Andy Slaughter MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). In preparation for today I have had a number of discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), and I want to put on record that the measured way she has dealt with the proceedings has been excellent. I do not know whether she has ever had moments of doubting whether this was the right thing to pick as a private Member’s Bill, but she has been an absolute credit to this House in the way she has dealt with these matters so far. In 2015, in the last Chamber debate on this subject, I wound up for the Opposition Front Bench, but my interest in it goes back much further. Like all Members of this House, I have had hundreds of emails from constituents on both sides of the argument. Many ask me to oppose the Bill; those emails come from people of faith, and I wholly and entirely respect what they say, but they are the first people also to say that this is an individual decision for every individual Member of the House to make. As I have been at the bottom of the list of speakers to be called for so many years, I have great sympathy for those who find themselves there today, so I will try to keep my remarks to one narrow point: the legal context of the Bill. There is a false dichotomy that the law as it stands is fit for purpose, that we go into the unknown with the Bill before us and that we should somehow keep the safety of the status quo. I think that could not be more wrong. There are no safeguards in the current law. The only sanction against coercion is ex post facto; we are leaving it to individual directors of public prosecutions to make decisions in individual cases after the event. DPPs take that job extremely seriously, as anyone knows who has heard Sir Max Hill, the last DPP to speak on the subject. They have, at the instigation of the courts, set out guidelines—I think we know that it was an excellent Director of Public Prosecutions who set out the guidelines on this case. They have done everything they can, but it is not their responsibility; it is our responsibility, and the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, have made that clear. We assign in this Bill a role to the High Court as part of the process, but we are the final decision takers. That has been made clear not only by domestic, but by international courts; the European Court of Human Rights has said in every case in which such matters have come before it that the margin of appreciation should be put into effect and therefore it should not interfere with the law as we decide it. We cannot dodge our responsibilities and I know that we do not want to do that. We have a duty to put in place the best law we can, and that is not the law as it stands. There are three choices for people who want to end their own lives. They can go to Dignitas alone, if they can afford to do that. They can attempt, and perhaps succeed in, suicide. They risk failing. If they succeed, they will have a lonely death. They may, as others have pointed out, simply have to resort to refusing treatment or food. The third option is that they can embroil their relatives or friends, at the risk of their being investigated or prosecuted. They also risk ending their lives too soon. On safeguards, I do not follow the view of opponents of the Bill. At some times they seem to say that they are too complex, too expensive and that there are not enough resources. If we want to resource the Bill, we can. I do not think that those are the strongest arguments.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I really do not want to, because of the time. I am sorry. [ Interruption. ] Should I? I will give way once.

• 29 Nov 2024 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In practice, a terminally ill person will need to formally consider their decision at least eight times under the provisions in the Bill. This is a starting point—a number of Members have made that point. I believe the Bill has already had more scrutiny than most public Bills we consider, but we have up to nine months before us to consider it further. All the practical and legal considerations point towards the Bill. It may well be amended to change the safeguards or the way it operates, but we have the opportunity to do that. In the end, for me, that is not the decision. The decision is about two things: it is about human dignity and it is about agency. I would like to think that even at the end of life—no, especially at the end of life—when someone has their faculties but may be at their weakest ebb, they can still exercise that agency and still make decisions for themselves. They can have the longest life they can and they can end that life in the way that is most beneficial to them, their loved ones and their family. That is simply not happening, and by voting against the Bill today Members ignore those facts.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants · Hansard source

  More

  The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for the Prime Minister of a democratic state that is a UK ally, having found that there are reasonable grounds that he is responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Does that not call for action as well as words from the UK Government, which might include ending trade with illegal settlements, the sanctioning of members of that Government and settlers, and indeed recognition of the state of Palestine if we are to show not only our disapproval, but how we want to move forward?

• 21 Nov 2024 · Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate. It is good to see some newly elected Members taking up this issue—I include in that my neighbour and hon. Friend, the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell)—as well as some of those who have been around for a while and trying to champion it. I am sure the right hon. Members for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) will not mind my describing them in that way. We are missing the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) today, but I pay tribute to all the work they have done on this issue over many years. I am not going to speak for very long, because I am not going to say anything that I have not said before. I think I replied for the Opposition in the January 2022 debate that the right hon. Member for New Forest East referred to, and the Justice Select Committee held an evidence session in May of that year under its previous Chair, Sir Bob Neill KC. The transcript of that session is very interesting to read, but what struck me is how little has actually been achieved, even though the issue has been debated many times. It is not true that nothing has been achieved since then, however. As has already been mentioned, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 includes some measures to tackle SLAPPs, but relating specifically to economic crime; I think there is general recognition that that does not go further. We have also heard about the Bill introduced by Sir Wayne David, which sadly did not become law because of the general election. Even that Bill took quite a lot of negotiation in order to get any meaningful provisions into it, against some resistance from the previous Government. That is not a terribly good record over the past few years, given the importance that many Members attach to this issue, so I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about this Government’s future legislative intent when she replies to today’s debate. The Justice Committee may well want to return to this issue at some point, but for today’s purposes, I am speaking on my own behalf and repeating arguments that have been around for some time. There are many reasons to be concerned about SLAPPs. One of them is highlighted in the long title of today’s debate—freedom of speech—but as has already been mentioned, SLAPPs can also have a pernicious effect on the justice system, to which I particularly want to speak. SLAPPs is now the accepted terminology, but they were previously called lawfare. That term was very appropriate, because it is continuation of litigation by inappropriate means. It is clearly bad for victims, but it is also bad for the justice system. It allows bad actors to take action in the courts, and although we have a very robust judiciary in this country who are quite capable of making their views felt, without recognition of SLAPPs in law, under the rules of court and given the clearly stated aims of all parties, particularly the Government, SLAPPs are going to continue. SLAPPs are typically brought by people of unlimited resources to deter publication. That is why, as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and others have pointed out, most SLAPPs never reach the litigation stage. They are intended to have a chilling effect, not only on the specific, immediate target but on the wider press and media, particularly those who do not have deep pockets. They can tie individual journalists and publications in knots for years and can subject them to a huge amount of stress and risk. We can think of examples going back to McLibel, what happened to Tom Burgis and to Catherine Belton, or indeed—as the right hon. Member for New Forest East mentioned—the appalling way that Charlotte Leslie was treated. SLAPPs are used to protect people such as Mohammed al-Fayed who wilfully and knowingly use the court system to hide their misdeeds. It is undoubtedly true that such people introduce vexatious litigation into the courts, distorting their function and operation and misdirecting the purpose of justice. If Members think I am exaggerating, whether or not it is a SLAPP in the classic definition, the action taken by ENRC against the Serious Fraud Office—which effectively has turned the hunter into the hunted—is an example of how even the institutions of state can become the victims of SLAPPs. This is a very insidious trend within litigation. It may not be widespread, but it has a hidden hinterland, and despite the best efforts of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism—which I have mentioned—and Sir Wayne David in his Bill, we now really need the Government to take up this cause. There is one other issue I want to deal with—one that I always mention, and that will not find favour with some Members of this House. If we are serious about dealing with attempts to use financial strong-arming to prevent justice taking its course, we also have to think about our attitude to the Leveson reforms. The aim of Leveson was to protect small publishers against litigants with deep pockets, but also individual citizens who have been misrepresented by large media organisations and are unable to take action, or are discouraged from doing so. The victims of intrusion and vilification, particularly by the tabloids, also deserve the protection of the law. Leveson provided a solution through low-cost arbitration that would be fair for both sides—that protected publishers in the same way as individuals. It was not a form of state regulation, but a method of independent and fair determination of issues that restored equality of arms. If it is right for us to legislate on SLAPPs and stop the pernicious influence of the oligarchs of the steppes, we should also prevent the misuse of the courts by the oligarchs of Fleet Street.

• 6 Nov 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  In the time allowed, I will confine myself to a few comments on the Budget’s financial settlement for the Ministry of Justice. The MOJ is one of the smaller Departments in budgetary terms but has suffered the largest cuts in proportion to its size. Given its role in keeping us safe, providing a high-quality judicial and court system, and offering access to justice that is not dependent on means, the previous Government’s actions were not just regrettable, but reckless. I was, therefore, pleased to see substantial real-terms investment for the first time in 14 years. It is not enough to resolve all the crises, but it is a start in turning things around. Total MOJ spending will rise from £11.9 billion in the last financial year to £13.8 billion in the next—an average real-terms increase of 5.6% a year—and the Law Officers’ budget will increase by 7.5% a year over the same period. Some of that funding has rightly been directed at prisons and probation, with £2.3 billion to be spent on new prisons, half a billion pounds on maintenance and security budgets, and the same on recruiting new staff. However, the Budget made no mention of civil and criminal legal aid, or of additional money to address the unsustainably large courts backlog. This year’s settlement funds 106,500 Crown court sitting days—not enough to address the backlog, which grows ever larger. Trials are being listed for 2027, and there are similar logjams in the civil and family courts and tribunals. As of 4 November, the prison population was 85,794. Prisons are running at almost full capacity and the prison population is projected to increase to 94,000 by March 2025, and up to 106,000 by March 2027. Prisons are in a dire state. Prisoners are being held in unsafe, crowded conditions on an estate plagued by widespread disrepair and severe maintenance backlogs. Fire safety standards on the prison estate are woefully poor, and we have to ensure that there is a plan for probation to grow in response to measures to reduce prisoner numbers. Legal aid is another area of acute pressure. Will any of the new money allocated to the Department be spent on legal aid? Failure to invest will deny access to justice, and it would not be possible to tackle the growing court backlog without further investment in criminal and civil legal aid. I was pleased that the Minister said yesterday, in replying to a question from me in the House, that there will be announcements in the next few weeks on legal aid. This is an excellent start, but there is a long way to go to repair our broken justice system.

• 5 Nov 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  There was welcome news for the Ministry of Justice in the Budget last week, but I did not hear any mention of legal aid funding. When will the criminal legal aid advisory board recommendations and the civil legal aid review be published, and when can we expect to see some reversal of the catastrophic cuts made to legal aid and advice since 2010?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Supporting Young Offenders · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 30 Oct 2024 · Western Sahara · Hansard source

  More

  Coming back to Western Sahara, could the right hon. Gentleman explain why the UK Government, or anybody else, should agree to its so-called autonomy within the Moroccan state given Morocco’s appalling human rights record in respect of the Sahrawi people in Western Sahara?

• 30 Oct 2024 · Western Sahara · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for reaffirming his commitment to self-determination, and for not going down the road of partition nor indeed of incorporation within the Moroccan state, as the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) seems to want. The Minister could go one stage further and follow the EU example, which would be the case were we still within the EU, and say that the provision of resources and trade with Western Sahara should only be undertaken if it is to the benefit of the indigenous people there, rather than to the benefit of the Kingdom of Morocco.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the approach the Lord Chancellor is taking to the management of the prison system, and the appointment of David Gauke to head the sentencing review. Given that the initiatives she has announced today to relieve pressure on prisons will create additional work for already overstretched probation officers, will she make a further statement when she has decided what operational changes she is going to make to the Probation Service? The additional 14,000 prison places she has promised to build will take prison capacity to above 100,000. Is that desirable in the long term? Given her intention to expand punishment outside prison, will she make it her aim in time to close some of the worst of our existing prisons, built two or three centuries ago, which warehouse crime and, despite the best efforts of prison staff, do little or nothing to reform or rehabilitate their inmates?

• 17 Oct 2024 · Criminal Justice System: Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  As someone who spent a decade shadowing and scrutinising the previous Government’s justice policies, I sympathise with the Lord Chancellor over the chaos she has inherited, but the proposed changes to magistrates’ sentencing powers may have mixed results. They should ease the backlog in the Crown court, but they may put additional pressure on our overcrowded prisons. My concern is that we do not have robust data on the Crown court backlog or on the effects of varying sentencing. The Government are about to embark on a quick but thorough review of sentencing. Will they use that opportunity to get the policy and the figures lined up?

• 15 Oct 2024 · Gaza and Lebanon · Hansard source

  More

  Last night the Attorney General, who was giving the 2024 Bingham lecture, made a powerful case for the UK resuming its leading role in promoting international law after 14 years of back-pedalling. Nowhere is that role more needed than in Gaza and Lebanon, so what further steps will the Government take to stop the barbaric killing of civilians by Israeli forces operating in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Lebanon, with no pretence of following humanitarian law?

• 10 Oct 2024 · Gaza and Humanitarian Aid · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on securing this debate. Earlier this week, six Arab ambassadors came to speak to Members in this House, from not only Palestine and Lebanon, the two main protagonists, but Egypt, Saudi, Jordan and Bahrain, and they said that they spoke on behalf of the whole Arab community. The message they wanted to get across to Members was that long-term peace and security is attainable in the region; it has been for nearly 20 years now under the Arab peace initiative. Looking forward, that is still the prospect they want, which includes not just Arab states but the 58 Muslim states around the world not just recognising but co-operating fully with Israel. However, what we have seen over the past year is the opposite; there has been the ratcheting up of violence. Now that has happened on both sides and nobody present holds a brief for Hamas or Hezbollah, but because of the asymmetric nature of this war, almost all the deaths post the terrible atrocity of 7 October last year have been predominantly among Palestinians—41,000 in Gaza and almost 1,000 in the west bank—as well as now over 2,000 Lebanese civilians. The question today is: what will the British Government’s response be? Yes, the Government have consistently called for a ceasefire. The Minister, who does his job excellently, has been very consistent in saying that, but there is no response; on the contrary—the atrocities get worse. What is happening? We saw today another school attacked and nearly 30 people killed there, and there are attacks on UN positions by Israeli forces. Yes, the Government are right to emphasise aid—which is the subject of this debate—and the practicalities of getting aid in, but also those attacks on civilians are happening daily. There is the forcible transfer of the population. There are beaches of international law happening all the time. There is the collective punishment of the Palestinians, particularly in Gaza. There is famine and disease throughout the territory. I say to the Minister gently that we need more from the Government now. We need to know what they will do to ensure a ceasefire. What practical steps can they take with allies? We also need—this was emphasised very much by the ambassadors this week—an early and clear recognition of the Palestinian state. Until that exists, it is almost impossible to frame the terms of a ceasefire and a lasting peace in the region, and that is what we need.

• 7 Oct 2024 · Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister rightly says we need a ceasefire now, but after a year and over 45,000 deaths, what more can he do to achieve that ceasefire? While the violence in the region continues, will he ask the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary to look sympathetically at requests for evacuation from dependants and close relatives of UK citizens?

• 12 Sept 2024 · Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 12 Sept 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May we have a debate on the importance of investigative and public interest journalism? The best journalists are an essential part of our democracy. I urge Members to look at “The Long Read” by Tom Burgis in today’s edition of The Guardian , “How oligarchs took on the UK fraud squad—and won”. May I pay tribute to Telegraph journalist David Knowles, creator of the brilliant “Ukraine: The Latest” podcast, who tragically died last weekend at the age of only 32? I am sure my right hon. Friend will join me in sending condolences to his family and friends.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The coronial system is a mess, with substantial backlogs, a lack of representation for bereaved families, and erratic use of prevention of future deaths reports. Will the Secretary of State consider reforms to deal with these problems? If she needs ideas, there is a very good report from the Justice Committee.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Rehabilitation of Offenders · Hansard source

  More

  A key driver of rehabilitation and the prevention of reoffending is sentencing policy. In our manifesto, we promised a review of sentencing policy—quite properly. When is that likely to take place, and will it take account of the very interesting recent paper by former Lord Chief Justices on sentencing inflation?

• 4 Sept 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his comments on the community in north Kensington, which is also my community in Shepherd’s Bush and Hammersmith. Grenfell Tower is a daily presence not only for the survivors and the families of victims, but for all of us in west London, particularly those who live in the many high-rise buildings surrounding Grenfell. Will the Prime Minister ensure that all housing is built safe and made safe from the risk of fire, which his predecessors failed to do? Above all, will he pledge that those complicit in the Grenfell fire are brought to justice so that there is no mistake about their guilt or their punishment?

• 2 Sept 2024 · Middle East Update · Hansard source

  More

  We have seen the most serious incursions into the west bank for 20 years. It is under cover of the horror happening in Gaza; otherwise it would be leading the news. Towns such as Jenin are completely cut off, with the water supply cut and the streets ploughed up. What is the Government’s specific response to that, which is really a form of collective punishment? Has the Foreign Secretary looked at whether arms and equipment are being used specifically in the west bank?

• 2 Sept 2024 · Violent Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  May I compliment the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor on the robust response that the whole criminal justice system took to the recent riots and violent disorder? Was my right hon. Friend, like me, concerned about the number of very young people—pre-teen, in some cases—who took part? What does she think is the solution to rehabilitation and to preventing young people of that age becoming involved in such disgraceful behaviour in the future?

• 25 Jul 2024 · Criminal Law · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the whole House will be pleased to hear of the safeguards that the Lord Chancellor is putting in place. Is she confident that, by the time the changes to the scheme come into effect, both victim notification and probation—and, indeed, police and accommodation services—will be in a position to pick up those being released?

• 25 Jul 2024 · Criminal Law · Hansard source

  More

  If that is really the best the Opposition have got, I understand why the shadow Minister did not take any interventions. The Conservatives had plenty of money for the Rwanda scheme and other gimmicks over the past 18 months, but they had no money, no resources and no intent to deal with this, and we have heard the reason for that: they thought they would win votes by leaving prisons in a crisis situation. I am afraid that was another miscalculation. It is true that this is not an easy decision. I was reassured by what my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary said and by the SI’s supporting documents, in that recall will continue as before, the length of sentences will not change, sexual and serious violent offences are excluded, and the intention, contrary to what the Opposition allege, is that this will run for no more than 18 months. Those are all important safeguards. It is also true that, although there will of course be cost savings, this will put pressures on the Probation Service. The explanatory memorandum states: “There is a package of measures to alleviate Probation pressures including limiting Post-Sentence Supervision to non-Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements…eligible offenders.” So there are consequences here. There are consequences for post-custody accommodation services, as we have heard, which are not working terribly well at the moment. There are also consequences for the police if there are situations of reoffending or recall that need to be dealt with. This will mean a reduction, from September onwards, of a minimum of 5,000 prison places for a period of time, and that is simply necessary. That is not really debatable, and I think that is probably why the Opposition have not debated it today. It is not possible for this to continue. I hope this short-term measure will be successful, and I think it will be. I hope the safeguards will be in place and will be secure. I am also encouraged by what my right hon. Friend said about the longer-term prospects. We have to address the prisons crisis over the longer term in this country. We have to reduce the number of people in custody by reducing reoffending. It is good that we are building modern prisons to modern standards, but I would like to see those modern prisons not supplementing but replacing some of the disgusting and disgraceful Victorian prisons, such as Wormwood Scrubs, which until a few weeks ago was in my constituency. I advise all Members who do not have a prison in their constituency or who do not regularly visit prisons, irrespective of their interest—if they are attending this debate, they must have some interest—to go and look at the conditions that persist, because they are inhumane and intolerable. That is not just a matter for staff, inmates and others who work in prisons; it is a matter for all of us as citizens, because we are not rehabilitating prisoners, but letting them out on to the streets to reoffend without any support. The need for today’s SI is an indication of just how low the previous Government have brought the system. This is a national crisis. I have no doubt that it was one of the reasons for the previous Prime Minister calling an early election, because they simply could not face the consequences of their own actions. Thank goodness we now have a Government who will grasp these nettles firmly and resolve the issues. I say to my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary, who I know is passionate about this, that this is not about just a short-term fix; this is about a long-term change in how we use the criminal justice system in this country, all parts of which are in crisis at the moment. If we can get into a virtuous spiral, rather than the downward spiral we have been in for the last 14 years, there is hope to improve the courts system, access to justice, and the service provided, including for victims, and to deal with the crisis in our prisons.

• 25 Jul 2024 · Criminal Law · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to see you in your new and much-deserved place. I rise to support this difficult proposal from my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary. I made a speech in the King’s Speech debate two days ago on the subject of prison conditions, including overcrowding. I do not intend to repeat the whole of that speech, although it is tempting to do so, especially for the bits I had to leave out, but even by the standards of this place that would probably be pushing it. However, I would say that my right hon. Friend and her team—including the new Prisons Minister in the other place, Lord Timpson—have set out with a clear and serious intent to solve the problems left by the previous Government. I am afraid we saw from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), exactly why the Conservatives got us into this mess. There was no attempt to be accountable—he did not allow one intervention during that speech, which I think is almost unknown—and we can understand why. It is because there are no answers to the questions that can be put to the Opposition. They have left our prisons in an absolutely disastrous state: at 99% capacity for the past 18 months. It is a complete dereliction of duty. There are acute capacity pressures, and the impact assessment says that if we continued without taking this action, “prisons would shortly run out of places and the justice system would no longer be able to function as intended, e.g. the police would be unable to make arrests and the judiciary may not be able to impose immediate custodial sentences.” What an indictment of any Government.