British and Overseas Judges: Hong Kong

Debate between Robert Buckland and Andy Slaughter

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. You must be finding this an interesting debate; it is veering in slightly different directions from the form that Westminster Hall debates normally take, but we can adapt. It is good that the Government are keeping us on our toes with statements; I think the U-turn was announced a full 15 minutes before the debate started. I will abandon my speech and instead make just one or two brief points, which probably means I will go on for longer than I would have otherwise done.

I would say a word on behalf of the judges—not that they need me to say a word on their behalf, but they have been put in a difficult position. Two statements were issued—on 17 July 2020 and 27 August 2021—by the President of the UK Supreme Court. The first ended by saying:

“Whether judges of the Supreme Court can continue to serve as judges in Hong Kong will depend on whether such service remains compatible with judicial independence and the rule of law.”

The 2021 statement made the judgment that:

“At this time, our shared assessment is that the judiciary in Hong Kong continues to act largely independently of government and their decisions continue to be consistent with the rule of law.”

Members may have disagreed with that assessment at that time, and I think we all disagree with it now—the actions of the Beijing Government have been something of a moving target—but the sitting Supreme Court judges have been placed in a difficult position. They have been waiting for a steer from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for some time. I say a steer; this is about the independence of the judiciary, and it is not for the Foreign Office to tell senior judges what to do. None the less, the opinion of the Government has been lacking for some time.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said, the Labour party has made its position clear, not just in debates, but in the statement made by the then shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and the shadow Attorney General, Lord Falconer. The Government could perhaps have not left the decision until the eleventh hour.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the need for the Government not to direct judges, which would play entirely into the hands of China. We have an independent judiciary. Frankly, China does not respect the rule of law. That is why the Government’s position has been very carefully calibrated. Gently but firmly, I reject the contention that there was somehow benign neglect here. There was a very careful monitoring of the situation by me and the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab)—precisely calibrated on respect for the independence of the judiciary, but also making sure there was a very clear political hand on the tiller when it came to the overall evidence and assessment of the situation, month by month.

[Andy Slaughter]

I entirely respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s opinion and his record as Lord Chancellor, but the issue could have been handled a little better. There were signals in those statements, at least on knowing the opinion. I entirely agree with him, obviously, that the last thing we want, either in relation to China or of itself, is for the Government to be banging the table and telling judges what to do, although they do seem to do that rather a lot—presumptions seem to be finding their way into legislation rather too often, in my view. Nevertheless, let us maintain today’s harmonious spirit. We will endeavour to do that.

I think it will be something of a relief to the Supreme Court that this statement has been made today. The question, as other hon. Members have already raised, is what the consequences will be. The Minister may want to clarify. As far as retired judges and practitioners are concerned, it will still be for them to make an individual decision. There may be views expressed by the Bar or other professional bodies, but I wonder whether the Government are going to go further and say what they would wish to see—there is no element of direction there; none is possible. Former Presidents of the Supreme Court and former judges of the Supreme Court sit. There are judges from other Commonwealth jurisdictions who are even more remote, but who I suspect would also take note of the decision that has been taken here. That will be an interesting point to look at.

I think that this situation is an exception and it is right that it is judged on the individual and particular facts as to the conduct of the Beijing Government. Generally speaking, however, the ability of senior UK judges to sit in other jurisdictions is something that we should be very proud of and, indeed, encourage. I suspect that the Government will wish to see more of that happening. It does happen in many circumstances that are controversial. I am thinking of judges sitting as the final court of appeal on capital cases from the Caribbean and other very controversial matters. No doubt some people would say that they should not do that and should not associate in that way, or that British judges have no locus in doing it. I think that, whether one looks at it in terms of soft power and the reputation of Britain abroad, or whether one looks at the experience that is gained by both sides, it is a positive thing, and the situation that we are discussing is, one hopes, the exception that proves that rule. There are particular circumstances in this situation that mean that it is right that certainly the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court no longer sit in the court of final appeal.

I have had the opportunity to discuss this matter over the past few weeks with senior sitting and retired judges, but also with campaigners and human rights activists from Hong Kong, and I would like to say that their cogency, their bravery and their articulation of the view that, notwithstanding the arguments—there are arguments on both sides—it was wrong for UK judges to continue to sit there is something that we should respect. I have absolutely no doubt that, as far as they were possibly able to do so, the judges—whether sitting judges, retired judges or judges from other jurisdictions—were doing absolutely the best they could to uphold not just their independence but the rule of law when they were sitting in Hong Kong. But there is the issue of lending legitimacy to the Beijing regime and the way in which it has acted.

There is also the fact that we have moved on over the past two or three years, given not just the national security law but the intervention of the Executive. Frankly, the constant intervention by Beijing has now made the position untenable, so I am pleased that the UK Government have come to this conclusion. I am grateful, of course, for the 15 minutes’ notice before the start of this debate, and I will conclude my remarks there.

Independent Review of Administrative Law

Debate between Robert Buckland and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience as a deputy leader of a major London borough and a long-standing member of the Local Government Association. He will see that there will be many advantages as a result of the proposals. For example, as I have mentioned, the ability to suspend quashing orders is a very pragmatic and sensible step. It means that minor administrative errors will not result in the entire policy being struck down, leading to great uncertainty and often administrative headaches for local authorities and others. I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his background in local government, will look at the consultation document and come up with further sensible suggestions.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]]

The amount of time and resources spent by successive Conservative Governments on restricting judicial review is extraordinary. It is one slender means that the individual has to challenge the power of Government when they act unlawfully. Rather than saying, “There’s nothing to see here,” does the Lord Chancellor want his legacy to be one of undermining judicial discretion, the common law and the rights of the citizen in order to make the Executive safe from challenge and scrutiny?

Courts and Tribunals: Recovery

Debate between Robert Buckland and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course he knows that sentencing guidelines are a matter for the independent Sentencing Council, but he will be delighted to read the sentencing White Paper, which includes further measures to deal with the incarceration of serious violent sexual offenders for longer periods before release. The necessary legislation will follow in the new year to take a range of measures on serious crime, and I know that he and his constituents will be supporting them enthusiastically.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The statement had the air of the Lord Chancellor congratulating himself in case no one else remembered to, but that may be somewhat premature. The criminal courts recovery plan claimed that 266 trials a week would be completed in October, but the actual figure was 160. The Justice Committee was told this week that we will not be getting back to pre-covid backlog figures at any time soon, nor should we be. Does not that sound more like complacency than competence?

[Robert Buckland]

No, it certainly does not. The hon. Gentleman is, I am afraid, wrong when he talks about the figure of 266. What that was about was courtrooms. In fact, it was 250 courtrooms to deal with jury trials. We exceeded that target at the end of October. As I was explaining to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee, the overall figure with regard to effective trials, cracked trials and trials that are vacated because of a guilty plea acceptable to the Crown or a plea to the indictment, is now well in excess of 300 a week and is coming back to pre-covid levels. I am not complacent, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been working daily on this issue and I care as much as everybody else about our courts and prison system, hence the urgency that we have placed upon the work that we are doing.

Probation Services

Debate between Robert Buckland and Andy Slaughter

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to highlight the stark figure for the financial cost of reoffending—of course, it does not deal with the emotional, physical and mental cost of reoffending. Reducing reoffending means fewer victims of crime. We have succeeded in reducing it in certain parts of the criminal justice system, but I am afraid there is still a lot of work to do, particularly with offenders on short-term sentences. The focus will be very much on reducing reoffending levels among that cohort in the years ahead.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I want to stand up for the Lord Chancellor, who is being attacked from both sides of his own Benches today. Either it should not have happened at all, or the renationalisation should not be happening now. Why have we waited until now, when most of the service was taken back in-house last year? Does he want to take credit for that? As he is known—perhaps more than some of his colleagues—for his candour and thoughtfulness, will he admit that this privatisation has been an unmitigated disaster from start to finish?

[Robert Buckland]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman is the champion of the leading question, and I am not going to fall for that old trick. As he knows, I do not take an ideological view of this. There are aspects of the last few years that have brought much new learning and experience that we will incorporate into the National Probation Service. I am talking about the people who have delivered for the CRCs on the ground. There are plenty of examples of local best practice that we want to hold on to and propagate and that we will expand through the dynamic framework.