Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Victoria Prentis

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Lady and I served on the Justice Committee together, and I know that she shares my deep feeling that we must do everything we can to make sure that international humanitarian law is respected in the region. The UK has repeatedly raised with Israel the need to limit operations to military targets, to protect health facilities, and to avoid harming civilians. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have repeatedly raised those matters with their counterparts.

[Andy Slaughter]

The UK Government’s less than wholehearted endorsement of the ICJ process and the International Criminal Court war crimes investigation, which is led by British lawyers, means that the alternative is that people increasingly turn to violence. That is the view of the Israeli civil society organisations that came to meet us yesterday, with the co-operation of Yachad. We have to uphold international law. Will the Attorney General recommit to both those processes?

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Gentleman has long campaigned on these issues, so I know that he feels particularly passionately about the region as well. I am absolutely happy to commit this Government once again to upholding, where ever we can, international humanitarian law. Across this House, there is a great deal of consensus: we want the fighting to stop now. We are calling for an immediate pause to get aid in and the hostages out, and then to progress to a permanent ceasefire. We applaud the part of the ICJ’s provisional measures order that calls for exactly that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Victoria Prentis

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, I am unable to do away with client confidentiality and give him the specifics of any legal advice that I may or may not have given. I take very seriously my obligations to encourage the Government to act in a lawful manner and to ensure that the Government are acting in a lawful manner, both on the domestic front and on the international front.

[Andy Slaughter]

While it is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) back in his rightful place on the Front Bench, I wonder how long the Attorney General will feel able to remain in hers. How comfortable is she with the draft Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which seeks to oust the jurisdiction of our highest courts, denies our country’s international treaty obligations and treats our constitution and the rule of law with contempt? She has rightly said that her first duty is

“as an officer of the court”,

and she has called for a “respectful relationship” between the Executive and the courts. Is that why her name does not appear on the face of the Bill?

[The Attorney General]

May I start by thanking the former shadow Solicitor General for his great work while in that post and in particular for his championing of the pro bono movement, which I know he has always taken extremely seriously? It has been and remains a pleasure to do business with him. He knows perfectly well—better than most—that I cannot give from the Dispatch Box the details of legal advice that I have been giving to the Government, or of whether or not I have been giving such advice. That remains the case. I remain very comfortable in my role, and I hope that I will remain in this role to give the Government legal advice for a long time to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Victoria Prentis

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[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?

[The Attorney General]

I absolutely can and do stand up for the rule of law. The Government are committed to the rule of law domestically and committed to maintaining and upholding our obligations under international law. That is made quite clear to all Ministers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Victoria Prentis

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Last month, the Attorney General told the Justice Committee:

“It is particularly important that they”—

Government lawyers—

“work to keep the Government acting properly and within the rule of law”.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee found in January that the Government had

“twice knowingly introduced legislation in Parliament which would…undermine the rule of law: the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.”

This Illegal Migration Bill, even before the Attorney General’s own Back Benchers are finished with it, is a further example of that. When will her

“first duty…as an officer of the court”—

those are her words—trump her loyalty to a lawbreaking Government?

[The Attorney General]

My first duty is to the court and to the rule of law. I have absolutely no hesitation about restating that as often as the hon. Gentleman wishes me to; it is something that I believe very deeply, and I know that the Solicitor General agrees. Our advice on the Illegal Migration Bill is not something that we are able to share with the House. The use of the section 19(1)(b) statement is, as I have explained, unusual, but not unprecedented and certainly not improper.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Victoria Prentis

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[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?

[The Attorney General]

I am afraid I really would not describe this as a screeching U-turn—[Interruption.] No, not at all. This is a development in a very difficult area of international law. [Interruption.] I would just listen to this for a moment. It is a very delicate area of international law. This is a live and brutal conflict—we are all agreed on that—and it is right that most of the prosecutions take place in Ukraine, with real-time evidence and with witnesses present. Those prosecutions are going well, and I think we all support the Ukrainian judiciary in that. I hope very much that there will be an international moment of accountability following this war. I suspect that many courts will need to be involved, including both the ICC and any special tribunal.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Debate between Andy Slaughter and Victoria Prentis

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on getting a helter skelter of nonsense into one intervention, with every prejudice and false statement that has been made in the tabloid press about these matters for about the last 10 years—well done on that. I could make a long speech dealing with the specific issues of—[Hon. Members: “Go on!] We have got time, haven’t we? No, I will not. I could go into detail about some of the myths about whiplash and soft tissue injuries and what is actually happening in relation to accidents, the insurance industry and premiums, because I have been an observer of that for a long time. However, let me limit myself to a fairly narrow point.

I have listened to the arguments from Government Members, and they are just non-sequiturs, frankly. We have heard that insurance premiums are the issue. Let us imagine that we give the benefit of the doubt there, which I certainly do not, and say that premiums are likely to fall significantly and that that is a factor relating to claims rather than to insurance companies’ profits, the other activities that they indulge in and the way that their businesses are run. I do not accept that, but let us assume that we do for a moment.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) is no longer in his place, but he made a surprisingly illogical—for him—intervention. He said, “Look, people will still get special damages.” Of course they will get special damages, but special damages are what the name suggests—they are to compensate for specific items of loss. Why should the fact that someone still gets compensation for their loss of earnings or their medical bills, or something of that nature, mean that it is right to diminish their compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenity? These are all non-sequiturs. The worst calumny of all is to say, “We are reducing the level of damages from slightly mean levels to absolutely parsimonious levels because of fraud”, which is exactly what we heard in relation to the small claims limit. So many members of the senior judiciary and indeed, of Select Committees, including not just the Justice Committee, but the Transport Committee, have said that it is plain wrong to say that because there may be instances of fraud, of which very few are identified, all litigants should suffer by having their damages reduced.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about quantum, but I would be interested to know, theoretically, whether he objects to the idea of tariffs being appropriate for this sort of compensation. I remind him that Lord Brown said

“I am in broad agreement with the whole idea of tariffs for injuries, certainly for lesser injuries, and indeed even of reducing awards in respect of a number of these lesser injuries.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 2018; Vol. 791, c. 306.]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that tariffs can be appropriate with, for example, criminal injuries compensation?

[Andy Slaughter]

There is an element of semantics going on here. We have guidelines at the moment. Judges do not pluck figures out of thin air. They look at the guidelines and hear submissions, or they would have heard submissions when representation was available—it seems it no longer will be—and they make a decision, but they have discretion around the individual circumstances of the case. That is a basic and fundamental principle of law, but one that we are deviating from. I cannot say strongly enough that that is wrong.

To add insult to injury—if I may put it that way—rather than taking the average in the guidelines and having a rough rule of thumb that someone will get a bit more or a bit less than their individual case deserves, or going for an average and calling that a tariff, we are saying that a tariff should be a tiny percentage of the current award. This is nothing but an attempt to say, “We do not wish to pay out money in this way. We wish to diminish both the ability to make a claim and the compensation paid.” Whatever one’s view on fraud, the massive majority of cases will be meritorious and honest cases in which people have genuinely suffered injury.

I will conclude with the words of the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Judge, on Report in the other place:

“What I cannot accept is a solution which means that a dishonest claim is handled in exactly the same way as an honest one. We cannot have dishonesty informing the way in which those who have suffered genuine injuries are dealt with. That is simply not justice. There should not be any idea that an honest claim for a whiplash injury made by the victim of a car accident should be less well compensated than an identical injury suffered by someone at work.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 1600.]

That is what the Government are doing in the Bill and what is so inherently unfair, and they are doing it at the behest of special interests. They may genuinely believe that there is a problem to be resolved with whiplash. I could dispute that—we could go on for a lot longer than we are today—but even if they are right, there are other, better and fairer ways to tackle that issue.