Mr Shaker Aamer

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[David T. C. Davies]

No, I disagree with my hon. Friend. If she knows the name of the charity, then she should say so; it is not listed anywhere else. And while she is at it, she ought to try to find out, or the lawyer ought to explain, why Mr Aamer was apparently arrested on a fake Belgian passport when he was in Afghanistan, because fake passports are not normally de rigueur when one is doing work for aid agencies.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman should perhaps really abide by the points made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias). Is he not abusing his position here and taking advantage of parliamentary privilege to try to put on trial a man who spent 14 years in custody without ever having allegations proved against him or ever being put on trial? Is this not a matter where due process should take its course? I hope that is what the Minister will tell us. Frankly, to try to besmirch this man’s name after everything he has been through is really quite disgraceful, and it takes advantage of parliamentary privilege.

[David T. C. Davies]

I am amazed by what the hon. Gentleman is saying, because this matter is surely relevant. If Mr Aamer was in possession of a fake Belgian passport, that needs to be discussed. I am not besmirching him; I am not even saying that he was in possession of a fake Belgian passport. I am saying that it was widely reported and has not been denied.

The second point is that I am saying there is a lot of information that has been put out there about Mr Aamer by his lawyers, among others, but nobody has seen fit to tell us the name of the charity that he was working for.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David T. C. Davies]

No, no; I have given way a few times.

[Andy Slaughter]

On that point?

[David T. C. Davies]

Okay, if the hon. Gentleman knows the name of the charity, let us have it.

[Andy Slaughter]

I will make two points quickly.

[David T. C. Davies]

Ah, right, so he does not know.

[Andy Slaughter]

The first point is that Shaker Aamer himself has not had the opportunity to put his side of the story. I am sure he will do so at some point, and therefore this discussion is at the very least premature.

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask about due process and to question the Minister about how the Government conduct litigation. In my humble opinion, he is not entitled to come here and attack a man who has suffered grievously and not been shown due process, and to add insult to injury by doing what he is doing today.

[David T. C. Davies]

The hon. Gentleman can relax, because I am not attacking Mr Aamer at all; if I was attacking him, the hon. Gentleman would know about it. I am just raising a few questions. When I am in attack mode, I am in attack mode, and I am not in attack mode. I am actually giving him the benefit of the doubt—

[Andy Slaughter]

You are in smear mode.

[David T. C. Davies]

No, I am not in smear mode at all.

[David T. C. Davies]

I find this absolutely extraordinary. These are perfectly reasonable questions to ask, given that this man is apparently about to receive £1 million of taxpayers’ money in secret, which I think is outrageous. Three young men from Monmouthshire have lost their lives fighting in Afghanistan. They did not choose to go there; they did not go and choose to live under this extremist Islamo-fascist state that Mr Aamer decided was a worthy state to go and live under. They were asked to go there by the British Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), who is sitting next to me, made some proper points in this debate. What I have here is a list of the sums that people will get paid if they receive serious injuries in the defence of their country. The absolute maximum that someone can get if they have lost both arms and both legs is £570,000. That is for people who have been doing their duty for this country. This man, Mr Aamer, not a British citizen at all, was given the right to come over to this country because of our generous ways. His family, as I understand it, have been looked after by the state ever since he disappeared off to Afghanistan with them—

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David T. C. Davies]

No, I am not giving way again, because I asked the hon. Gentleman to answer a straightforward question last time, and he said he was going to and then he did not.

Let me finish by saying that it is absolutely outrageous that British servicemen and women who lost arms and legs in Afghanistan fighting those Islamo-fascists who had launched those disgraceful attacks on New York, while Mr Aamer was apparently out there in Afghanistan by choice working—allegedly—for some sort of charity, will now get only half as much money as Mr Aamer. He is not a British citizen; he chose to go and live in a foreign country; he was kidnapped by members of some other militia in said foreign country; and he was put in prison in another foreign country. It is wrong that the British taxpayer should be expected to pick up the bill for that.

Draft Investigatory Powers Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

That is an important point. I think that it was touched on in a previous question, and I apologise for not responding to it then.

Under the current system, if the Secretary of State expresses the view that a warrant should not be issued, it is open to the agency concerned to go away, reconsider, and then come back with more information about necessity and proportionality, or to abandon the warrant, or to consider applying for a different warrant. That process will continue to be possible under the new system.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

As the Home Secretary has acknowledged, David Anderson called for prior judicial authorisation. He also said that the new law should comply with international human rights standards. Given the uncertainty over the future of the Human Rights Act, will the Home Secretary confirm that the Bill will comply with that Act, and with the European convention on human rights?

[Mrs May]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, Ministers have to take account of the human rights issue in relation to any legislation that they present to the House. That has indeed happened, and I have every confidence that this legislation will comply with human rights requirements.

Policing

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

I will make a little more progress and give way later on.

Last week, the shadow Policing Minister and I joined the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice at the police bravery awards. As I am sure we would all agree, it was a humbling evening. It was particularly poignant this year, with PC David Phillips in the minds of many. We think of David’s family today, and we hope that they take some comfort from the huge public response and outpouring of feeling that we have seen.

As I said when I started this job, when the Home Secretary gets it right, she will have my support—I have just offered that to her on the investigatory powers Bill—but where she and the Government get it wrong, I am not going to hold back from saying so, particularly where public and community safety is at risk. That brings me to my central point: this Government are about to cause serious damage to our police service and if they do not change course, they are about to put public safety at risk.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that all one needs to know about the Government’s policy is that four Conservative police and crime commissioners and the Mayor of London are preparing a judicial review, in the Met’s case because, in addition to a 43% cut in its budget—achieved and proposed—the Government are proposing another £184 million-worth of cuts as a result of the resourcing budget changes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I would like to make a little more progress, because I am conscious that a lot of Members wish to speak, and I want to turn to each of the points in the motion in turn.

First, the motion

“notes with concern the loss of 17,000 police officers in the last five years”

and the possibility of “further reductions” in numbers during this Parliament. Of course, that is not Government policy. Decisions on the size and make-up of each police force are not a matter for the Home Office but a matter for chief constables to decide on locally in conjunction with their police and crime commissioners. Indeed, and Labour Members might be interested in some of these facts, a large number of the police officer reductions since 2010—8,153 officers, or 48% of the total fall—were lost in the 13 areas controlled by Labour police and crime commissioners. Nowhere is this more the case than in neighbourhood policing. Between 2012 and 2014, Conservative PCCs increased the number of neighbourhood officers by 5,813, yet over the same period, Labour PCCs cut them by 701. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) asks where these statistics come from. They should be familiar to Opposition Members, because they were released in response to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) earlier this year. As Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has said repeatedly over the past five years, what matters in policing and in the safety of communities is not how many officers there are in total, but how they are deployed. Since 2010, the proportion of officers deployed to the frontline has increased from 89% of officers to 92%—the highest level on record.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am sure that the Home Secretary will therefore join me in congratulating Hammersmith and Fulham Council, which is now funding 44 police constables on the beat in Hammersmith. At the same time, though, the Mayor of London has destroyed neighbourhood teams, is about to get rid of all PCSOs, and is closing two out of the three operational police stations in the borough. How can neighbourhood policing survive in that climate?

[Mrs May]

It is interesting to look at the Met, because it has been recruiting more officers, as is the Lancashire force, which I mentioned earlier. It is wrong to assume that the service that is offered by police officers is best judged by the number of police stations. Many forces up and down the country have sold off their police stations but have given the public better access to the police—as I saw when I visited my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) prior to the election—by siting them in council offices.

Home Affairs and Justice

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 28th May 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

We are a little ahead of time, but I will break the habit of a lifetime and not abuse my position by taking too much of the remaining time. I welcome the Lord Chancellor to his new job. He has already been warmly welcomed by the legal establishment, and that has no doubt put him on his guard. He follows another non-lawyer in the job, and I can only pray for a better meeting of legal and non-legal minds than was the case with his predecessor. Given the almost instant rapport he had with the education profession, I am sure that will be the case. He has certainly made an excellent start by not putting any justice Bills before the House. Given the sorry history of the last Parliament, from the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015, no news is good news.

This debate has set a high bar for the quality of contributions from Members on both sides of the House, old and new, for the Queen’s Speech and this Parliament. I shall briefly mention those who have spoken, and I hope that some of the old hands will excuse me if I skate over their contributions, given that we had 34 contributions from Back Benchers. We started—it seems some time ago now—with the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) who, as we would expect, gave a tour d’horizon on matters of security and international affairs.

The right hon. Gentleman was followed swiftly by the first of the maiden speeches, from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who generously said that her predecessor, Alistair Darling, was a difficult and hard act to follow. But with her robust defence of the Human Rights Act and the principles of the rule of law, she has already proved she might be a worthy successor. I was with her in almost everything she said, except perhaps when she said we were in danger of withdrawing from the ECHR after only 60 years but saw no problem with withdrawing from the Union after 300 years.

We then heard a thoughtful contribution from the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), particularly on extremism and investigatory powers, as we would expect given his background. He reiterated his welcome support for the European convention.

I always learn something from the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who has been an excellent Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee for many years. He is almost an institution and I hope to see him continue for many years to come—without giving away my voting intentions in any way.

The next maiden speech was from my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). When I made my maiden speech, not only had I written it out in full—I have given that up now—but my hands were shaking as I gave it. For him to give a speech without notes, fluently and eloquently, set a great example. He also paid a generous tribute to someone I think we all greatly respect—his predecessor, Paul Murphy.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) on many issues, but he made the point, as he has done many times, about the dangers of extended detention for immigration and has earned our respect for championing that cause.

I think we are all disappointed—perhaps some on the Government Benches not so much—that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) is not continuing as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. She showed, however, that not continuing in that post will allow her to talk about many other subjects. From her own constituency and wider experience, she gave an extremely mature view of what was wrong with the Government’s immigration policy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) gave a very good deconstruction of what was wrong with the Gracious Speech as drafted by the Government. Obviously his time as a shadow Justice Minister stood him in good stead.

Even though I did not agree with much of the contribution from the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), it was delivered in such a enthusiastic and reassuring manner that I found myself almost agreeing with it by default—but there it is.

I agreed with what my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said in her excellent and thoughtful speech on the dangers of nationalism, which is a subject to which I suspect we will return on many occasions.

The maiden speech from the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) included a comment one often hears: “My constituency is the most beautiful in the country”. We are all guilty of that—I often wax lyrical about the beauty of Shepherd’s Bush Green—but those of us who have visited his part of the country will think he might actually have a point. It is an extraordinarily beautiful place. He might wonder why, therefore, that, as he told us, he is the first Member to live there since 1833. Others have not taken advantage of the opportunity.

There swiftly followed the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), whom I think we are going to hear a great deal more from on the subject about which he spoke with forensic skill, as one would expect. In a short period, he gave a rebuttal of the Government’s plans to repeal the Human Rights Act, exploring some of the myths and dangers of their approach.

We heard another excellent, and good-humoured, maiden speech from the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay). He explained why he felt less in the public eye in the Chamber than he did on the doorsteps of South Thanet, given the media frenzy that accompanied his election process. Let us hope he has a quieter time now.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) will excuse me if I say that his speech, despite his being an old hand, sounded a bit like a maiden speech—so great is his love affair with his constituency and given the way he described it and its heritage.

My new hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) gave, as I think all Members would agree, not just a good maiden speech, but a good speech that showed a real depth of knowledge and empathy on a subject that we all take very seriously—the issue of sexual exploitation and domestic violence.

I have mentioned speaking without notes, and this applies equally to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). Given what he told us about his constituency, there is a danger that he might become known as “the MP for the fringe”. Because I know him from previous incarnations, I realise that when he spoke so passionately about the deprivation in his constituency, it was very sincere. We shall hear a lot more from him along similar lines.

I cannot avoid mentioning the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who now sees himself as the lodestar of the Conservative party. We will know when the Conservative party is going wrong when it is not voting with him in the Lobbies.

The last maiden speech we heard today—by no means the least—was from my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who paid a generous tribute to his distinguished predecessors, including, of course, Joe Benton. My hon. Friend talked about the distinguished Labour history of the constituency and of his extremely large majority.

We will have more time to assess these affairs on other occasions, but let me do so briefly. Home affairs and justice often get the lion’s share of legislation in the Queen’s Speech under any Government—and there is no change here, at least for home affairs, with five Bills to the Home Secretary’s name. I shall not comment on them in detail or go beyond the excellent analysis of the shadow Home Secretary, save to say that some of the proposed measures seem unhelpfully vague at this point. Both investigatory powers and extremism are important subjects that require sensitivity and balance between the rights of the citizen and the duties of the state. Until we see the detail in the presentation of those Bills, I will remain anxious about whether this Government will get that balance right.

By contrast, the policing and criminal justice Bill already contains a number of welcome specific provisions, not least the treatment of 17-year-olds as children for all the purposes of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and the better regulation of detention under the Mental Health Act 1983. I note the catch-all phrase that the Bill will

“allow us to deliver a range of criminal justice reforms that will aim to better protect the public, build confidence and improve efficiency.”

I fear that we are about to see yet another Christmas tree Bill on which a mishmash of unconnected new offences and pet projects are hung. One thing we would like to see in the Bill, however, are the provisions for the victims code. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor will be able to confirm that it will be included in the Bill. Both my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and for Holborn and St Pancras have made the case for that. I would welcome a change of heart from the Government on building the victims code into legislation.

Given the coalition Government’s lamentable record on justice policy, I said that no news may be good news, but some things would have provided welcome additions to the Gracious Speech. There is nothing to deal with the crisis in our prisons; nothing to deal with the crisis in our courts; nothing to improve access to justice; nothing to improve advice services or to mitigate the attacks on civil and criminal legal aid overseen by the previous Lord Chancellor.

Let me spend my final few minutes addressing the proposed repeal of the Human Rights Act—a proposal that was perhaps the most touted of all the Queen’s Speech measures in the run-up to its delivery yesterday, yet the Government have had the least to say about it in comparison with any other measures. Others have had plenty to say on the subject. I include, of course, jurists and practitioners such as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, but I am thinking rather more of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).

When the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield describes the previous proposals as “puerile” and says

“This UK bill of rights is a recipe for disaster”,

when the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield says

“I have to say that I never thought a British government, let alone a Conservative one, would ever have thought of withdrawing from the convention for which, of course, we were responsible”,

or when an admittedly unnamed senior Tory says

“These plans will only pass if the PM wins the support of David Davis and Clarke”—

which I think he is some distance from doing—the Lord Chancellor may be in a little trouble. Not only is the weight of argument on his own Benches, as well as on ours, against him, but he does not appear to have the numbers, not only in the other place but in this House, to get such a proposal through, and he would be right to be nervous about his chances of doing so.

The Government have already got themselves into a bind from which even someone as clever as the Lord Chancellor may struggle to free them. There are constitutional difficulties in relation to the devolved Governments, and the negotiations about the EU referendum are in danger of contamination. If the Lord Chancellor has not already done so, I advise him to read the excellent article by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield in today’s Times.

Beyond that, there is confusion about the Government’s real intention The hon. Member for Shipley and others have said today that this is not just about scrapping the Human Rights Act, but about withdrawal from the convention. Some Members would welcome that, but if, as the Government say, that is not their intention and they simply wish to withdraw from the Act, they will not achieve their purpose. They seem to “elide over” the fact that we still have parliamentary sovereignty in this country, and the fact that decisions of the European Court are not binding on domestic courts. According to the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, they are

“in danger…of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.”—[Official Report, 27 May 2015; Vol. 596, c. 97.]

Given that the anomalies and difficulties involving the European Court, whose existence we admitted at the time—the backlog, the insecurity of some of its judgments and, indeed, the fact that the UK courts were perhaps following them too closely—are all in the process of being resolved, one might ask what problem the Government are now seeking to solve.

No doubt the Lord Chancellor will say that this is an important constitutional measure, and that we should pause and consult. We cannot disagree with that theory, save for the fact that the Government—or the Conservative party—have had five years in which to consider the matter. There has been a commission, there have been six or seven drafts of the Bill, and we heard a clear statement last October from the previous Lord Chancellor about what he believed was required, and we heard another clear statement from the Prime Minister that he wanted to see action in the first 100 days. I do not know what has changed, other than the fact that the Lord Chancellor is having trouble delivering the legislation. We shall, however, have an opportunity to examine the matter in more detail. We welcome the fact that there is to be a pause, and that legislation will not be presented during the current Session—not least because there must be less chance of its getting through during later Sessions.

Finally, let me make clear that if there is any attempt to undermine our human rights, and to undermine what my party and I regard as one of the finest pieces of legislation introduced by the Labour Government, we will resist it. We will join supporters from any other parties, on the Opposition or the Government Benches, to ensure that it is resisted. Our human rights are too precious and too important, and have been fought for too long, to be thrown away at the whim of a Lord Chancellor or a political party.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

No, we are not going back to where we started. First, the hon. Lady has made a fundamental mistake in her question in saying that my speech this morning related to Prevent. It did not; it related to the new counter-extremism strategy that the Government are introducing. Secondly, when we came into government we found that the Labour Government were funding extremist organisations, and members of the Labour party were standing on platforms embracing extremist hate preachers. Government Members take a very different view.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

4. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the police response to domestic abuse.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Lynne Featherstone)]

Domestic abuse is an appalling crime, and this Government are determined that the police response is the best it can be. The Home Secretary commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to review the response to domestic abuse across police forces in England and Wales. We are driving change through a national oversight group. All 43 forces have action plans on domestic abuse. In November, HMIC highlighted the commitment of forces to improving their response.

[Mr Slaughter]

This Government have a truly terrible record on tackling domestic abuse, whether it is closing specialist courts, restricting legal aid, or failing to prosecute. There is a rising number of offences, but since they came into office there have been 4,000 fewer prosecutions. What are they going to do about that?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I totally refute the hon. Gentleman’s assertions. This Government have a record to be proud of in the work we have done on domestic abuse, not just the ring-fencing of stable funding of £40 million but the introduction of new laws, protection orders, and measures on stalking abuses. We have done more in the five years we have been here than the Labour Government before us did in all their 13 years. What is more, I seem to recall that Labour Members are not proposing to reverse any of the legal aid cuts, and we have preserved legal aid for cases in which domestic abuse plays a part.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is always helpful if answers are comprehensive, but they do not have to include the kitchen sink.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

5. What assessment she has made of the effect of recent changes in the level of neighbourhood policing.

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)]

The Government strongly support neighbourhood policing. It provides a visible presence in communities, cutting crime and disorder. By slashing red tape and sweeping away central targets, we have empowered chief constables and police and crime commissioners to respond to the individual and specific needs of their communities. Police reform is working. Crime is down by more than 10% since June 2010, and victim satisfaction is up.

[Mr Slaughter]

However the Minister dresses it up, in wards where there used to be six neighbourhood officers, there are now two. Consequently, my constituents feel less safe. Antisocial behaviour and crime are actually going up in areas such as Shepherd’s Bush and White City. May we have safer neighbourhood teams back? We need preventive, rather than reactive, local policing.

[Damian Green]

I feel that the hon. Gentleman would benefit from hearing some of the facts about what is happening. Across the Metropolitan police, there are 2,600 more police officers in neighbourhood teams to boost local policing. Specifically in Hammersmith and Fulham, the number of officers in the borough will have increased between October 2011 and 2015. Very specifically, there will be an increase of 92 officers in the safer neighbourhood teams he values so much. That is why crime in London generally and Hammersmith specifically has been falling.

Public Administration Select Committee

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Yes, this is historical, but I am afraid that makes all the more damning the fact that police recorded crime is still being misrecorded in this country. Yes, the Home Office has handed this over to the ONS and the UK Statistics Authority, and the Home Office has ceased to set its own targets, but the Committee does recommend that the Home Office, which collects the data and gives them to the ONS, has an obligation to ensure that those data are recorded correctly. We lament the fact that HMIC has not been doing regular audits. Where a regular audit was done in the Kent polices there was an immediate increase in police recorded crime. We probably need to look forward to increases in certain categories of crime, as that would confirm that such crimes are now being recorded correctly. That should be regarded as a good thing, so long as we can corroborate that with the crime survey in England and Wales still showing a fall in crime. The Home Office has overall accountability to this House for the quality of police recorded crime statistics. So the Home Office, along with the Crime Statistics Advisory Committee, the UK Statistics Authority and the ONS, has a responsibility to ensure that the police recording of crime is improved, and overall the Home Office is accountable to this House for ensuring that the police recording of crime is of better quality than it is now.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman and the Committee for their work. I have long since stopped trusting police statistics; propaganda banners in the centre of Hammersmith tell me that my constituents are safer because there are 42 extra police, but when I go to the Mayor of London’s website I am told that there are 158 fewer police and police community support officers than there were at the time of the last general election. What his Committee said about how this situation

“erodes public trust in the police and…the…confidence of frontline police officers”

is absolutely right. However, we do need accurate statistics, as well as to address the ethics points he talked about, so what can be done to ensure that we have accurate statistics in the future?

[Mr Jenkin]

There are three steps to take to ensure more accurate crime statistics. One is regular audit. The second is to abandon targets. Many police and crime commissioners have abandoned targets altogether, because they recognise that they have a distorting effect on behaviour and attitudes. The third is that the police themselves need to emphasise the core policing values of accountability, honesty and integrity so that police officers at desks recording crimes recognise that, above everything else, recording the crimes effectively is a microcosm of the honesty, integrity and accountability that they must carry throughout their entire policing profession. It is these values that have been subverted by the target culture. That is the responsibility of both parties over a long period—it is not a partisan point. Our key witness told me that the Metropolitan police is still full of target junkies. It will take a long time to change the culture of leadership throughout our police forces in England and Wales—this also applies to Scotland, although we have not inquired into Scotland—but it has to be done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

For TPIM subjects, the time period is a maximum of two years, as the hon. Lady highlights. At the end of that period, a number of alternatives may be available. If there is sufficient evidence, it may be possible to bring a prosecution. At the end of that period, if there is evidence of new terrorist-related activity, it is possible to secure a further TPIM. The Security Service and police robustly enforce the TPIM regime and manage subjects in the community, and I have every confidence in their ability to do so.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

7. What assessment she has made of the ability of the public to access front-line police services through the provision of local police stations in London boroughs.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I regularly meet the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to discuss policing in London. The Mayor and Commissioner are responsible for ensuring that their officers are accessible. Following extensive consultation with the public, led by the Mayor's office, the Met will add 2,600 officers to neighbourhood policing teams, and there will now be around 200 safer neighbourhood bases to enhance this access.

[Mr Slaughter]

West London has lost 400 police officers in the last three years, 44 in Hammersmith and Fulham. Half of all police community support officers have gone and now my local police station, Shepherd’s Bush, is closed to the public. When my constituents cannot find an officer or a police station, does the Minister seriously expect them to report serious crimes such as rape and sexual abuse in their post office or in Tesco?

[Damian Green]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents welcome the fact that crime in Hammersmith and Fulham has gone down by more than 4.5% in the past year. I am glad that he brought up the Shepherd’s Bush front counter because the latest data show that the number of visitors each day to that counter was fewer than six. If he thinks that that is a good use of police resources, frankly, he is not fit to run the proverbial whelk stall.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

That is a very good example of a Member reading out a question without having listened to my previous answer. The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen at all to what I said in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen). The number of students entering our excellent universities sector has risen, both in the United Kingdom and in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should also know that the student visitor visa is credibility-based. Entry clearance officers have full powers to say no to students if they believe that they are not genuine student visitors to the United Kingdom.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

14. What progress her Department has made on improving the detection and reporting of incidents of domestic violence.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

The Government have introduced new initiatives to improve the reporting of domestic violence. They include the domestic violence disclosure scheme pilot, and domestic violence protection orders to provide better protection for victims. Detections are, of course, a matter for the police, and we will continue to work with them to improve the reporting and resolution of these violent and abhorrent crimes.

[Mr Slaughter]

Preventing domestic homicides, which are still running at two a week, should be a priority for the Government, but leading victims’ organisations such as Standing Together Against Domestic Violence, in my constituency, are frustrated by the fact that the lessons of domestic homicide reviews are not being fed back to practitioners. Why is this essential work being delayed?

[Damian Green]

It is not being delayed. As I have said, these are indeed abhorrent crimes and continuing improvement is needed, but there has already been a great deal of improvement over the past couple of years. The Government have introduced two new specific criminal offences of stalking, have relaunched the teenage rape prevention and relationship abuse campaigns, and have extended the definition of domestic violence to include 16 and 17-year-olds and coercive control. All that shows the great seriousness with which we approach the issue.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am most grateful for your advice, Mr Speaker. I am sorry that the Minister without Portfolio did not give way to me earlier. He has again made the assertion that the Government are being forced to settle cases, but his assertion would have more appeal if they did not regularly settle cases before exhausting all their options and before applying for a strike-out. I do not think that his admonitions about people seeking confidentiality agreements to hide the amount of compensation that they were getting could apply to Mr Belhaj, for example. The Minister is to some extent peddling damaged goods again, and that is regrettable as he is one of the last defenders of human rights in his party. I thought he might have had a little more to say about article 6 and the common law right to a fair trial. I must get on, however; I am aware of the Speaker’s request.

I want to begin with thanks. This is not a long Bill but it is a difficult one, given the nature and complexity of its subject. It touches on two fundamental concepts: national security, and the fairness and openness of justice system, which we prize and for which this country is still regarded as a role model. In addition to the Front-Bench teams who have laboured hard—exemplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), and the Minister without Portfolio—we have had the benefit of the great expertise of some senior Back Benchers.

I mention in particular, although they are not here, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I mention, too, members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, several of whom are here, particularly the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who served and brought their experience to bear on that Committee. Then, of course, there is my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) and his colleagues on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, who have been forensic in their scrutiny of this Bill since it emerged as a Green Paper almost 18 months ago. We have had the advice of eminent lawyers too numerous to mention and all pro bono. I must, however, mention Tony Peto, who not only advised members of all parties but found time to co-author with the hon. Member for Chichester a book, “Neither Just nor Secure”, in time for the Committee stage. Copies, I am told, are still available.

There is substantial agreement on two parts of Bill. Part 1 improves the scrutiny of our intelligence services—something that has come a long way since they first emerged from the shadows in 1994. A point well made by ISC members on the Public Bill Committee was that there is a developing relationship between Parliament and the security services, which tries to balance the need for scrutiny with the effectiveness of the vital job those agencies do. The Bill takes that a step forward in enhancing accountability: it is too little and too slow for some, but it is moving in the right direction.

The clauses reforming the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction seek to re-assert the control principle and to protect the security interests of allied countries—not only in their interest but ours, since the success of our security services relies on close working relationships with their equivalents overseas. Thus far we agree, but how can that explain the definition of sensitive information in clause 15 as information relating to “an intelligence service” rather than to “a foreign intelligence service” as our amendment proposed? It looks like another attempt gratuitously to extend the protection given to secret information for reasons other than those given. It is a pity we did not have time to debate that matter further—perhaps even now, the Government will, of their own volition, look at that point.

That brings me to the contentious part of the Bill—that relating to closed material procedures—which regrettably leaves this House in a far worse condition than it was when it arrived. Not only have the key safeguards added to the Bill by the other place on the advice of the JCHR been removed, but new and alarming departures from the normal standards of civil justice have been put on the face of the Bill. This has been done as late and as obliquely as the Government could get away with. I hope their lordships will when the Bill returns to them later this month reimpose their necessary amendments and fillet the unwelcome additions.

There is not time to rehearse every attempt at mitigating the effect of secret courts that the Government have rejected, but in brief we have had 18 months of feigned U-turns, compromises and Pauline conversions from the Minister without Portfolio. In the end, they amounted to two important but not fundamental ameliorations. The door was opened to judicial discretion by accepting the Lords amendment on “may” instead of “must” at the entry to clause 6. Citizens will, after a series of wobbles and changes of heart, now have the same status as the Secretary of State to apply to enter a CMP. The two core changes sought by the Opposition in support of the other place have been firmly rejected: judicial balancing between the interests of national security and fair and open justice at the gateway to the CMP; and requiring the court to look at other more open, more tested and more equal ways of proceeding to trial before invoking the CMP—the so-called last resort.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Government were also unwilling to concede considering public interest immunity as a first option, judicial balancing of evidence once the CMP process was under way or to support a sensible renewal clause designed to give parliamentary scrutiny to this botched-together part of the Bill. These are all matters to which their lordships, including some of the finest legal brains in the country, will wish to address their minds. I hope and trust they will renew their attempt to make this part of the Bill work in the interests both of national security and open and equal justice. I hope—I am sure—they will not be deceived by the Government’s flimsy attempts to make purported concessions on these points.

The recent Government amendment 47, to ask the court to consider whether the Secretary of State has considered PII, is purely cosmetic. The hon. Member for Chichester described it as bath-time activity for the Minister without Portfolio—and it certainly comes with the customary large amount of soap. Similarly, clause 7, inserted in Committee, purports to challenge the CMP process continually and expressly on disclosure being completed. The court could do that of its own motion in any event, but it in no way mirrors the balancing act called for in our amendment 38, which was defeated late on Monday evening.

Have these purported concessions been presented to appease the Daily Mail, or—by way of winning the support of the members of the junior coalition party—the Liberal Democrat party conference? If so, they have done neither. The press, from left to right, remains hostile to this part of the Bill in its current form.

This weekend, the Liberal Democrats—when they are not reviewing their process for leadership selection—will vote again on a motion that states, first,

“Liberal Democrat parliamentarians to vote to delete Part II of the Justice and Security Bill”,

and, secondly,

“Party policy to remain that the Liberal Democrats will repeal Part II of the Justice and Security Act (if so enacted) as soon as we are in a position to do so.”

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) may have saved his skin by his votes on Monday, but 50 of his colleagues may find the air in Brighton less sweet. Even the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) may find his comment on Second Reading coming back to haunt him. He asked the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)

“whether he understands that the detailed amendments made in the House of Lords have been regarded by many people as being entirely favourable and reasonable.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2012; Vol. 685, c. 713.]

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman has again made references to matters connected with the Liberal Democrats in regard to which he was factually wrong, but I do not have time to correct them all. However, may I take him up on his point about our being “in a position to do so”? Let us say that after the next election there were some Labour involvement in the resulting Government. Would he then commit himself to repealing part 2, or is he in favour of it when it comes down to it?

[Mr Slaughter]

I certainly would not commit myself to repealing part 2, because it includes the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, which we support.

Finally, let me deal with the new heresies that have been slipped into the Bill during its passage in the House of Commons. I have time only to raise the issues rather than exploring them; further comment must be a matter for the other place.

The first of those issues, which was raised by us in Committee but not dealt with satisfactorily by the Minister, relates to clause 6(4)(a), which currently sets as a condition precedent to the court’s ordering a CMP that

“a party to the proceedings…would be required to disclose sensitive material in the course of proceedings to another person (whether or not another party to the proceedings)”.

We fear that the provision will be used in part to prevent the use of confidentiality rings, allowing the citizen's own lawyer to be excluded from receiving information. It was that eventuality that we sought to prevent through our amendment 28, which was not reached on Monday but which would have added the words

“and such disclosure would be damaging to the interests of national security”.

Our second significant concern relates to Government amendment 46, which was tabled only last week and was introduced to the Bill on Monday. There has been no opportunity to debate the amendment, which adds to clause 6(7) the phrase

“or on such material that the applicant would be required to disclose'”.

That appears to allow an application for a CMP to be made on the basis of irrelevant material which is not the sensitive material that the party applying—usually the Secretary of State—fears having to disclose. It may therefore allow the court to take into consideration material that is merely embarrassing or damaging to international relations. The Government have excluded such material from consideration in the CMP, but it seems it may now be adduced to trigger the process.

If we are right about that, there are other ramifications. The gisting requirements—which, as the special advocates have pointed out in their latest submission, are already very weak in the Bill—ask the court to consider, not to require, a gist, and thus allow a case to be decided entirely on the basis of evidence that one party has had no right to challenge. In addition, a gist need only be made of material that is disclosable. That presents the possibility of a CMP being granted on the basis of non-disclosable material, and the court not even being asked to consider whether it is necessary to gist that material to the open lawyer or client.

This is not so much a bad Bill as a Bill with a bad heart. We will not be voting against Third Reading, because there is much in part 1 that we support, but we believe that even at this stage the clauses on CMPs can be improved—indeed, must be improved. We look to the other place once again to provide the necessary heart massage. We hope that the Justice and Security Act will secure an effective way of trying difficult cases with serious national security implications without jeopardising hard-won and much-prized principles of fair and open justice. We have never excluded the CMP option, but we believe that it is such an affront to the basic, open and fair principles of English common law that it must be confined to the tiny minority of cases in which proper judicial discretion and other tried and tested methods have been exhausted.