Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Michael Ellis

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

Of course, the sentencing of such individuals is a matter for our independent criminal justice system, but we have an offence of nuisance on the statute books, as well as offences such as obstructing the public highway, the powers of which have been increased to 12 months’ imprisonment. The Public Order Bill is going through Parliament, which I was rather surprised that the Opposition did not support. As I have said, we are determined that those who seek to disrupt the normal lives of citizens meet the full force of the law. That is what should happen and that is what is happening. The Crown Prosecution Service and the police, as the operationally independent authorities, are working extremely hard in close partnership to bring those people to justice and see that they receive the punishment that they richly deserve.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I welcome the latest team of Law Officers to their places? I think I missed a stray Solicitor General in the summer recess, between the incumbent and the hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), but it is very hard to keep up these days.

We all know there are well-trusted laws to criminalise this type of behaviour, but is the Conservative party now opposed to all public protest and free speech? Reading its 2019 manifesto, I would have expected to see the Solicitor General and the Attorney General on the picket line opposing fracking, but last night they voted to allow fracking to go ahead, including, I presume, in their constituencies. If the Law Officers are prepared to break a clear promise in such a blatant and cynical way, what example does that set to others in upholding the rule of law?

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Gentleman’s question is not of course on point to the question asked, but the reality of the matter is that the Labour party is embarrassed by the fact that it is on the side of the protesters, rather than those people who wish to go about their lawful duties, and that is why it did not support the Public Order Bill. The offence of public nuisance is available, it has a wide array of penalties available to it and we know the courts will use those powers. I think the Labour party ought to focus on supporting the British public, who wish to go about catching trains, driving along roads and going about their lawful business.

Contaminated Blood Scandal: Interim Payments for Victims

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Michael Ellis

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I am sorry, but the hon. Lady’s question is unworthy. It is completely wrong to characterise anyone as waiting for people to pass on. That does not do justice to the gravamen of the situation, or to the officials working on the matter. I reiterate that good people are working hard to get the right result on this matter. I hope she will reflect on that.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Most of us here represent constituents who are victims of the contaminated blood scandal. As they have waited for justice for so long, there is often quite a long gap between our hearing from them, and we wonder, “Have they moved away? Have they just been exhausted by the process? Are they too ill? Have they died?”. This is an extraordinary, cruel process, but also an unnecessary one. Interim payments are a common feature of personal injury litigation. We know exactly what they are, and they do not, by definition, prejudice the outcome of any inquiry. Just answer one question: what prejudice is there to the Government in making the interim payments now?

[Michael Ellis]

It is not a matter of prejudice. The Government have a responsibility to work these systems effectively and correctly, and they have to make decisions based on the complexity and interconnectedness of all these issues. The situation. The matter is not as the hon. Gentleman says; it is a question of getting these things right as speedily as possible.

Functioning of Government

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Michael Ellis

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I do not think a serious answer is expected to that frivolous question.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Given that a majority of Government MPs now say that the Prime Minister lacks the integrity and honesty required for that post, can the Minister explain what the basis is for the Prime Minister to stay in post for a further three months?

[Michael Ellis]

I recommend that the hon. Gentleman awaits the statement that is due from the Prime Minister shortly.

Standards in Public Life

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Michael Ellis

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I have already said that the matter is being given the closest attention by the Prime Minister and by Downing Street. We do focus on standards in public life, as we do, as I have adumbrated before, in the list of matters that are available to those who seek to make complaints and wish to make complaints. In the interim period, people can make complaints to their permanent secretary, or the permanent secretary of the relevant Department, and that appears to be what happened in this case in 2019.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister has stated that the Prime Minister’s current defence in this matter is, “I was told but I forgot.” The Minister mentioned his time in practice. If a client had produced that defence, what advice would he have given him, and would he have put him in the witness box?

[Michael Ellis]

If anyone should go into the witness box, it is those on the Labour Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman seeks to challenge this party, but it is this party that delivers what the people of this country want. It is this party that secured the largest majority since the 1980s at the last general election, and it is this Prime Minister who will go on to fight the next general election. It is about policies, not personalities, and the hon. Gentleman wishes to make political points out of a serious allegation.