Knife Crime

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Geraint Davies

Monday 25th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend shows a lot of compassion and understanding.

I do not advocate a soft approach; on the contrary, we need rigour in the system, but not the knee-jerk reaction that we will suddenly cure this by sentencing. How often have we heard that in relation to every possible offence? Is that not what has driven the prison population to double, and the conditions in prisons and the assistance for those leaving to be so dire in this country that this is an international embarrassment?

I do not want to say much more. I believe not just that we are well-intentioned but that we are resolved to tackle the issue. The expertise is there, and part of that is listening to our communities.

I am almost dreading the summit next week, because I fear it will be a talking shop, a couple of press releases and not much more to get the Government through another week or two. I hope the Minister will tell us that that is not the case. I also hope that we will hear from him before 7 o’clock—I apologise, Mr Davies, that I will not be here after that. If I miss the end of his speech, I will read it diligently, as I always do. I know that it will be worth reading because he shares that view.

I respect what the people who drafted, motivated and signed this petition are trying to achieve, because they are expressing the same frustration as the mother who came to see me today: that Members are standing around, looking powerless—they might think we are uninterested, but we are not—and are not solving problems that are solvable. Those problems are getting worse and worse: they are now affecting not just individuals, but whole communities. This is a national emergency, and we need to act.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I invite my successor, Sarah Jones, to make a contribution.

Contribution of Poles to UK Society

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Geraint Davies

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter]

I do not want to be melodramatic or exaggerate matters because that does not help. The Polish community is modest and stoical in the way it conducts itself, and the last thing it wants is to have attention drawn to some of these matters. On the other hand, we have to speak out because we must reassure people and speak out against the abuse, outrage and violence that is happening. If people do not accept that that is happening, they should do what I did: Google for five minutes. I came up with about a dozen incidents, and, of course, the problem affects other EU and non-EU communities. Brexit has given destructive forces in our society licence to make racist and other attacks across the board, not just on EU nationals. On the whole, it is not intelligent people who are doing this.

I will give a few examples. A Polish shopkeeper was taken to hospital after he was abused in his shop in Leeds. In Huntingdon, as was mentioned earlier, there were cards that read, “Leave the EU, no more Polish vermin”. There have been verbal and physical assaults, with the Metropolitan police and police forces across the country reporting a substantial rise in incidents and racist attacks. A family in Plymouth were targeted when a fire was started in the shed next to their house.They managed to escape without injury but with substantial damage to the property. An eight-year-old child in Humberside told his classmates to go back to Poland. In Yeovil in Somerset, in the west country, a Polish man was asked whether he spoke English before being repeatedly punched and kicked. He required hospital treatment for potentially life-changing eye injuries and a fractured cheekbone.

Such incidents are happening every day in our country in a way that I would not have imagined. I am afraid it is a consequence of Brexit. It is not the behaviour of people who voted leave; it is a licence that dark forces in our society feel they have been given by the vote that took place. I feel particularly strongly about this because of what happened to the POSK centre in Hammersmith. It has been there for 50 years. I went to school opposite. I have been going there for 50 years. I used to perform on the stage there. I eat there, I drink there, I socialise there, as do many non-Poles across west London. As a hub for the Polish community, there is nowhere that is more integrated than that centre, and yet it was sprayed with racist graffiti, in a way that has never happened before, directly after the Brexit vote. So we have to act.

I want to praise my local authority in Hammersmith, which, provoked by the incident at POSK, brought together all communities—there are more than 100 communities and languages spoken across Hammersmith—in what we called a unity day. On that Sunday, more than 4,000 people came and marched through Shepherd’s Bush and Hammersmith and ended up at Ravenscourt park for a celebration of what makes us stronger. I am pleased to say that Wiktor Moszczynski, who many people know from the Federation of Poles and as a former west London councillor, spoke on behalf of the Polish community on that day. The event addressed the issues that I am speaking about and it meant that we felt we are much stronger and louder and have more powerful voices than those forces that would divide us. I thank everybody in the communities who took part in that event.

Time is short, so I will end now with two or three questions to the Minister. First, we must have an answer to the question of security for EU citizens in this country. I have a great deal of time for the new Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and I respect his work on civil liberties, but the comments he made at the weekend, about how new EU migrants who come to Britain could be sent home to stop a pre-Brexit immigration surge, have added to the confusion. We need to know not only what will happen to Polish and other EU citizens who were in the UK prior to 23 June, but what happens to those coming here now, and certainly up to the time, which could be three or four years hence, when we exit the EU. I do not know whether the Minister is able to answer that today, but he should say as much as he can.

Secondly, the Minister should say what the Government are doing to reassure communities that feel under threat and unwelcome in a society where they may have been not just for years, but for decades. Thirdly, what specifically will be done about Poles who are studying here at universities and paying a reduced fee because they are EU citizens, but whose courses may take them beyond Brexit? Will they suddenly be asked to pay hugely higher fees? What will be done to reassure employers who employ Polish people, but who will be thinking, “Are they going to be sent back? Should I be investing in their training? Should I get rid of them sooner rather than later?” All those issues are for today, not for two or three years’ time.

I am extremely grateful for this debate. We are united in highlighting the contribution that Poles have made to this country, but we have created a problem not just for the Polish community, but for many other migrant communities here. Whatever our views on Brexit, it is the job of the Government and all of us to solve that problem, and I would like to hear about that from the Minister today.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

We have three speakers with five minutes each.

Criminal Procedural Rights (Opt-in Decision)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Geraint Davies

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I can be fairly brief in addressing these three draft directives. That is not to say that they are unimportant both in themselves and in the context of European legislation, but the Government’s approach to them has been so casual and tardy that the ground has not been laid for sensible debate. I pray in aid the article in tonight’s Evening Standard entitled “EU law change ‘could help drivers escape speed fines’, says Chris Grayling”. That is how the Lord Chancellor sums up these three important draft directives for the public at large. If one were cynical, it would be tempting to assume that when the Secretary of State hears that European legislation is to be debated he first ignores it and then decides to oppose it not because of its merits but because it is European.

It is good to see the Secretary of State proposing the motion. The previous Lord Chancellor used to leave it to his junior Ministers; I wonder why? The current Lord Chancellor’s appearances in the House are rare compared with those in the Evening Standard, but I think that he has come for the approbation of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others rather than to give a reasoned opinion on the matter in hand. His opening speech has sadly confirmed that. The Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee is too wise a man to play the Secretary of State’s game, as the Committee’s reports in the bundle make clear.

Let me first set out the Opposition’s position on the draft directives and then have a little moan about how they have come before us. The presumption of innocence is speedily dealt with. We debated it in the Chamber a month ago and my opinion has not changed since then. I gave two reasons why we would agree with the Government and not support the opt-in. They were:

“First, it is not the difference in standards or the falling short per se that provokes the draft directive, but the alleged effect that has on confidence in the judicial systems in states that are failing. There is anecdotal evidence to support that; indeed, much of the debate about the European arrest warrant focused on worries about the criminal justice system in the extraditing state. However, as the Commission itself concedes, there is ‘limited statistical quantifiable evidence’, and that is not a good basis for such a radical restructuring of European criminal law”—

and—

“Radical though the draft directive may be—this is the second problem—it goes beyond what the ECHR demands.”

That is the point made by the Committee Chairman. I went on:

“For example, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and subsequent legislation, it is permitted in English criminal courts to draw inferences from the silence of the accused. The burden of proof does not always lie on the prosecution, and the right to representation, interpretation and translation varies at different stages of the criminal process. I do not seek to defend the law in its current form by saying that, but I do say that the directive is not the means by which to open a wholesale review of those and other provisions of the criminal law.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 671.]

Interestingly, in Committee on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, we are about to debate further provisions that would allow for more speedy and, the Government would say, effective trial of cases in absence on minor offences. That partly organic and partly operational process of the courts is a good example of why it is wrong that we adopt that particular draft directive.

The two other draft directives are more compelling. They go to the practice and procedure in the law, rather than its fundamentals. They sit more comfortably with the three measures previously debated and decided on by the Government.

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend will be aware that we already practise the assumption of innocence unless proven guilty and people’s right to be present in court. Is it not part of this partnership to promote best practice to others, rather than to abstain completely in the way the Government have, in particular by not providing the data to the EU Commission on the effectiveness of the justice system? We are the only country not to do that. It is ridiculous.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Where that is possible we should do it, and I will refer to a draft directive where we took exactly that line. I simply say in relation to the draft directive on the presumption of innocence that it was proving too difficult to accommodate the principally Roman law system of the other EU countries with our developed system of common law. It was just impossible. However, it does not stop us advocating within the EU on those matters, which we do very well; I just do not think that they are entirely compatible.

The Government opted in to the directives on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and on the right to information in criminal proceedings. I do not know whether that was because they were prior to regime change at the MOJ—a regime change so dramatic it makes the regime change in Crimea look positively evolutionary by comparison. We disagreed with the Government on the directive on the right to access a lawyer in criminal and European arrest warrant proceedings and voted against them because their arguments were poorly structured and articulated.

I have re-read the debate from 7 September 2011 and I am more than persuaded by the arguments that I put forward on that occasion, even though it did put me at odds with the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, something that I am loth to do, given his reservoir of knowledge on these matters. The Law Society Gazette, an esteemed publication, reported me as saying that

“the government’s reasons for opting out of that directive were ‘at best unconvincing and at worst spurious’.”

It went on:

“He said the directive’s requirements are ‘broadly in line’ with current UK legislation and by not opting into it the government would ‘appear to be throwing away an advantage to British citizens’. Opting out at this stage, he said would ‘fatally’ undermine the UK’s authority and leverage during the negotiations. He added”–

presciently—

“‘it looks as though the government are looking for reasons to opt out at this stage’”—

something that has now become commonplace.

I mention that first, because I think that that directive had more in common with the other two draft directives that we have before us today, and secondly, because we do not resile from voting against the Government when we think that it is appropriate. Interestingly, one of the reasons for not opting in to the draft directive on safeguarding children’s rights is because part of that refers back to the directive on access to a lawyer. We clearly do not adopt that point. There are good reasons for supporting the draft directive on children’s rights, even on the Government’s case, as there are for favouring the right to an appropriate level of legal aid across the EU. The difficulty with supporting those draft directives is that the position is still far from clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I do not accept the argument that everything that comes out of Brussels is necessarily evil or inimical to the interests of this country, which appears to be the bizarre position that the Lord Chancellor has painted himself into. Uncharacteristically, we will sit on our hands tonight in relation to two of the draft directives. To answer his question directly, I do not rule out any future opt-in, as of course the Government do not in relation to the directive on access to a lawyer, because I understand that their position is that they still might opt in. Even with the spin that he has put on it, I understand that for at least one of the draft directives there is a possibility that negotiations will lead to an opt-in. I welcome that pragmatic approach. It is a conservative approach, but it keeps the door open, rather than taking the radical approach that the Lord Chancellor would like to be seen to be taking.

[Geraint Davies]

Surely the point on legal aid is that this is to protect British citizens who might be wrongly accused and languishing in an unfit foreign prison, and to provide them with some legal support, at a total estimated cost of £200,000—a fraction of the value of the Home Secretary’s house.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend makes a good point which is exactly the one I made in relation to access to a lawyer: it is primarily British citizens abroad who would benefit. Yes, there is a moral purpose in our trying to get other EU countries to adopt the high standards that we have in this country, but there is also a practical purpose in trying to ensure that when British citizens get into trouble abroad they get the best assistance that they can in those countries. That is why it is sensible, where possible—as in two but perhaps not in the third of these draft directives—at least to keep the door open.

I wish that the Government would address these proposals seriously and not in a rhetorical and political way, and that they would respond to the Committee’s requests more timeously. The pertinent quote from the Committee is this:

“We repeat again our disappointment at the poor quality of the Government’s”—

explanatory memorandums—

“on the three proposals forming the Commission’s procedural rights package, particularly in the light of the time taken to draft and deposit them.”

I am afraid that this is becoming typical of the way in which the Ministry of Justice operates. It is to a low standard and it shows a certain degree of, if not contempt, then at least disregard for this House and its Committees. If the hon. Member for Stone cannot elicit discipline and compliance from the Secretary of State, then it is beyond me, but I feel that the debate is poorer for it.