Future of Legal Aid

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Jim Cunningham

Thursday 1st November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Most advice centres are experiencing staff reductions and are underfunded. That much is clear with regard to issues such as housing and immigration. Does he agree that that is a disgrace, to say the least?

[Andy Slaughter]

I absolutely agree. Pre-LASPO, my own law centre employed eight solicitors across a range of, mainly, social welfare law, but now it can afford to employ only two solicitors. It is only through the generosity of the local Labour council—against the backdrop of its own budget cuts—and that of charitable trusts that it is able to top up that number with further practitioners. Even the previous position, however, was insufficient for the need, as I well know, and the current position is almost unsustainable.

Bahrain

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Her position as chair of the APPG is an onerous task, as the group covers not just Bahrain but other Gulf countries. I held that position in an early incarnation of the group—the all-party group for democracy in Bahrain. My hon. Friend does an excellent job, and I will come on to the matter she mentions.

I would like this debate to shine a light on the continuing human rights abuses in Bahrain, specifically to gainsay their whitewashing by the regime, its paid apologists—the Bahraini Government often contract dozens of public relations and other companies in the UK to spread their message—and its political supporters. I also wish specifically to question the UK Government’s role, deliberate or otherwise, in sanitising the regime’s behaviour.

When the Prime Minister addressed the leaders of the Gulf Co-operation Council nations in December 2016, she noted the importance of UK-Gulf trade and security co-operation and advocated a strong UK role as the Gulf’s partner of choice, embedding international norms and seeing through reform. Indeed, as UK security co-operation and arms sales to countries such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain have increased, so too have statements from the FCO and other parts of Government that they wish to see human rights reforms in Gulf monarchies, starting from what is a very low base.

That has been especially true in Bahrain, where the UK Government have strong military, defence and trade co-operation, including a recently opened naval base, a history of offering military training and substantial arms sales. In addition, the UK has spent more than £5 million since 2012 on a package of technical assistance, which it specifically claims is to improve Bahrain’s poor human rights record. The FCO has funded training for various arms of the Bahraini Government, including the Ministry of Interior, police officers, prison guards and the public prosecution office. The pursuit of human rights reform in Bahrain is certainly an important goal, but the evidence suggests that the UK’s reform efforts in the country, spanning six years and costing millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, have failed.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

This is a timely debate in a number of ways because the whole question of the Arab spring—why it happened and where it is now—touches on human rights. More importantly, I wonder whether the Government, in terms of their trade with Arab countries in particular, ask what the human rights caveat is any negotiations. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a caveat to ensure human rights and that equipment is not used against the population?

School Funding

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Jim Cunningham

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is right. It constitutes a triumph of ideology over practicality.

Let me quote what has been said by two of the people in my borough who know what they are talking about. The head of the borough’s schools forum, who is also the principal of one of our excellent local secondary schools, has said:

“If schools’ budgets are cut, at a time when costs are increasingly significantly, it can only have a negative effect on the education that we are able to deliver.

We will not be able to employ the number of high quality teachers and leaders that we need to be able to maintain standards.”

The council cabinet member responsible for these matters has said:

“It’s clear that the government is trying to redistribute a pot of funding that is just too small. Cutting funding hardest in London, rather than giving all schools the money they need for teachers, buildings and equipment, is divisive and just plain wrong.”

That is absolutely right. According to the National Audit Office, there are extra cost pressures amounting to £2 billion across the country, but London is far and away the worst affected region. It contains eight of the 10 biggest losers in the country, which are in most boroughs and most constituencies—although not in every one: I know that the constituency of the Minister for London is the 12th biggest gainer. I find that particularly objectionable because London is a success story, and success is being punished.

From the London Challenge to the London Schools Excellence Fund, ever since the days of the Inner London Education Authority, we have prized education, particularly for people from deprived parts of London. We see it as an opportunity. It is a shame that a London Member, the Secretary of State, is overseeing this denuding of resources from London schools.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend has received letters from teachers expressing great concern about the implications of this. Surely the logic of the argument is that if there is to be fair funding for schools, funding should not be taken away, but should be increased in other areas. The Government are pursuing a ridiculous policy.

[Andy Slaughter]

I entirely agree. This is a very crude exercise, and it is also a political exercise. I find some of the triumphalism that we have seen on the Conservative Benches extremely objectionable.

Early one morning last year, my neighbour knocked on my door. When I said, “I have got to go to work”—if you call this work—she said, “This is more important. Will you come round to my children’s school? We are having a meeting about the funding formula.” So I went to the Good Shepherd primary school, which is in the street next to the one in which I live, and listened to parents and teachers who were both very well informed and very concerned. The same is true of schools throughout my constituency. Real people are having to address real problems, and I am afraid that the Secretary of State’s contribution today showed an extraordinary degree of complacency. She knows the problems in our schools, because she is a good constituency Member, and she must address them. This cannot be a levelling down. It cannot be robbing Peter to pay Paul. We must be fair to everyone.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

7. What reports he has received on displacement of Bedouin in southern Israel.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

9. What representations he has made on the potential demolition of the village of Umm al-Hiran in Negev.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Jim Cunningham

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Act was a landmark piece of legislation—one of those seminal pieces of legislation—and it could not be more different from this Bill. It has made a cultural change, and has indeed been responsible for saving many hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I am sure my hon. Friend has noticed that a Labour Government introduced the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Does he agree that this Bill confuses issues of health and safety with issues of negligence? There does not seem to be any real difference that warrants the definition.

[Mr Slaughter]

This Government have already been responsible for full-frontal, across-the board assaults on health and safety in the workplace, from the changes in part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to the changes in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 in relation to strict liability in breach-of-statutory-duty cases. This is just another of those assaults, but I believe that it is an ineffective attempt. I have confidence in our courts, and I am sure that even if the Bill is passed unamended, the judiciary will treat it with the contempt that it deserves. They will consider the matters that are dealt with in the Bill, as they would have anyway, but they will not give those matters undue consideration because of what is in the Bill, and they will continue to find for meritorious claims and against unmeritorious ones. Of course, it remains the case that if an employee is on a frolic of his own—if he is, as the Lord Chancellor would say, trying it on—the courts will find that out, because that is exactly what the trial process is about. The Bill does nothing but add confusion.

If clause 3 is intended to change the law—no doubt the Minister will clarify that—for whose benefit is it intended to change the law? It seems to me that the Government can only be seeking to bring in extraneous factors which will allow a defendant to deflect from or evade responsibility in negligence and breach-of-statutory-duty cases. The cards are stacked very much in favour of the employer in such cases. The employer controls the accident site, and the employer, directly or through his insurer, has the weight of finance and advice. The employee is often restricted, first, by nervousness about suing his employer; secondly, possibly by his injury; and thirdly, possibly by a lack of income as a result of the incident.

Why would a Government wish to set out to hobble a claimant in that respect other than because some blind prejudice causes them to consider all claims by employees against employers to be unmeritorious? The same motivation led to the 80% decline in employment tribunal cases that has followed the introduction of fees, and the Government have shown the same attitude to health and safety generally in their cuts to the Health and Safety Executive, as a result of which inspection regimes are not what they were, despite the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Unless the Minister either agrees to amendment 5 or can, very persuasively, show us that it would not have any material effect, I suspect that we will press the amendment to a vote.

Let me briefly deal with clause 4, about which a number of issues were raised in Committee. We have not sought to bring those up again, but one or two of the interventions were about the definitions of “heroic act” and “hero”, and about other poor drafting. I will not address those points this afternoon but, given the criticism from Members on both sides of the House, it is worth asking the Minister whether he will consider withdrawing the final words from clause 4:

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

St John Ambulance has clearly made the point that that is an irresponsible provision. It does not add anything; all it encourages is reckless behaviour likely to put either the putative hero or others engaged in such action at some risk. It is a loose and careless piece of drafting, and the Minister would do himself credit if he simply withdrew it. The brief that St John Ambulance prepared for us not only made that point clearly, but made the point raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell).