Transport for London Bill [Lords]
Debate between Andy Slaughter and Baroness Primarolo(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Slaughter
These are highly technical matters. My hon. Friend has a record of getting his head round such matters, and we have had excellent briefing from the RMT and support from the petitioners in this. I am not surprised that other Members are not on top of the matter. In all fairness to those who could not be present today, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), we should not pick on individual Members. However, I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is holding back on his endorsement of a mayoral candidate—I am sure that all the candidates are waiting for it with bated breath.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before you make your next intervention, Mr Slaughter, do you think you could make them a bit shorter? They are getting very long. It is obviously short-hand intervention except when it is a Slaughter intervention. Please be brief.
Mr Slaughter
Shorter, not Slaughter—I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply want to say, for the avoidance of doubt, that it is true that some of the partner organisations involved in the Earls Court development have been convicted of fraud, but not on the TfL-owned land and not including Capco, which is the major developer. It has many faults, but that is not one of them.
Points of Order
Debate between Andy Slaughter and Baroness Primarolo(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Question Time earlier, I put some figures to the Prime Minister. I said that under the Government-endorsed “Shaping a Healthier Future” programme, the number of in-patient beds at Charing Cross hospital would fall from 360 to 24. In response, the Prime Minister said that I was “spreading disinformation”, that this was known to my neighbouring Members of Parliament and that I should “take the truth and put it in a leaflet”. I have checked last July’s clinical strategy for Imperial College healthcare trust. In that strategy, and in other places, my figures are confirmed. Other papers also confirm that, as I stated, the A and E department would move from Charing Cross to St Mary’s, Paddington. Seven of my neighbouring MPs and I have written to the Secretary of State on these matters. The Prime Minister is entitled not to answer my question, but he stated that my figures were false. I wanted to put it on the record that they were not false, but I also seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can get him to correct the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Mr Slaughter, as I am sure you realise, the points you make are a continuation of the debate that started in Prime Minister’s Question Time, and you have now put on the record the clear point you wanted to get across. I am sure there is no advice I can give you that, being an experienced parliamentarian, you have not already thought of and will not be deploying in this Chamber to the best of your considerable abilities over the coming months.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
Debate between Andy Slaughter and Baroness Primarolo(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Why should those who row in to back a judicial review that they lose be automatically insulated from the costs of doing so? He knows that time after time the taxpayer picks up the bill. This measure is simply to ensure that those who row in behind a judicial review but do not make a valid contribution to the process cannot be immune from facing the costs if they lose.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. May I remind both Front-Bench speakers, one who has already spoken and the other who has been speaking for rather a long time, that the debate ends at 7 pm and other Back Benchers wish to participate? The Secretary of State has got his points on the record, and perhaps Mr Slaughter will conclude his remarks so that we can call the Back-Bench speakers.
Mr Slaughter
I give up with the Secretary of State. We are talking about interveners, who are there to assist the court and broaden the issue where it is helpful for matters of public policy. If he cannot see that after having discussed the Bill since February, I really do give up on him.
The Government proposals would prevent judicial review if they can persuade a court that it is highly likely that an unlawful act would have been lawful if done differently. That is a recipe for poor decision making. They will hobble the attempts of people to raise the considerable funds needed to bring a case and weaken their ability to have protection from the Government’s costs if they lose. Most bizarrely, they discourage the intervention of expert bodies, such as charities and civil society organisations, which often assist the court in making the right decision. Under pressure on this last point, or to give the usual fig leaf to the Liberal Democrats, a series of last-minute amendments have been tabled by the Lord Chancellor on interveners, but the opinion of experts who have looked at them is that, if anything, they make the Bill worse.
Labour MPs will therefore vote to uphold judicial review and the rights of the individual against the state. We will oppose the motion to disagree with each and every one of the Lords amendments in this group. We will vote against the Government’s amendments in lieu. We may, I hope, be joined by one or two libertarian Tories, although I am not holding my breath. It will be interesting to see how many Liberal Democrats, so keen to shout about their love of liberty before voting for legal aid cuts in secret courts, will join us in the Lobby.
Dangerous Driving
Debate between Andy Slaughter and Baroness Primarolo(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Slaughter
I will come back to the issue of sentencing—the offence that the hon. Gentleman mentions carries a much lower maximum sentence than the ones that I have mentioned—but first I wish to explain my point about charging policy, which still leaves something to be desired. It is not a straightforward matter. First, there is the question of the degree to which the driving has fallen below the standard of competent driving, as the hon. Member for Leeds North West mentioned. That judgment needs to be made by the CPS.
In addition, having decided what level of offence to charge, there is the issue of seriousness regarding the quality of driving, and that of aggravating or mitigating factors, particularly if they pertain to the individual accused. Such matters are not straightforward, and again, on occasion, prosecutors err on the side of caution when deciding what to charge and what are their prospects of success. In the most serious driving cases it is open to the CPS to charge someone with manslaughter, but that happens very rarely.
Hon. Members from across the House have reviewed the nature of offences—again, in response to pressure from parliamentarians and the general public over time—and a number of changes were made by the previous Labour Government. In particular, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving was increased from 10 to 14 years, as it was for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. The Road Safety Act 2006 introduced new offences of causing death by careless driving or by driving illegally. Those offences attract lower sentences—five years, I think, in the first case, and two years in the second—but they are new offences that came into effect in 2008.
Although it concerns a more recent offence, perhaps for completeness I should mention the offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, which again attracts a maximum five-year sentence. That was introduced through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and both the Minister and I had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee. That offence was contained in one of the few clauses of the Bill that attracted unanimous support in Committee, and it arose out of a private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). That is significant not because he is also a doughty campaigner on these issues, but because many individual advancements in legislation have come about through private Member’s Bills or the actions of individual Members on behalf of their constituents, and indeed through debates such as this.
There have been substantial changes and increases in maximum sentences. That allows for new sentencing guidelines, and for longer—and indeed more careful—sentences to be given, since all the factors I have described must be taken into account by the sentencer. New offences were created where lacunae in the law were identified, which is right. The changes in law under the previous Labour Government led to the substantial revision of sentencing guidelines in 2008. I will not go through those in detail, but they substantially increased some of the guideline sentences and gave clear instructions to the courts about how aggravating or mitigating factors should be dealt with.
Although the sentence of just a few years for taking a life will always seem inadequate to the family of the victim, I suspect that what often causes most concern to families are the sentences handed out for some of the “lesser” offences such as causing death by careless driving or while driving illegally. Those sentences can be measured in months, or perhaps just one or two years, and that will never seem an adequate punishment for the taking of a life.
As I have said, steps were taken a decade ago, and more recently, and the ball is now firmly in the court of this Government. Sentencing guidelines are being looked at again, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I know that—as always—he will give a careful and thoughtful response about when and where he believes the sentencing guidelines are going, and say what is in the Government’s mind regarding improvements in the law.
Before I conclude, I wish to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East. Although we have focused narrowly—quite properly, as this is the subject of the debate—on the issue of dangerous driving and on lenient sentencing in particular, one cannot look at death on the road in isolation because it must be considered in the round. One must also look at prevention.
Safety on the UK’s roads has improved immeasurably over the past 40 years, and we have gone from having almost 8,000 deaths a year in the 1970s to around 1,700 a year—a phenomenal improvement. That is against a background around the world of 1.3 million deaths due to road traffic accidents—I saw those statistics today in The Economist—the vast majority in developing countries. There are now more deaths from road traffic accidents around the world than from tuberculosis or malaria. While we can congratulate ourselves a little on the improvements in this country, there is still more to do.
Numbers of driving offences and the use of the motor car as a weapon of destruction are increasing elsewhere, and there are particular problems in this country that we have not fully addressed. One is the issue of young drivers, who account for only 5%—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Is the hon. Gentleman coming towards the end of his remarks, because he has been speaking for quite a long time? Normally there are 10 minutes, maximum 15, for the shadow Minister in a Backbench Business Committee debate, but he has gone over that. Perhaps he will conclude briefly.
Mr Slaughter
I was given 15 minutes, I think, by the Backbench Business Committee, but having taken 18, another minute is the most I will stretch to.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman should not chance his luck. He is over his time and we need to hear the Minister as well. I would be grateful if he could conclude his remarks.
Mr Slaughter
I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Yes, we have a better record and a long way to go, particularly on young drivers—I mentioned the graduated driving licence. We could do a lot more on road safety, particularly for cyclists. The Minister will have seen the horrific figure of six cyclist deaths on the roads in London in a two-week period just before Christmas.
I hope that, in responding, the Minister addresses the matter in the round—clearly, he will deal with it primarily from a Ministry of Justice perspective. I hope that he can give us some comfort on the central point that all hon. Members have raised: how can we deter and punish those who take lives on our roads, and how can we in some way mitigate the consequences for the sad and tragic victims and their families about whom we have heard in the debate?
Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]
Debate between Andy Slaughter and Baroness Primarolo(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Slaughter
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this Third Reading debate. I have not taken part in the Bill’s previous stages, but I have followed it very closely and I will confine my comments to one specific point. It was raised in Committee on 13 December and was the subject of new clause 3, which was not selected for debate on Report.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sorry to say to the hon. Gentleman that this is the Third Reading debate. It is not a debate about amendments that were not selected or a Second Reading debate. The Third Reading debate is about the Bill as it now exists. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will be out of order if he tries to make a speech that goes beyond the contents of the Bill as it appears now before the House. The hon. Gentleman is experienced in this House and I know that he will stick closely to that.
Mr Slaughter
I will indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I referred to new clause 3 simply because it was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). I was present when the Minister paid tribute to him earlier and I just wanted to add my voice to that, because my right hon. Friend has been of great assistance to me on this issue elsewhere. I think he would have wanted to address the issue.
If the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), was right to say in her response to my earlier intervention that the Bill no longer gives recourse to the matters dealt with under sections 44 and 46 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, it would be helpful if the Government could make that clear. The Bill has received qualified support from Members on both sides of the House and it would be helpful if those outstanding matters could be satisfactorily addressed.
There is an outstanding consultation or review to be had; the Government have not been clear about exactly what it will be. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East raised matters of serious concern. There has not been a proper consultation so far with regard to LASPO. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) has just alluded to the fact that when the issue was debated in both Houses there was a very strong feeling that mesothelioma should be exempt, but that is not being honoured by the Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will sit down. I spoke to him very gently earlier. He has been in this House a long time and we all hold the right hon. Gentleman to whom he is referring in the very highest regard, but, frankly, the hon. Gentleman is now drifting considerably from this Bill and I now want him to refer only to the Bill or to conclude his remarks. I do not want him to refer to justice or other things; I want him to refer to this Bill and its contents.
Mr Slaughter
I am grateful for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have made the point that I wanted to make. I simply say to the Minister that, as this Bill stands on Third Reading, it would be helpful if the outstanding matters connected with mesothelioma could be dealt with properly and the Bill was not used as a way of occluding them.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.
Financial Services Bill
Debate between Andy Slaughter and Baroness Primarolo(12 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 29 February this year, I asked the Secretary of State for Justice whether he would name the 25 highest-paid lawyers and the amounts they received. I was told the information would be available in due course. I asked again on 19 April, and was told the information would be available later this summer—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please so do quietly? Those remaining in the Chamber should listen to the point of order and if they wish to have private conversations, they should leave the Chamber. I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I got as far as 29 February so perhaps he will pick up his point from there.
Mr Slaughter
My initial question on 29 February asked for the names of the 25 highest-paid lawyers and I was told the information would be available in due course. I asked again on 19 April and was told the information would be available later in the summer. Yesterday, the answer to my question was spread over the pages of The Sun and The Sunday Telegraph with the Justice Secretary’s inimitable spin put on it. This afternoon, I received a reply to my question from Lord McNally. Is it appropriate to wait nine months for a question to be answered, and for it to be leaked all over the Sunday press the day before that answer is received? Even by the standards of this Government that is poor. Will you give me some advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can avoid a repetition of that?
Social Housing in London
Debate between Andy Slaughter and Baroness Primarolo
Mr Slaughter
My hon. Friend has made an important point. I do not believe that the Government now believe their own rhetoric on mixed communities. The estates that Conservative councils are demolishing are mixed communities; mixed communities are made up of rented, owned, freehold and leasehold properties, with mixed income levels. Those estates are being replaced not with mixed communities, but with exactly what my hon. Friend described—ghettoes of the rich. They are properties that are advertised abroad or go for prices far above what ordinary families can afford. That is the future for housing in London. “Mixed communities”—
Mr Slaughter
“Mixed communities” is now a euphemism for building the poor out of London.
Points of Order
Debate between Andy Slaughter and Baroness Primarolo(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I have not received notification of any statement on the matter that he has raised. I understand his particular interest, and I am sure that those on the Government Benches have taken note of his point of order and that, should we need to be given any information, either he or the House will be informed directly.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After the statement on high-speed rail by the Secretary of State for Transport, I went to the Vote Office to obtain the details—the devil often being in the detail—for my constituency, which is where the main terminal is located. I was told that it was contained in a 1,000-page document that had not been made available to the Vote Office, and I was advised to go to the Library. I went to the Library, which had one CD-ROM that it was not possible to download or forward to Members. I was told that CD-ROMs might have been sent to Members, but they have not arrived as yet. This is another instance of what is becoming a frequent occurrence—it occurred last week with the reports on court closures, and it occurred earlier in the Session with Building Schools for the Future—whereby the Government think that making available very limited data, in an inadequate, electronic form, is sufficient to give Members notice of what is happening in their constituencies. It would be a welcome ruling from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to say that when statements are made to this House, Members should have details that explain the important implications for their constituents of what is being told to the House.