Points of Order

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Andy Slaughter

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the situation and I trust that that satisfies the shadow Minister’s point of order.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made an official visit to Charing Cross Hospital in my constituency. On arrival, he was joined by the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) and the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Hammersmith and Chiswick. They then proceeded to use the visit for party political purposes.

A video they recorded inside the hospital concludes by saying that the hospital has

“got a really, really great future here under the Conservatives.”

That will come as a surprise to my constituents who fought for seven years to stop Conservative Governments demolishing the hospital and, earlier this year, saw it taken out of the 2030 new hospital programme, putting £1 billion of essential funding at risk.

Paragraph 8.1 of the ministerial code states:

“Official facilities paid for out of public funds should be used for Government publicity and advertising but may not be used for the dissemination of material which is essentially party political.”

Can you advise me what steps I can take to see that that flagrant breach of the ministerial code is properly investigated?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for having given me notice of his intention to raise it. I am not absolutely clear: is he saying that a Minister visited his constituency but did not give him notice?

[Andy Slaughter]

No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am saying that the Minister visited and used official facilities for a party political purpose.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I heard that part of what the hon. Gentleman said—[Interruption.] Order. I do not need all that talking while I am dealing with a point of order because it means I cannot hear anything. The hon. Gentleman’s main point is not that he was not notified of the visit but about the content of the visit. If it had been about notification, I could certainly have dealt with that from the Chair. The content of the visit is a matter for the ministerial code and not something I can deal with from the Chair, but I am confident that there are currently some senior Ministers on the Treasury Bench, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman’s point will be taken seriously. If it is a matter for the ministerial code but cannot be dealt with from the Treasury Bench, he ought perhaps to write to the Speaker and the matter can then be discussed in that way.

Point of Order

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Andy Slaughter

Monday 5th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 25 May, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made an oral statement to the House to announce revisions to the new hospital programme, including the removal of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust hospitals from the programme due to complete by 2030. Two of the hospitals, Charing Cross and Hammersmith, are in my constituency and the third, St Mary’s, serves the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck).

In response to questions from my hon. Friend and me, the Secretary of State made a series of statements that may have unintentionally misled the House. He said:

“there is the work at Charing Cross in Hammersmith, where we are building the temporary ward to unblock the refurbishment”.

He also said:

“that is why we are starting to build the temporary ward capacity at Charing Cross and the first phase of work is under way on the cardiac elective recovery hub, to bring cardiac work on to the Hammersmith site.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2023; Vol. 733, c. 485.]

However, Imperial, responding to questions from the BBC, said:

“We do not yet know when we will be able to start work.”

Indeed, no building work is currently under way.

Earlier this afternoon, I was made aware by Mr Speaker’s office that a ministerial correction would be made in due course to the Minister’s statement. However, Hansard was unable to share that with me and the Minister chose not to do so, beyond informing me an hour ago that he had requested a ministerial correction without giving details thereof. This is extremely vexing for my constituents, who rely absolutely on those hospitals, which have the biggest backlog of repairs of any in England. The failure to address that would, in the words of the chief executive of Imperial, be:

“hugely damaging for the health and healthcare of hundreds of thousands of people.”

Rather than be so coy, would it not be better for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to come to the Dispatch Box and explain matters fully, including when the works will now be completed and where the estimated £4 billion cost can now be found? I seek your assistance, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his plea for assistance. I recall his consternation during the statement to which he refers and I have the impression that he is not happy with the Government’s decision. I can help him not in that respect—not at all. The only way in which I can help him is to say that, if there has been an inadvertent mistake or error in the information given to the House by the Minister, there are avenues open to the Minister and his team to correct that mistake and give the correct information to the House. Obviously, it is important that every Minister—indeed, every Member—gives the correct information to the House.

The hon. Gentleman will also know that there are various ways in which he can take this matter forward. I expect that he will do so, because I have the distinct impression that he is not happy.

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Andy Slaughter

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 27th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Restriction on the termination of assured shorthold tenancies—

‘(1) After section 19A of the Housing Act 1988 (Assured shorthold tenancies: post-Housing Act 1996 tenancies) insert—

“Section 19B longer term tenancies

Any assured shorthold tenancy (other than one where the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing) granted on or after April 1, 2018 cannot be terminated by the landlord within thirty six months of being granted other than for the breach of a an express or implied term of the tenancy if the termination would result in the tenant becoming homeless. It is an implied term of such a tenancy that the tenant may terminate the tenancy by giving two months’ written notice to the landlord.”

(2) In Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (Recovery of possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy) insert—

“(4ZAA) In the case of a dwelling-house in England no notice under subsection (4) may be given for thirty six months after the beginning of the tenancy.””

This new clause is an amendment to section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 which would prevent landlords from using the “notice only” grounds for possession for the first three years of the tenancy by private sector landlords where the tenant would become homeless.

New clause 3—Controls on rent increases within a tenancy—

‘(1) After section 23 of the Housing Act 1988 insert—

“Section 23A: rent increase

(1) This section applies to any assured shorthold tenancy granted on or after 1 April 2018 in respect of any property in England other than one granted by a private registered provider of social housing.

(2) It is an implied term of all such tenancies that the rent may only be increased in any year on the anniversary of the commencement of the tenancy and that the rent may increase by no more than the percentage specified by the Office for National Statistics as the Consumer Prices Index figure for the month immediately preceding the proposed increase if there is a significant risk that that tenant would become homeless.

(3) Any term of the tenancy (or any other agreement, whether between the landlord and tenant or any third party) which is inconsistent with subsection (2) is of no effect.

(4) The landlord must serve written notice of the new rent on the tenant and any other party who is responsible for the payment of the rent.

(5) The notice must be in a prescribed form (or substantially to the same effect) and must specify—

(a) the present rent;

(b) the percentage increase proposed; and

(c) the proposed new rent,

together with any other matters or information which may be prescribed.

(6) A person served with such a notice may, within 28 days of being so served, refer it to the appropriate tribunal for a determination as to the validity of the notice and, if necessary, to examine the risk of the tenant becoming homeless.

(7) Should a court or tribunal in any proceedings find that the landlord has received rent in excess of that permitted by this section, it must either—

(a) order that the excess rent be repaid to the tenant (including to any former tenant if the tenancy has come to an end),

(b) order that it stands to the credit of the tenant in respect of future rent which will fall due; or,

(c) set it off against other sums which the tenant owes to the landlord under the tenancy.

(8) The Secretary of State has power to prescribe a form for the purposes of this section and may make different provision for Greater London and the rest of England. The power must be exercised within a reasonable period and, in relation to Greater London if the Mayor of London makes a written request that it be exercised and provides a draft form, must be in the form proposed by the Mayor.

(9) The Secretary of State has power to modify subsection (2) by order and may make different provision for Greater London and the rest of England. Any modification is limited to substituting an increase which is lower than the Consumer Prices Index. That power must be exercised within a reasonable period and, in relation to Greater London if the Mayor of London makes a written request that it be exercised and specifies a particular substitution, must be the substitution specified by the Mayor.

(10) In this section—

“Greater London” shall have the same meaning as in the London Government Act 1963 (c.33)

“Mayor of London” shall have the same meaning as in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (s.29).””

This new clause concerns rent increases. It provides that it is an implied term of all assured shorthold tenancies granted on or after 1 April 2018, that the rent can only go up once a year and by no more than CPI if there is a significant risk of the tenant as a result of the increase becoming homeless. It requires a notice to be given to the tenant, giving them details of the increase and for a right to appeal that notice to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The Secretary of State has a power to prescribe a lower increase and must do so in respect of London if the Mayor of London requests it.

[Andy Slaughter]

It is a pleasure to open today’s proceedings on this important Bill that, if passed, will mark a sea change in the way in which homelessness is treated in this country. This is a rare creature—a private Member’s Bill with a hope of success. I should not tempt fate this early in proceedings, but I cannot see the usual suspects sitting behind the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the promoter of the Bill, so I am already encouraged.

I think that the Bill has support from all parties. Importantly it has the support of the Government; otherwise, I suspect that we would not have got this far. We should not forget the good work that the Communities and Local Government Committee and its Chair have done in support of the Bill. I also pay tribute to the promoter of the Bill, who now knows more about the intricacies of homelessness law than he perhaps ever wanted to.

There are matters still to be resolved but—and I say this advisedly—I hope that, as far as this House is concerned, they can all be resolved this morning. For my part, I do not intend to go on at length. Although certain important matters need to be covered, I hope that in the time we have available today, the Bill will be able to complete all its stages.

Let me be clear from the outset that I do not intend to press new clauses 2 and 3 to a Division. I am hopeful that when the Minister speaks, I will hear words that will encourage me not to press new clause 1. One interesting feature of the Bill has been that we have had constructive discussions about it—outside the Committee, of course; not in it, as that would not be at all appropriate. My last email to the Minister was sent at about 11 pm last night. I appreciate that that might have been past his bedtime and he has not had time to respond, but we are getting where we want to go.

New clause 1 deals with perhaps the central unresolved issue, which relates not to the content of the Bill— we will come to that when we consider the Government’s amendments—but to its implementation and, in particular, whether the resources that the Government have set aside are sufficient. New clauses 2 and 3 are also important because they address what stands behind the Bill—the fact that legislation of itself will not tackle the homelessness crisis. To be fair to the promoter of the Bill, he has at all stages said that that that is the case, and he repeated it in his article that has been published on PoliticsHome.com this morning. I appreciate that, but we cannot look at the Bill in a vacuum; we have to look at the surrounding circumstances. Nothing illustrates that better than the figures on rough sleeping that were released two days ago, which revealed a shocking 16% increase year on year. More than 4,000 people are now sleeping rough on the streets of the UK. One rough sleeper is one too many, and what should alarm the House in particular is the fact this is a crisis that does not need to exist.

Under the previous Labour Government, rough sleeping fell by three quarters, because of direct Government intervention and co-ordination with not only local authorities, but the many fine homelessness charities, which also stand behind the Bill. This crisis is solvable, but the fact that street homelessness has gone up by more than 130% since 2010—under the coalition Government and now under this Government—really should shame the Government. We are here to pass an important Bill, but that does not get them off the hook.

I must strike one small note of discord: we do not want this to become a battle about who is more in favour of the Bill. The promoter’s article mentioned the danger of the Bill being delayed because of our new clauses. There must be a lot of confused pots and kettles out there, given that the Government have tabled 21 complicated amendments that no one would wish to consider on Report—they should have been taken in Committee. I am hopeful that we can deal with them, but the point is that it is not unreasonable or irrational for the Opposition to take a little time to debate important principles.

In Committee, Government Members spoke for two and a half times as long as Opposition Members. I realise that there were one or two more of them, unfortunately—

Leaving the EU: Financial Services

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is a national issue, but I hope she acknowledges the work the Mayor of London has done in drawing attention to the importance of financial services. It would be curious if London were not represented on a Brexit Cabinet sub-committee but the other countries and regions were.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) is in some difficulty because the clock is broken, but she is handling it with great competence. I have been watching. She has taken an intervention and can speak until about 2.25 pm and 30 seconds. I thank her for dealing with the matter so well.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Andy Slaughter

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is doing a brilliant job of representing her constituents, as she always does. Does she agree—I think this is the purpose of her new clauses—that it is often the businesses in urban areas that are the most fragile and therefore the worst affected, but the levels of compensation and concern shown to them is the worst on offer—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We do not have time for long interventions.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Andy Slaughter

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter]

We know what happens, because TfL has given the game away: a 100% market housing development in zones 1 and 2. The only guard against that are councils—Labour councils, principally—insisting on affordable housing. The provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill will remove that guard. This is the dirty little deal between the Government and TfL to ensure there is no affordable housing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Talking about housing tangentially to the Bill, because it has an effect on property and the owning of land, is in order. Having a debate almost entirely about housing and the provision of social housing is not in order when discussing the Bill.

Business without Debate

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Andy Slaughter

Friday 30th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House will be aware that today Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in Guantanamo Bay, has been released from 13 years’ detention without charge or trial and returned to the UK. I acknowledge the efforts made by his family and supporters, and indeed by Members of this House, not least the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in securing that release. I would welcome your help and guidance on securing a statement from the Government on Shaker’s release so that they can explain how they can help his adjustment to normal life in this country and investigate the reasons for his detention and treatment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is not a point of order for the Chair, but a point about when this important matter can be discussed in some form here in this Chamber. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman, rather than wishing me to comment on a matter of order, simply wishes to draw attention, as he very skilfully has done, to the fact that this event has occurred. I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he has said, and I have every confidence that in due course there will be an opportunity for the matter to be debated and considered here in this Chamber.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Andy Slaughter

Monday 2nd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I welcome the return of the Bill to the House so that we can consider the amendments made in the Lords. I have listened carefully and with interest to the debates as the Bill has made progress and I must say that I have been amused by the position taken by Her Majesty’s official Opposition, who have been vociferous in saying that the Bill is pointless and meaningless. When it arrived in the other place, however, they campaigned vigorously against the clause on responsibility. You will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if it is meaningless there is not much point in campaigning against it. The Bill is not at all meaningless. It has a purpose in protecting employers, particularly smaller employers, against the compensation culture and it will, I believe, make a significant difference. If it made no difference at all, why on earth did the Opposition try to strike out the clause? We know that the real reason the Opposition did not vote against the Bill is that they know that it addresses the genuine worries that ordinary people have about the growth of the compensation culture, which they talked about while in government and have conveniently forgotten about.

As hon. Members will recall, the Bill is designed to reassure hard-working individuals and organisations who have demonstrated a responsible approach to safety, who have been acting for the benefit of society or who have intervened in emergencies, that the courts will always take the context of their actions into account when determining whether they have been negligent. In spite of the negative comments about the Bill from the Opposition and in the other place, I am glad that the Bill returns to the House with only two modest changes.

Let me turn to the detail of the changes. Both were Government amendments tabled in response to concerns raised about specific aspects of the drafting and I ask the House to agree with them. Amendment 1 is to clause 3, on responsibility, and amendment 2 is to clause 4, on heroism.

On amendment 1, when clause 3 left this House it provided that the court should consider whether a person had demonstrated a “generally responsible” approach towards safety during the course of an activity in which an act of negligence was alleged to have occurred. The Opposition said that that would erode the rights of workers to sue their employers following injuries suffered in the workplace. On report, for example, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said that the clause was designed to

“allow a defendant to deflect from or evade responsibility in negligence and breach-of-statutory-duty cases.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2014; Vol. 586, c. 689.]

On Second Reading in the other place, Lord Kennedy of Southwark added that

“the legislation could worsen the position of workers.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2014; Vol. 756, c. 1570.]

Those assertions are entirely without foundation.

I want to make it clear that the Bill will not stop irresponsible employers from being found negligent when the circumstances of the case warrant it or stop the courts considering all relevant factors when reaching a decision on the claim. It is simply about ensuring that the courts take a common-sense approach to considering claims brought against hard-working owners of small businesses and others by considering their overall approach to safety in the course of the activity in which an accident occurred.

Although amendments proposed in the other place that would have undermined the main policy objectives of clause 3 were not carried, we agreed to one amendment designed to improve the clarity of the clause—namely the replacement of the word “generally” with the word “predominantly”. We made that amendment following concerns that were raised about possible uncertainty over the meaning of the term “generally responsible” arising from the fact that the word “generally” is capable of bearing a range of definitions.

Lords amendment 1 helps to provide greater clarity. The word “predominantly” is a stronger and clearer term than the word “generally” and, on reflection, better achieves our policy aims. It makes it clearer that a body or individual who takes a slapdash approach to safety on a particular occasion cannot escape liability merely by pointing to a previously unblemished health and safety record. Instead, it makes it clear that, if a hard-working individual such as the owner of a small business is doing his best to keep people safe and something goes wrong in spite of his best efforts, the courts will always consider whether his approach to safety during the activity in question was a predominantly responsible one.

That is the key point. That is why we introduced the Bill and why clause 3 will make a difference. It will provide greater protection to an employer who seeks to do the right thing and to look after his or her employees, and something goes wrong that could not have been foreseen. Of course, the Labour party, in hock as it is to the trade unions, immediately assumes the worst and immediately wants to do down the small business person. That is a sign of the way the Labour party has gone in the past few years. It has moved away from being sympathetic to the interests of small business and instead is back to the days of union domination and saying, “Let’s back the workers.” This is a responsible, balanced measure that ensures that those people who are genuinely wronged retain their legal redress, but that the law is on the side of the responsible employer who seeks to do the right thing.

Lords amendment 2 relates to clause 4, on heroism. As hon. Members will recall, the clause requires the court to consider whether a person was intervening heroically in an emergency when the negligence is alleged to have occurred. We know from polls carried out by St John Ambulance and the British Heart Foundation that worries about liability can deter people from intervening to help others in emergencies. That is something we should all be concerned about, and the clause is designed to give people greater reassurance that the law will be on their side in those circumstances.

We debated a proposed amendment that emanated from St John Ambulance. I listened carefully to the arguments set out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). After we passed the measure, I did as I undertook to do and went away and thought carefully about the measure. I listened to debates in the Lords and decided there was no reason not to accept the St John Ambulance recommendation and the recommendation made by my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend. I hope they accept that we made the amendment in the good spirit of trying to get the measure absolutely right.

When clause 4 left this House, the meaning of “heroism” included a requirement that the defendant must have been acting

“without regard to his or her own safety or other interests”.

My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend questioned whether the drafting of the clause might inadvertently exempt some very brave people who intervened in emergencies only after considering the risk to themselves and others. Initially, we thought it would be unlikely for the courts to interpret the clause in that way. However, in the light of the concerns raised on that point by St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross, and after discussions with those organisations and after considering the comments made in debates in the House and the other place, we decided that, to avoid any possible misinterpretation, the simplest solution would be to omit from the clause the reference to acting

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

That means that it will be absolutely clear that the clause applies in any case where a person intervenes in an emergency to assist somebody in danger, irrespective of whether he or she acted entirely spontaneously or after carefully weighing up the risks. The amendment has been greeted warmly by St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross, which have said that they will use the opportunity that the Bill provides to encourage and reassure new first aid volunteers that the law is on their side.

That is what the Bill is all about. It is about saying to three groups of people seeking to do the right thing in our society that the law is on their side—people acting heroically, people acting in the interest of others, and people acting responsibly, particularly employers taking a responsible approach to health and safety matters in their own workplace. For many years in this country, we have faced a compensation culture. The Government have sought to make a number of changes to combat that compensation culture. We have made changes to the way in which legal fees are paid, and we have made changes to the way in which the rules apply. The Bill will add to a positive step forward. [Interruption.]

The fact that Opposition Front Benchers are sitting chuntering is, to my mind, a sign that they really do not care about tackling the compensation culture in this country. They do not care about the interests of small employers, and they do not care about people who are seeking to do the right thing. They are interested only in looking after the vested interests that provide them with their finance and backing. It is a sign of what divides this Government from the Opposition. It is a sign that this Government are on the side of hard-working people and people who seek to do the right thing. Opposite we have a party that simply represents vested interests and does not care about such things. That is why Labour Members have sought to challenge the Bill all the way through. The argument that the Bill was meaningless followed by the attempt to strike out parts of it completely undermined what they said and showed how bankrupt their current thinking is.

The two amendments make a helpful improvement to the Bill. I hope that the House supports them, and that the Bill can pass into law. I hope we send the clear message to those people that this Parliament is on their side.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I do not often feel compassion for the Lord Chancellor, but even he must have approached the Chamber this afternoon with how sad steps. Today, on the heels of the dismissal of the chief inspector of prisons comes the resignation of the conflicted chief inspector of probation, and so, on the first full day of probation privatisation, we have no one in charge of standards in the service.

The Lord Chancellor is scattering confidential data around like confetti, he appears to have changed at whim the burden of proof in criminal cases, and this afternoon, one of his favourite private contractors, Capita, was fined £16,000 by the president of the—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is meant to be speaking to the Lords amendment. I normally give quite a lot of leeway for a general introduction, but he must speak to the amendment.

[Mr Slaughter]

Indeed, that is what I intend to do, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply making the point that, with all of that going on just in the past few days, here we are talking about the Lord Chancellor’s heroes Bill. He is fiddling while Rome burns: more Nero than hero.

We are all sick of the Bill. I suspect the Lord Chancellor is sick of the Bill. Like many of his projects, it began as an exercise in public relations and a nod towards the tabloids, and a coded attack on the rights of the individual to find redress through the law. Both the ridicule and the incredulity with which it has been met on both sides of both Houses, and from almost every expert commentator, has exposed its pointlessness and fragility.

The Bill will be locked away from public gaze, elided by the courts and ignored by everyone else until some future Government finds a space in the legislative timetable to repeal it. The noble Lord Pannick said that he could not

“remember a legislative proposal that has been the subject of more sustained ridicule and derision.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2014; Vol. 758, c. 16.]

The chair of the Law Society policy board today wrote that there were two views of the Bill: that is was

“vague, meaningless and otiose”

or

“so ill-defined that it is dangerous to the point of mischievousness”.

Given that history, do the two minor amendments do anything to improve the Bill? They certainly do not make it any worse, if that is any comfort to the Lord Chancellor, so we have no reason to vote against them.

Amendment 2 has been urged on the Government since Second Reading on 21 July 2014, when the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) pointed out the unhelpful nature of the final words of clause 4. I moved to delete the offending words—

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

in Committee, supported by a very strong argument from St John Ambulance and the British Red Cross. However, it was not until Report in the other place that the Government finally gave in, stating:

“This will put beyond doubt that the clause applies to anybody who intervenes in an emergency to help somebody in danger, regardless of whether they acted entirely spontaneously or weighed up the risks before intervening.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 December 2014; Vol. 758, c. 44.]

I am not sure that that was the point of the objections; rather, it was concern that the Government were encouraging bystanders to intervene, even when it was not safe to do so, and when more lives might be placed at risk, including those of professional rescuers. The Government have at least removed one howler, whatever their motive or excuse for doing so, so we welcome amendment 2. It is just rather late in the day in coming.

Points of Order

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Andy Slaughter

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a debate on consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill on 1 December, the Lord Chancellor, while addressing the judicial review clauses in the Bill, misled this House—a matter that he corrected in a letter dated 4 December to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), a copy of which was subsequently placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

In that letter, the Lord Chancellor wrote:

“As we discussed, during what was a complicated debate, I inadvertently suggested to you that clause 64 contains a provision for the court to grant permission to proceed with a judicial review where conduct is highly likely to have not made a difference if it considered there were exceptional circumstances to do so. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that that is not the case. No such exceptional circumstances provision exists in this clause.”

Given that this misrepresentation goes to the heart of the Government’s proposals for judicial review in the Bill, I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether it is sufficient by way of correction to write to only one Member who took part in the debate and then to place a copy of that letter in the Libraries. Would it not be more appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to correct the record? I ask that particularly because it was clear from the debate in the other place yesterday on this House’s disagreements with the Lords amendments that the noble Lords taking part were unaware of the Lord Chancellor’s correction.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman has made a perfectly reasonable point of order. It is certainly the case that, when a Minister has inadvertently misled the House, it is essential for that Minister to put the matter straight. In this instance, it appears that the Minister has written to the Member concerned, and has, with all honesty and courtesy, sought to put the matter straight. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that that is not adequate. Whether it is adequate or not is a matter of judgment, particularly for the Minister concerned.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw the matter to wider attention, and, by making his point of order, he has done so. I think that he has done so effectively, because I see that Ministers are taking note of what he has said and of what I am saying, and I have no doubt that the matter will be drawn to the attention of the Lord Chancellor. I should add that, although the hon. Gentleman mentioned the debate that took place in another place yesterday, there will of course be another opportunity for this House to debate the substantive matters in the near future, and I have every confidence that the Lord Chancellor will take that opportunity to set the record straight. I also have every confidence that if he does not do so, the hon. Gentleman will insist that he does. The Chair will also keep an eye on the matter.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Eleanor Laing and Andy Slaughter

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

rose—