Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

Is the Minister worried about the increasing criminalisation of young people? I notice that the Ministry of Justice published statistics last week that say one in four people of working age in the UK had criminal convictions. Should we not look at the current disclosure framework, so that people with criminal records for minor offences from years ago are not prevented from finding work, moving on and contributing to society?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the new Chair of the Justice Committee.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Government have pledged to undertake a review of sentencing generally. I wonder whether I can tempt the Solicitor General to support a wider review of aspects of the criminal justice system that do not seem to be working, in particular the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the CPS in dealing with potential miscarriages of justice. This week, Oliver Campbell’s conviction for murder was quashed by the Court of Appeal as unsafe. The Criminal Cases Review Commission was asked to look at the case in 2005. The CPS resisted the appeal and asked for a retrial after 33 years.

Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

2nd reading
Friday 23rd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

It sounds like the hon. Member wants to be on the Bill Committee and is drafting his amendments in his head. I have never known a private Member’s Bill Committee to be so popular. I am not a legal draftsman and I do not know the answer to his question, but we need to bottom out this issue, because it seems to be attracting the most attention.

Other issues have been raised about overlaps with the Defamation Act, and costs. There are provisions on costs in the Bill, but it is about whether they are driving down costs as far as they can, and about public interest. A number of areas could be further explored, even in this short Bill. Costs are a vital but often neglected part of the legal process. This is a hobby-horse of mine. We have just discussed the Media Bill in the House, and the repeal of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which in effect takes Leveson part 1 out of the equation with regard to having a level playing field for victims of press abuse—if I can put it that way.

On SLAPPs, the Government appear to support legislation such as this to prevent costs being used as a weapon to prevent people getting their just deserts and their day in court, but there is a different situation when it comes to the media itself—I cannot for the life of me see the difference. Of course, Leveson cuts both ways; Leveson also provided a formula for protecting small publishers against exactly the sort of people who take part in SLAPPs—indeed, he could have used the word “SLAPPs” in his report. It also protects the innocent victims of press abuse because the press magnates—not journalists and small publishers but major publishers—also have bottomless pockets.

In his response or during the passage of the Bill, could the Minister think again, at the very least, about how the Government will approach the issue of small publishers and journalists being sued in order to protect the so-called privacy—often the nefarious activities—of very wealthy individuals and corporations. This can affect anyone, including journalists like Tom Burgis, who won his case. The experience did not discourage him, because next week I am hoping to go to the launch of his latest book, “Cuckooland: Where the Rich Own the Truth”. Let me give him a little plug—it will soon be available from all good bookshops. It takes huge courage for someone to risk everything simply in the course of prosecuting their employment, when there is the risk of bankruptcy or being dropped by their publisher—although that was not at risk, I have to say, in Tom’s case.

We heard about the case of Charlotte Leslie, a former colleague of ours, who was effectively persecuted through the courts. We are lucky; we have the protection of privilege here. However, when we step outside this place, we can become a victim in that way, just like anybody else who is, with good intent, simply trying to tell the truth.

This even affects organisations such as the Serious Fraud Office, which is still being prosecuted through the courts by the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation. The Serious Fraud Office launched the action in good faith, and there was what I would call retaliatory SLAPP action. Although the original action by the SFO has been discontinued, the SLAPP continues. It really does look like a topsy-turvy world when organisations that we should rely on to regulate society—in which I include investigative journalists, Members of Parliament, and certainly criminal investigation organisations—themselves become the victims of those they wish to call out.

That is why we urgently need a much more comprehensive approach to SLAPPs, and that is why I fully welcome the Bill and will support it today. However, I think we can do more work on this. In responding today, I hope the Government will express their strong support and their desire to go further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 19th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I join the Solicitor General in welcoming Nick Ephgrave as he takes on one of the most difficult jobs in law enforcement. His arrival in post was announced by the SFO abandoning the three long-running and expensive prosecutions of Rio Tinto, Eurasian Natural Resources, and the Alpha and Green Park group. That follows a chain of failed cases, from G4S and Serco to Unaoil. With permanent staff vacancies of around 25%, and a case load that has fallen by half in recent years, why should the new director think that this lame duck Government will make the SFO a hawk in the world of financial crime?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The former Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), when told of the demise of his Bill of Rights, said:

“All the wrong people will celebrate.”

Was the Attorney General celebrating the defeat of that attack on our European convention rights? Will she now stand up to other of her Cabinet colleagues who repeatedly transgress international law? They did it with the Northern Ireland protocol, with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, with the Illegal Migration Bill and again this week with the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill. She is the Attorney General, so if she will not stand up for the rule of law, who will?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Could we talk about the fraud strategy, which, sadly, is itself a bit of a fraud? As revealed by Spotlight on Corruption, the new national fraud squad is patched together with £100 million already announced last year and 400 officers, up to 300 of whom are already in post. With no new money and precious few new staff, how on earth will that make a dent in the £6.8 billion a year lost to consumer fraud, let alone the £21 billion a year in public sector fraud that this Government let run rife?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Three weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Justice told me from the Dispatch Box that Russian war crimes would be pursued via Ukrainian domestic courts and the International Criminal Court, even though that denied the possibility of prosecuting Putin and his inner circle for the crime of aggression. At the time, the Attorney General appeared to share his view. Last week the Foreign Office welcomed the special tribunal necessary to try Putin, saying it would “complement established mechanisms”. That is welcome, and I think it is what the Attorney General has said today, but can she—because we know her to be a candid and thoughtful person—explain and confirm what by any definition is a screeching U-turn in Government policy?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Solicitor General.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I welcome the new Attorney General to her position. However, the backlog is still going up. Last week a solicitor was jailed for 12 years for a £10 million fraud after a private prosecution that was brought because the CPS had taken no action. Last year the prosecution rate for fraud, the most commonly experienced crime, was 0.5%, and for the past five years the average number of prosecutions initiated by the Serious Fraud Office has been four. Is the Attorney General’s solution to the backlog not to prosecute cases at all, and is this not a pathetic record of inaction by a Government who have gone soft on crime?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome to the Dispatch Box the shadow Minister, Andy Slaughter.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be shadowing the Solicitor General—we have missed him in Shepherd’s Bush.

Last month the Court of Appeal ruled the conviction of Ziad Akle, prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office, unsafe because there was a material failure of disclosure that significantly handicapped the defence. The court described this as a serious failure by the SFO to comply with its duty and said it was particularly regrettable given that some of the documents withheld had a clear potential to embarrass the SFO. It is difficult to imagine a more damning series of judgments on a prosecuting authority. The Attorney General, having recently expressed full confidence in the director of the SFO, has belatedly announced an inquiry, but the Attorney General superintends the SFO and her office line-manages the director, so will the Solicitor General confirm that this inquiry will be fully independent so that it can examine the Attorney General’s own role in this fiasco as well as that of the SFO and the director?

Refugee Family Reunion

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 20th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

I fully intend to keep the next debate going until 5 o’clock, and I hope that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will join me in that ambition.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is also subject to the Chair’s agreement.

Department for Transport

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 27th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

Does my hon. Friend also think it is regrettable that the Department for Transport has blocked London from accessing the new national clean air fund, given the scale of problems that diesel is causing, particularly in central and outer London?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do not want to stop the debate, but I am going to have to drop the time limit to four minutes for the next speaker. The way we are going, it will have to go down to three to get everyone in. I am bothered about that, so can Members who have already spoken bear that in mind?

[Andy Slaughter]

I will just say that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and will not take any further interventions.

I will give one example of how politics, rather than good sense, is governing the way that London is dealt with. It is a local example, but I think it is a good case in point. I am sure that many Members have visited the Olympia exhibition centre, an excellent Victorian centre that has been going for 100 years, serving the people of the country, not just London. Until seven years ago, it had a dedicated timetabled tube service. In response to lobbying by Conservative Members to take trains away from that part of the service and put it on to the Wimbledon part of the District line, we lost that service, despite the fact that because of development, up to 8 million visitors will be going there and it is in the most densely populated part of London.

We have to start taking sensible decisions. That is what the Mayor of London is doing. He has frozen tube fares, which were going up too quickly, for four years. He has introduced the hopper fare, which means that people changing from one bus to another do not have to pay extra. That has benefited 140 million journeys so far. He has introduced the night tube, which the previous Mayor failed to. He has reduced strike days by 65%, and he has, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West indicated, done a lot for not just walking and cycling but increasing zero-emissions vehicles and, indeed, the whole green agenda in London. Last year, he also reduced operating costs for Transport for London by £150 million in a single year.

I will briefly turn to more strategic matters. We have some major developments in London. I am a supporter of HS2, notwithstanding the disruption it is causing to my constituency and neighbouring ones, because it is one of those great transport projects that I believe the country needs. I agree, as I quite often do, with the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that the execution of the project leaves a great deal to be desired.

I declare an interest, because HS2 is bringing a lot of jobs and homes to my constituency, and it is co-ordinating with Crossrail, which is bringing a £42 billion benefit to the UK economy. We need Crossrail. We also need Crossrail 2. I remind anybody who thinks it is a new scheme that it is the Chelsea to Hackney line from the 1970s. Far from building these great infrastructure schemes in a way that is controversial, we delay for years and sometimes decades in doing so.

Finally, one strategic project that I think is a terrible error of judgment is the expansion of Heathrow. We now know that its commercial benefit is half what the Airports Commission said. It is less than Gatwick, and the net present value of it is about zero over the 60 years. Public infrastructure, in terms of road and rail, could cost up to £18 billion. Despite paying a huge dividend to its shareholders, Heathrow is only prepared to put £1 billion of that in.

The expansion will have terrible consequences in terms of noise and air pollution. We must think again about that. I know that the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), is applying the four tests of the Labour party and doing exactly that.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons & Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Amendment 1(P), page 1, (Recitals) leave out lines 6 and 7.

Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out “two” and insert “three”.

Amendment 10, page 2, line 5, at end insert

“save as provided for in subsection (3).”

Amendment 11, page 2, line 6, at end insert

“save as provided for in subsection (3).”

Amendment 12, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has arranged for, and published the report of, a review of the—

(a) potential risks to the assets of Transport for London arising from the exercise of the relevant powers to be conferred thereby, and

(b) likely effectiveness of measures put in place by Transport for London in mitigation.”

Amendment 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, after “TfL”, insert

“following consultation with the Greater London Assembly, and the publication of a report of such, and”.

Amendment 14, page 2, line 19, leave out “two” and insert “three”.

Amendment 15, page 2, line 25, leave out “two” and insert “three”.

Amendment 16, in clause 4, page 2, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) The consent of the Mayor under subsection (1) may only be granted after the Mayor has consulted, and published a report of such consultation:

(a) the Greater London Assembly,

(b) the London boroughs,

(c) the City of London,

(d) passenger representative bodies, and

(e) relevant trades unions.”

Amendment 17, page 2, line 38, leave out “all or any” and insert “no more than 25%”.

Amendment 7, page 2, line 38, leave out from “borrows” to end.

Amendment 8, page 3, line 4, leave out from “borrowed” to “indemnity”.

Amendment 18, page 3, line 13, leave out

“Except for the property identified in the Schedule to this Act”.

Amendment 19, page 3, line 15, at end insert—

“(6A) Any consent of the Secretary of State given under subsection (6) above shall be given in an order made by the Secretary of State.

(6B) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) an order under subsection (6A) above shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(6C) An order under subsection (6A) above shall in each case include-

(a) the land registry title number or numbers of any property or properties to be charged, and

(b) a specification of the proprietor or proprietors of the charge.

(6D) The proprietor or proprietors of the charge under subsection (6C)(b) may not be a joint venture partner of Transport for London or one of its subsidiaries.”

Amendment 2(P), page 3, line 24, leave out clause 5.

Amendment 3(P), in clause 6, page 4, line 19, leave out “or a limited partnership”.

Amendment 4(P), page 4, leave out line 21 and insert “a member; or”.

Amendment 5(P), page 4, leave out lines 37 and 38.

Amendment 6(P), page 4, line 39, leave out “(c)” and insert “(b)”.

Amendment 20, in the schedule, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (c), at end add

“subject to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction that TfL has undertaken, or caused to be undertaken, an effective risk assessment in respect of the impact on public health of such use.”

Amendment 21, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (d).

Amendment 22, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (i), at end add

“provided such property is not located within the curtilage of a bus, rail or underground station.”

Amendment 23, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (o), at end add

“provided such property is not located within the curtilage of a bus, rail or underground station.”

Amendment 24, page 6, line 19, paragraph 1(k), after “machines”, insert

“and other property which is exploited for commercial purposes other than within stations.”

Amendment 25, page 6, line 19, paragraph 1(k), leave out from the first "stations" to the end of the sub-paragraph.

Amendment 26, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (k).

Amendment 27, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (m).

Amendment 28, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (n).

[Andy Slaughter]

We have a single grouping of amendments to deal with in what might be the last outing of this interesting and important Bill, after some five and a half years of its progress through both Houses. I shall speak to the large number of amendments in my name. The remainder stand in the name of the promoters of the Bill, and no doubt the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) will address his reason for tabling them. I welcome the concessions that are marked by the promoters’ amendments, which may shorten considerably the length of the debate today.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill: Instruction (No. 3)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

I will give way to the Minister in a moment. There will be room for more of “Boris’s mini-Manhattans”, which is what we will be graced with: these sky-high blocks of flats—all of which are empty, all of which are sold overseas and all of which are safe deposit boxes for dirty money from abroad—that will loom over Wormwood Scrubs for the foreseeable future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think the Minister needs to come in on this.

[Mr Goodwill]

I wish that that were the cheapest option. We considered a number of options including North Pole East, the Crossrail depot, Reading, Southall, Ealing and Langley. Langley was the best option, as all the others involved operational issues, but it was certainly not the cheapest .

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 4th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

I do not think that is for this debate, but good try. I should follow the example of my boss and try not to antagonise the hon. Gentleman if I want him to vote with the Opposition on this matter. That may be contrary to what he said last Thursday, but it is in line with his party’s policy, what he did in Committee, and what seems to be the current position in Liberal Democrat Voice. We have heard enough of that; let us consider the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which stated in a short but telling paragraph in its most recent report:

“We also reiterate the recommendation in our first Report that the Bill provide for annual renewal, in view of the significance of what is being provided for and its radical departure from fundamental common law traditions.”

I am not sure one needs to go much further than that, and that lies at the heart of new clause 4.

Anyone who has sat through this debate, or previous debates in the other place or Committee, cannot be under any illusion that this Bill is complex, controversial and important, above all, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie): it attacks and deals with fundamental issues of fair and open justice. It is also, I am afraid to say, confused—perhaps deliberately so—and has had a very confused birth. The Minister said that, contrary to comparable legislation, this Bill has made slow, stately and clear progress, but I beg to differ.

I do not think that anyone would quarrel with my assertion that the Bill is complex. It is complex even for lawyers, 702 of whom wrote to the Daily Mail last week saying that they would not support this part of the Bill. Views have been expressed either way on it, and I respect the views of lawyers from the senior judiciary and the Supreme Court, as well as of human rights lawyers and special advocates. We are not short of legal opinion on this matter, and it is not of one mind. Overwhelmingly, however, it takes the view that this is territory into which we should proceed with great care and great caution.

I do not think that the Minister would deny that the legislation was controversial, either. He will find similar sentiments on it being expressed in normally Conservative-supporting newspapers such as The Mail on Sunday and normally Liberal Democrat-supporting newspapers such as The Guardian. Huge amounts of thoughtful concern are being expressed across the press about the provisions.

I have heard the Minister without Portfolio say many times that secret courts were undesirable and that we would not have them if we did not need them. Where we differ is on how we should use the provisions and how far they should go. Some say that they should not go any distance at all, while others say, as we do, that they should be as closely constrained as possible.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) does not agree with my view that this is a confused measure. I am not going to repeat the vaudeville act that I so enjoyed doing in Committee, in which I pointed out the four different positions that the Liberal Democrats had held on the Bill, some of them simultaneously, or the four occasions on which the Minister without Portfolio had announced that he had seen the light and decided that he was previously wrong to be so terribly authoritarian and that he now had a package of measures that would ensure full judicial discretion and that CMPs were de facto, if not expressly in the Bill, to be used as a last resort. I think we have all seen through those posturings, which were adopted primarily for political purposes.

We have only to look through the list of amendments to the Bill and at what will be in the Bill after tonight—until such time, I hope, that some of it is removed again in the other place—to see that this is all hugely controversial. Yes, we have the six markers that were put down in the House of Lords, and I accept that two of those—the least far-reaching—have been accepted by the Government. The move from “must” to “may” opens the door to judicial discretion; there is agreement on that. There has been some peculiar dithering about equality of arms, which is a strange term to use in this context as it refers simply to the ability of both parties to apply to get into a CMP; it will have nothing to do with equality of arms once the CMP has been invoked. That proposal was put in, taken out and put in again by the Government. I am not making a point about that; it is in there now and the Government are supporting our amendments on that tonight, but—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Obviously there is a load of historical information that people might wish to discuss, but we need to stick to the new clauses before us tonight, rather than going back through the history. I am sure that that is where the hon. Gentleman is going to take us to next.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The point I was trying to encapsulate is that there is so much in the Bill that is new and highly controversial that it seems utterly right that we should not have to wait five years or have only a single process of review, and that we should have instead a process of renewal. That is to say that this House and the other place should have the opportunity to reject the Bill once they have seen it in operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I would just say that we have had an extensive debate on all the amendments on which the hon. Gentleman suggests there has been no debate. I wonder whether he might like to reflect on that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. What I can reflect on is that we should be sticking to the new clauses before us, and, as I have said, I know that is what we are going to do now.

[Mr Slaughter]

I do not know how the Minister can say that when he has tabled new amendments on Report that introduce new concepts to the Bill. [Interruption.] Well, I am in difficulty here, because Mr Deputy Speaker is asking me to conclude. Perhaps this is a matter we can return to on Third Reading.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is the new clauses that are under discussion and it is the new clauses we need to stick to, because we have dealt with the previous amendments. We are just rounding off on the new clauses. I am sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman wants to do.

[Mr Slaughter]

It might be that we can return to this matter briefly on Thursday, because the other place will want to see what the Government have done to the Bill before it leaves this House. The introduction at a very late stage, both in Committee and on Report, of substantial changes to the Bill does not make for good legislation. At the very least, our new clause would make the provision subject to a process of annual review. The idea of a review after five years that might lead to nothing but a continuation, without any possibility of sanction from this House or the other place, is not reasonable, so I urge all Members to support not only new clause 4, but amendment 38.

Jerusalem (Humanitarian Issues)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

I thank the Minister for pointing out some truths—I think to Government Members as well. He is going slightly off the subject by talking about the death penalty in Gaza, and perhaps he will also reflect on the 20 Palestinian civilians killed by the Israeli air force recently, as they too suffered the death penalty. His Government are not so good, however, on action. They did not support and, therefore, effectively sabotaged in the United Nations Security Council the Palestinian bid for statehood. If the bid goes back to the UN General Assembly in April, will the Government support non-member status?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It was meant to be a very short intervention, but that was almost a speech. If you need to, you will have to put in for your own Adjournment debate.

National Policy Statement (Waste Water)

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister is being his usual modest self in saying that he was not au fait with the subject. He is now up to his knees, if not his waist, in the subject, having dealt with the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill last week and in introducing this debate. I believe that the Select Committee had some doubt about major projects being included in the NPS. For the avoidance of doubt, are the Government unshaken in their view that projects such as the Thames tunnel and Deephams sewage works should be included in the NPS? Whatever the final decision on the route and the detail, it is important to be clear—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I will make the judgments about the length of interventions, thank you. We want short interventions. I presume that the hon. Gentleman has got to the end of his.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The good news is that I am not going to judge the speech or the ring main.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I will, I hope, be a little briefer than the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). I just want to make a few remarks arising from his comments and amendments.

I am absolutely with the right hon. Gentleman on the general principle that in going ahead with the Bill, which I believe has all-party support—I am not sure about him but he is not pressing his amendment—we must protect both public money and the money of the public. By public money, I mean, first, any underwriting of major capital schemes, such as the Thames tunnel. Secondly, this is a large private multinational company—I appreciate his research into its holdings and complex structure—and we must ensure that it pays taxes in the UK.

At the same time, however, we must also look after the money of the public and ensure that not a penny more is paid in increased water charges, particularly given that water charges are already rising above the rate of inflation for all water users across the UK, including Thames Water customers. I was somewhat reassured on Second Reading when the Minister said that the Government shared those concerns and that he was sceptical about the project—at least about whether its financing was what Thames Water said it was. There would be broad agreement on that.

I also agree with many of the comments of the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark about Thames Water, particularly under the ownership of RWE. During my first two or three years in the House, Thames Water was my bête noir, partly because of how it dealt with leaks—digging up roads all around London in a completely ad hoc, unconcerned way and leaving workings for months at a time—while still not getting to grips with the problem. Furthermore, the problem of sewer flooding, particularly in west London, has been a blight on people’s lives. Year on year, thousands of basement and ground-floor properties in my constituency are flooded by sewers, yet little attention is paid to it. And, indeed, there are Thames Water’s financial arrangements, which the right hon. Gentleman spoke about.

It is only right to balance that, however, by mentioning that Thames Water’s performance has improved markedly in the past few years in many of those areas, although we should continue to be concerned about its financial structures. A lot has been written in the papers in the past few days about the current drought and impending hosepipe ban and other possible measures, and the water companies are rightly under scrutiny. I note that in total—this is not just Thames Water—water companies are likely to report annual profits of £1.5 billion and that they are currently leaking about one quarter of the water they provide. They provide about 14.6 billion litres daily, and about one quarter of that is being leaked. It has been pointed out quite correctly that the hosepipe ban will save only 20% of the water being leaked daily.

The water companies, then, have a long way to go. Many of their problems were caused by the botched privatisation under the then Conservative Government and the fact that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there has been an incentive for companies to beef up their profits to make themselves ripe for takeover, to sell on at a profit and not to worry during those years about their consumers and the cash cow that comes from having an effective local water monopoly.

Everyone will be grateful for the research that the right hon. Gentleman has done into the financing structures. I am less sure, however, that his amendments would deal with that. I will not spend long on this because I suspect that the Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), will explain, not as eloquently as me but forensically and analytically, how the Labour amendments would provide the necessary safeguards in a less prescriptive and detailed but more effective way to ensure that if any projects come forward for financial assistance, they are tested in the House first to ensure that the assistance is necessary.

I depart from the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the effect that his amendment might have on the clause. In the end, we need a project in London that will resolve the daily, sometimes weekly, regular flow of huge quantities of sewage into the Thames. On this, I am not sure where he is coming from. When we debated this matter last September in Westminster Hall, he said:

“I also put in a short response to the private commission that was set up by some interested local authorities and chaired by Lord Selborne.”—

in fact, it was set up by Hammersmith and Fulham council—

“The commission has argued that we must have a totally different direction. I am not persuaded by that. The Thames tunnel is the best direction. The previous Government came to that view and the present Government have held to it.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 316WH.]

That was in September. In February, he said:

“I am now clear that, since the end of the first round of consultations in 2011, the arguments for a review of the full tunnel proposal and possible alternatives have substantially increased.”—[Official Report, 29 February 2012; Vol. 541, c. 391.]

I am not sure what happened between September and February. This is important because we must find an effective solution. There is no point putting forward half measures.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

I beg to move amendment 21, page 29, line 6, leave out Clause 41.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 150, page 29, line 36, at end insert—

‘(4A) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not apply in relation to proceedings which include a claim for damages for loss or bodily injury resulting from exposure to a harmful substance or process where the claim is made against a person who—

(a) carries on business in more than one country, or

(b) owns (wholly or partly) one or more businesses carried on in more than one country or in different countries.’.

Amendment 164, page 29, line 36, at end insert—

‘(4A) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not apply in relation to a success fee payable under a conditional fee agreement made in relation to—

(a) any proceedings in relation to a claim for—

(i) libel,

(ii) slander,

(iii) misuse of private information;

(b) any proceedings arising out of the same cause of action as any proceedings to which sub-paragraph (a) refers.’.

Amendment 163, page 29, line 41, at end insert—

‘(7) The amendments made by subsections (2) and (4) do not apply in relation to a success fee payable under a conditional fee agreement made in relation to—

(a) any proceedings based on a claim of defamation; or

(b) any proceedings based on a claim of privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; or

(c) any proceedings arising out of the same cause of action as any proceedings to which paragraphs (a) or (b) refer.’.

Amendment 22, page 31, line 1, leave out clause 43.

Amendment 151, in clause 43, page 31, line 45, at end insert—

‘(6) This section does not apply in relation to a costs order made in favour of a party to proceedings which include a claim for damages for loss or bodily injury resulting from exposure to a harmful substance or process where the claim is made against a person who—

(a) carries on business in more than one country, or

(b) owns (wholly or partly) one or more businesses carried on in more than one country or in different countries.’.

Amendment 165, in clause 43, page 32, line 4, at end insert—

‘(4) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a costs order made in favour of a party to proceedings in a cause of action in relation to a claim for—

(a) libel,

(b) slander,

(c) misuse of private information.’.

Amendment 72, page 32, line 5, leave out clause 44.

New clause 39—Road traffic accident pre-action protocol—

‘(1) The Table in Rule 45.29 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998/3132) (Amount of fixed costs under the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents) is amended as follows.

(2) The figure for Stage 1 shall be £200.

(3) The figure for Stage 2 shall be £400.

(4) The figure for Stage 3 for Type A fixed costs shall be £125.

(5) The figure for Stage 3 for Type B fixed costs shall be £125.

(6) Any further amendment to the Table shall not be made by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee but may be made by the Lord Chancellor by rules made by statutory instrument and may not be made until a draft of the rules has been laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.

[Mr Slaughter]

This is an important group of amendments to part 2 of the Bill, which deals with a complex and vital area of access to justice. Because there are only 20 minutes left to debate this group, and I want to be fair to the Minister and give him 10 minutes to reply, I shall speak quickly in the hope of getting through the main part of my argument. I should make it clear at the outset that I wish to press to a vote amendment 21, which would undo the destruction of conditional fee agreements that the Government are pushing through in the Bill. I also ask, with the leave of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the lead signatory to amendment 163, that we press that amendment to a vote.

Conditional fee agreements, also known as no win, no fee agreements, were brought in by a Conservative Government to preserve access to justice for those on moderate means at a time when vast areas were being removed from the scope of legal aid and eligibility criteria were being removed. The provisions were amended, with a remarkable lack of contention from the Conservative Opposition, in the Access to Justice Act 1999, to create their modern form.

The idea of contingency fee agreements was to create a viable market in legal services by introducing success fees paid by losing defendants—wrongdoers, in other words—to compensate lawyers for the cases that they lost, for which, of course, they received no fees. For lawyers, that form of payment by results meant not that they would take on spurious cases, but that they were allowed to take on cases that might be 75:25 or 50:50. That has created a system that works, for the main part, very well. It has created a viable market in legal services and permitted access to justice for millions since it was introduced.

What sort of people have availed themselves of contingency fee agreements? More than half of those who have used them have had an income below £25,000 a year and only 18% have had an income of more than £40,000 a year. Government Members carp on about footballers and models using them, but the average claimant is the average constituent.

How do the Government’s proposals work? First, winning claimants will lose. Victims will have to pay the costs of their insurance and their lawyer’s success fees from their damages—up to 25% of damages, aside from damages for future care, can be taken by the lawyer, and the insurance premium will take up even more of those damages, perhaps wiping them out altogether. To make up for part of those losses, the Government plan a 10% increase in damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. Simple maths should be sufficient to show that that will not make up for all losses.

Losing claimants, including those bringing speculative and nuisance claims, will gain. They will benefit because it is unlikely that they will have to pay the costs of the winning defendant—that is part of the perverse, qualified one-way cost-shifting scheme that the Government intend to introduce when the Bill passes.

Losing defendants—wrongdoers, in other words—and their insurers will gain. Wrongdoers will benefit, because they do not have to pay the cost of after-the-event insurance or the victim’s lawyer’s success fees, thus limiting their liabilities and those of their insurers. Winning defendants will lose out. A winning defendant will no longer be able to reclaim the cost of their defence, thanks to qualified one-way cost shifting. To summarise, winners lose and losers win. That is simply wrong.

There was a time when the Conservative party worried about access to justice, but now it appears to be nothing more than the parliamentary wing of the insurance lobby, which according to an investigation by The Guardian has donated £4.9 million to the Tories since the Prime Minister became leader.

I have spent the past few months speaking to victims who have used contingency fee agreements to get justice. I have heard them tell me how our justice system helped them, and their fears that others who suffer in future will not get the help they need. A number of areas of law will be badly—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. That is not a point of order and the matter was dealt with earlier in the week. Let us have no more of that.

[Mr Slaughter]

Let me just say that if the Government start talking about conflicts of interest on this Bill, they will open a Pandora’s box.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not going to open Pandora’s box. We are going to deal with the amendments before us.

[Mr Slaughter]

I was not talking about the Minister; I was talking about the Bill. I am not surprised that the Minister’s PPS is embarrassed by the Bill, after sitting through our proceedings in Committee.

The common link between parts 1 and 2 of the Bill is the destruction of access to justice in a way that we have not seen since the introduction of legal aid by a Labour Government after the second world war. The insurance industry is being given one of the biggest pay-offs in history which, as we know from experience, will go into the pockets of their directors and shareholders. While other aspects of this Bill display the startling incompetence of this Government, none shows their intent more truly than the provisions in part 2, which would give the whip hand to large public and private corporations, while taking rights away from ordinary people. What is the point in having rights if they cannot be enforced?

I ask the Liberal Democrats to look at amendment 21, which would deal with cases such as Trafigura and pleural plaques, and amendment 163, which would deal with cases such as that of Milly Dowler, and join us in the Lobby tonight.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

You don’t even know; not a clue.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

Sure Start Children’s Centres

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Hodgson]

I read that same paragraph in a copy of a letter from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), which was a response to a letter to the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), from the all-party Sure Start group. I was curious because I thought it sounded like closing the stable door after the horse had bolted. Once the budget cut has been made, the consultation does not matter, because if the consultation showed that people wanted to keep the centres, where would the money come—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need much shorter interventions, as there are more Members wishing to participate in the debate.

[Mr Slaughter]

The whole situation is clearly nonsense. The belated process of consultation closed on Monday 28 February, but the budget for the year was decided at the budget council meeting on 23 February. Nobody is fooled by this, and I suspect that the divisional court will also not be fooled by it when it comes to look at the decision-making process over Sure Start in Hammersmith and Fulham.

There is a fourth reason for the last-minute change of heart, whereby no money suddenly became £19,000. Another paragraph of the later report said:

“We understand that there is no expectation of claw back of capital spend on children’s centres”—

that is, by the Department for Education—

“unless the buildings are no longer used for the services for under fives and their families. We are confident that the proposal outlined above will satisfy DfE requirements.”

So one of the officers said that if the grant was withdrawn as intended and as decided, the Minister of State would come round, not to see what wonderful work had been done but to take back the buildings that had subsequently closed.

Two centres are closing in the ward where I live, in a substantial area of deprivation. About a minute’s walk from my home is Wendell Park children’s centre. A number of parents whose children attend the centre were at the seminar held this morning by the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), and I met them afterwards. They are campaigning to keep their centre open, and they are under no illusion—