that, when compared with the NHS, the healthcare to which the individual would be entitled in their own country would not significantly impact on their life chances. That is obviously an unrealistically high bar to meet.

In a second case, another convicted drug dealer used article 8 on the right to family life despite assaulting his partner and making no child maintenance contributions whatsoever—what complete and utter irony! The absurd list goes on and on. More than 70% of successful deportation appeals are now based solely on article 8.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am a little confused by the hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I wonder whether the 230,000 who have signed the petition would think that they were listening to the right debate. I thought he said that he wishes to remain in the ambit of the European convention on human rights, and therefore of the Court—I think that that is Government policy as of last week—but he now seems to be arguing against that. Where exactly does he stand?

[Scott Benton]

I am far from a legal expert, but there is a middle way between protecting people’s fundamental human rights and continuing to enshrine the ECHR in British law, and ensuring that the Government have wiggle room so that serious foreign national offenders can be deported and our asylum system is not overtly abused. Of course, that is the subject of the Government’s ongoing consultation. I look forward to the Government, and far more experienced legal minds than me, finding a way through that minefield.

We cannot fix a broken asylum system until we reform the Human Rights Act. Someone who wants to claim asylum should go through the correct procedure, under which the UK has a number of safe and legal routes. However, 28,000 people illegally crossed the channel in small boats last year, and 75% of them were men between the ages of 18 and 39. Although asylum claims should be processed within six months, many claimants do not hear back within that time, and the appeals process can take many years. Frankly, the residents of my Blackpool constituency are fed up of seeing the asylum system being abused and of the time it takes to deport those who come here, which lengthens year after year.

Simplifying the system, ensuring that claimants demonstrate that they have been materially disadvantaged before they can make a claim and strengthening the emphasis on societal impacts such as criminal behaviour will help to protect our national security and save the taxpayers’ money that is spent in the courts system and on costs associated with accommodating and supporting asylum seekers who have pending applications.

The Human Rights Act received Royal Assent in 1998 and came into force in 2000. Tony Blair’s aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the ECHR, which took effect in 1953, but after such a long time, the Human Rights Act could not have foreseen the incredibly complex challenges that we face today. It is absolutely right that the Government review that Act with a focus on the modern era, while reinforcing the primacy of UK law and protecting the fundamental freedoms that we all enjoy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue, and a real pleasure to follow the eminent Chairs of two Select Committees: the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Justice Committee. With perhaps difference nuances, they both said very much the same thing, and so I will not repeat it for a third time: if there is a priority in legislation, reform of the Human Rights Act is not it. That is essentially what the terms of the petition say.

Despite that, when he was Lord Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) set up the Gross review. That was a substantial piece of work and its recommendations were proportionate, so if changes are to be made, we should perhaps be guided rather more by that than by the subsequent consultation, which as far as I can see paid no regard whatever to the Gross report. In fact, it appeared to be based rather more on a shorter piece of work, the 2009 book, “The Assault on Liberty”. The right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) read his own book again—something that I have tried and failed to do on several occasions—rather than looking at the report that his Department commissioned.

It is a shame, and I would probably err on the side of not reforming at all, because the Human Rights Act is a piece of legislation that we should be proud of. It is a practical as well as principled part of constitutional law, and it has worked very well. However, all this did not start in the last year or two, but probably over a decade ago, with the use of legislation aiming to repeal or reform the Human Rights Act as part of the culture wars agenda and throwing red meat to various members of the governing party. It is in the same bracket now as tomorrow’s Bill on retained EU law, flights to Rwanda and the public order legislation to curtail freedom of speech that we had last week. It is a real shame that we are passing legislation of that kind, as is the motivation for passing it.

All this also means that we get confused about the constitutional impact. For example—given that both Members are present—at Justice questions last week, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) asked the Minister replying to today’s debate:

“It is becoming pretty clear that we cannot get a grip on the small boats crisis and deliver significant reform of our asylum system without reforming the Human Rights Act. What is the Government’s plan?”

The Minister’s response was:

“we are committed to the European convention on human rights and to the UN refugee convention. We believe that our proposals are within the law and that no court has said otherwise.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 525.]

They cannot really have it both ways: either the existing law is sufficient to do what the Government are doing or it needs to be changed.

I feel that, on many occasions, what is put forward and argued results from the outcomes of individual cases that individual MPs do not like, or from their own prejudices or what they perceive to be the views of their constituents, but which might in fact not be. That is a very poor way to legislate, so I was pleased to see that, with the demise of the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton, the Bill of Rights Bill—which was very much his individual project, in a way that is probably quite unhealthy—also saw its demise. Indeed, it was described in rather brutal terms, not by his successor but by Downing Street, as “a complete mess”. That is quite a harsh term for a Government to use about one of their own flagship pieces of legislation, so probably the best thing that could happen to that Bill now is to be quietly tucked away in a cupboard, so that it becomes just a bit of constitutional history and never sees the light of day.

I do not know, but certainly my impression from Justice questions last week—in which three times the Secretary of State or the Minister said very clearly that the Government would wish to stay within the ambit of the European convention and the European Court—is that there seems to be no urgency at all about replacing the current legislation. That implies that we can perhaps move on and quietly forget this whole rather sorry episode. I notice that the Library page relating to today’s debate says of the Bill that “its fate is…unclear”. Perhaps it should remain unclear and we can all move on to more important things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

The debate may now continue until 7.53 pm. I call Andy Slaughter.

[Andy Slaughter]

Thank you, Ms Fovargue. That welcome respite from my speech gives me a hint not to go on too long.

Before we were interrupted by the bell, I was saying that reforming human rights legislation should not be a priority for the Government. Having had time to study his brief, the Minister knows—perhaps he will even still be in post tomorrow; who knows?—that the criminal and civil courts face some of their worst backlogs. There is a real crisis of confidence in the justice system. There is also real crisis in accessing justice, and particularly in legal aid, as the Government concede to some extent in the reviews they have undertaken—or, in the case of the civil legal aid review, are undertaking. There is more than enough for the Minister and his colleagues to do without looking for work and interfering with legislation that is working well.

In a way, the Government are in a favourable position. They have an excuse to move on and quietly forget the bee in the bonnet of the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton. If they wish to follow the lead of the Chair of the Justice Committee and look at the matter again, they have a really fine report by Sir Peter Gross and his colleagues. They do not really need to go any further than that. I will not go through this in depth—I do not see any point in doing so until we know what the Government are bringing forward—but it made me weep to see the way that the Human Rights Act was being misconstrued, whether in relation to parliamentary sovereignty or in relation to the margin of appreciation. The proposed reforms, particularly to sections 2 and 3 of the Act, really distorted both the purpose and the effect of the Act.

Constitutional legislation is a very difficult thing to get right, but the Act was thought to be a success, and it effectively made the conduct of justice easy, because it brought human rights down to domestic level. It gave direct access to the UK courts, and it meant that justice was obtainable at lower cost, more speedily and in a more relevant way. The Government have said they will not take us out of the European convention on human rights, and that we will still be subject to the judgments of the European Court, so the only change will be that it the process will be much more protracted. How can that be in the interests of justice, or the interests of the citizen?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) said, this is not about lawyers or high-falutin’ principles; it is about the ability of citizens to challenge the state and institutions on important areas of law, and regarding decisions that fundamentally affect their everyday lives, when they get things wrong. What is obnoxious about that? That is the role that the Human Rights Act performed; that is the role it continues to perform, with or without the sort of amendments that we have talked about today. To repeal it, as an act of political bravado, is simply irresponsible and I urge the Minister away from that course.

I like to think that we will hear a little bit more from the Minister. I am not hopeful because the Secretary of State has already said that he will take his time, but I hope that we will hear at least a little bit about the direction of travel and where the Government think we should be going on this issue. That would be a helpful outcome of this debate. The almost 250,000 people who have urged caution on him would be pleased to hear that that message is being heeded in the Ministry of Justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Gareth Johnson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I thank the hon. Members for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for their contributions.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank the creator of the petition, who I understand is in the Public Gallery, for his engagement with Parliament. I hope he will agree that we have had a very constructive debate. There may be slight differences of opinion, but the debate has been positive. I also thank the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves). I like the people of Lewisham West; when I stood there in 2005, I found out that I liked them rather more than they liked me, but that is a separate issue. She represents a wonderful constituency, and I thank her for her contribution.

I am genuinely grateful that the debate gives me the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on this issue. The UK has a long and proud history of recognising and standing up for the fundamental human rights of individuals. Robust protection of those rights, such as freedom of thought and of expression, is a vital cornerstone of our modern democracy. In recognition of that, the Government pledged in our manifesto to review and update the Human Rights Act, which was created in 1998 to give further effect in UK law to the rights set out in the European convention on human rights.

Almost a quarter of a century has passed since that Act came into force. It has occupied an important position in the UK’s human rights framework, but after over 20 years, it is entirely right that we should look at it again and seek to update it, not with the intention of reducing protection of our rights and freedoms, but to make sure that this country’s human rights framework continues to be the best that it can be, meets the needs of the society that it serves, and remains a leading example on the international stage. We want to ensure that the Act strikes the proper balance between the rights of individuals on the one hand, and our vital national security and effective government on the other.

The Government established the independent Human Rights Act review in December 2020 to examine the framework of the Act, how it operates in practice, and whether any change is required. Chaired by the former Court of Appeal judge Sir Peter Gross, who my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst mentioned, the review panel was tasked with considering the relationship between domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and the Act’s impact on the relationship between the judiciary, the Executive and the legislature. The Government are most grateful to Sir Peter and his panel for their valuable report, which was published in December 2021.

Following the report, the Government commenced work on a Bill of Rights. Their reform programme not only took the report into account but considered wider issues relating to our domestic framework, including the need to strike a balance between individual rights and the wider public interest, and to give public authorities the confidence to carry out their duties. As Members might expect, when a new Government were formed, the Bill’s progress through Parliament was paused in the light of a wider review of policy priorities. We are taking this opportunity to closely consider our approach to updating the Act, and to ensure that the provisions that we put forward will deliver the Government’s objectives as effectively as possible.

Let me be clear that any reform to the Act will be in full compliance with the European convention on human rights, and with the UK’s other international obligations, including the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the Northern Ireland protocol, and our trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union. More broadly, we will maintain our leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law internationally. The UK’s record at the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that human rights are protected. The UK’s human rights record is strong. Of all the state parties to the European convention on human rights, the UK has the fewest applications to the court per million inhabitants. The figures that I have are slightly different from those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but the point remains the same: at the end of 2021, applications against the UK made up only 0.17% of the Court’s case load, and very few of the Court’s final judgments find a violation by the UK; two did in 2020, and five in 2021.

We continue to be a strong supporter of the work carried out by the United Nations treaty bodies to uphold the broader human rights system. The UK remains a strong advocate of the United Nations Human Rights Council, and we have a deep commitment to the success of its universal periodic review. We believe that it is an important mechanism of universal and constructive peer review. It allows the sharing of best practice and promotes the continual improvement of human rights on the ground, and is therefore a process we will continue to engage with.

The UK has been praised in the UN’s previous universal periodic review dialogues for our leadership on certain recommendations and our commitment to the review process. We have recently published our state report for our fourth universal periodic review, the dialogue of which is scheduled for November 2022. This petition rightly points out that the Human Rights Act provides important protection. While I could not disagree with that sentiment, it does not preclude us from looking carefully at how the Act could be improved.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister is making a good case for “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. He has used the phrase “review and update” himself, so I assume we will have no more of “repeal” and “replace”, which is what it says in clause 1 of the paused Bill. He has rightly said that we are both a contributor to international human rights and are less criticised than many other countries in that respect. Are those not all arguments for not needing a comprehensive review? Twenty years is not a long time. Magna Carta has been around for about 800 years—we are not talking about repealing that.

[Gareth Johnson]

The Conservative party manifesto at the last general election made it clear that we wanted to review and update the Human Rights Act. We would still remain compliant with the European convention on human rights, whatever changes are made. It is purely to review and update the Act. The manifesto does not say that we wish to repeal and scrap the Human Rights Act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point, and from the Dispatch Box I congratulate the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who is otherwise engaged today on some very enjoyable and well-deserved matters. I hope he has a wonderful day. As I have said, we are going to be responding more fully to the CLAIR report, but my hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right that the criminal justice system works best when all parts of it are functioning fluidly and effectively for the benefit of all their clients and for wider society, and I am determined to ensure that we deliver that.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On the issue of solicitors’ fees, the Secretary of State clearly does not agree with his Justice Minister in the other place, Lord Bellamy, who said that the situation for criminal legal aid solicitors is more parlous than for barristers. The 9% is below the rate of inflation and it follows a 25-year pay freeze. When is the Secretary of State going to look properly at the issue of solicitors’ fees?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Butler]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is probably right that I point out that I was still a member of the Justice Committee when it took evidence for that inquiry, but I did not contribute to the drafting of the report. I absolutely acknowledge that we find ourselves in an extremely difficult position with IPP prisoners, and I am determined to resolve the problem as far as possible, but it has to be understood that there is not a simple one-size-fits-all solution that is appropriate for all people, so I am very carefully considering the recommendations. That is something we are doing very speedily, and as soon as we have come up with a conclusion, the Justice Committee will receive my response.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Government rightly abandoned their Bill of Rights, describing it as a “complete mess”, principally because it sought to stay within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights while ignoring its judgments. Is that still the Government’s position and, if so, how will they stop their next attempt also being a complete mess?

[Brandon Lewis]

Rather like the answer earlier, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to answers I gave earlier. I have extensively outlined the position on the Bill of Rights.

Lawfare and Investigative Journalism

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Our friends and neighbours in the US and Europe are taking action, and we must not be left behind. If we do not act, we will let dangerous people off the hook while allowing journalists and researchers to be punished for doing their jobs. What we need now is a commitment from Ministers to bring forward either a free-standing SLAPPs Bill or measures that form a component of another Bill. I do not care which it is, but it must happen soon.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Davis]

Briefly, because I have only seconds left.

[Andy Slaughter]

The right hon. Member is making an excellent speech and an excellent case for having anti-SLAPP legislation either as part of the economic crime Bill or as a stand-alone Bill. That needs to happen. There seems to be a general issue with costs, which are being used as a weapon in economic crime, in SLAPPs and in many other areas of law. It was an issue in Leveson as well. Do we not need to look at that and ensure that the courts can do their job unfettered by those outside influences that are causing the best legal system in the world to come into disrepute?

[Mr Davis]

The hon. Member is exactly right. There are a variety of other mechanisms that we could use. We could give judges the right to strike down egregious cases early. We could even look at the prospect of providing legal aid for journalists pursuing bona fide public interest issues. There are a variety of issues, and we should address all of them. This country is the global home of justice. Our justice system is admired around the world, but, if we are not careful, it will be corrupted, undermined, manipulated and abused by SLAPPS and people using SLAPPs.

I ask the Department and the Minister to take action, or to tell us that they will take action. Brits are rightly proud of how our legal system is a model for the world. If we are to ensure that that remains the case, we must act, and act soon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Further to the question of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), I can confirm that I have met the chair of the Criminal Bar Association seven times since the publication of the independent review of criminal legal aid. My officials meet representatives of the CBA almost weekly, so there is lots of engagement going on. I meet frequently with the Bar Council and the Law Society, because we have to remember the criminal solicitors’ view in all this as well. I can clearly confirm that we have decided to increase most of the key criminal legal aid fees by 15% from the end of September. We think that is a generous offer, as I am sure most of our constituents would agree, in the light of what is happening with the economy. I urge those engaged in disruption to reconsider so that we can get back to reducing the backlog, instead of threatening to increase waiting times.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The courts system relies on litigants having access to appropriate advice and representation, so why are the Government cutting funding to the Support Through Court charity and extending fixed recoverable costs to housing cases that will prevent law centres and other providers from having the means to represent vulnerable tenants against bad landlords, including in disrepair and unlawful eviction cases?

[James Cartlidge]

On the hon. Member’s first point, I have provided a written answer, which I will happily forward to him—I cannot remember if the question was from him—in which the existing position on funding was clarified. I am confident that we have put in a huge funding package across the justice system, with £477 million to support court recovery in the spending review. That is a significant investment, but I am more than happy to look at what has happened to funding for specific charities.

Assisted Dying

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Edward Leigh]

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

[Andy Slaughter]

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

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

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

[Danny Kruger]

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

[Andy Slaughter]

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

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

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

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

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

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

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

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

[Victoria Atkins]

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

Metropolitan Police: Stephen Port Murders Inquest

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

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

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

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

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

[Kit Malthouse]

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

Protecting the Public and Justice for Victims

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independent Review of Administrative Law

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

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

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

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