Wagner Group: Sanctions Regime

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I repeat my earlier point about the actions we are taking on SLAPPs. We have already had the call for evidence and we will bring forward primary legislation.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Are the Government serious about tackling the use of SLAPPs? Threats of libel action by the Conservative party chairman over his tax affairs, use of the non-disclosure agreement by the Justice Secretary to silence journalists, and the Home Secretary’s attempt to stop the BBC reporting serious domestic violence by an agent of the security services when she was Attorney General, suggest that they prefer concealment over transparency.

[James Cartlidge]

Yes.

Russia: UK Companies

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. All I will say about the company in his constituency—in Marfleet, I think—is that companies divesting their interests in Russia will undoubtedly have an economic impact at home. They will have gone into that market for a commercial reason and there will be a commercial impact if they divest. We have to do everything possible to show our resolve to the people of Ukraine. That includes strong economic sanctions, even if they have an impact here, but by far the biggest economic impact is on our economy from the enormous surge in energy prices and the resulting inflation. Global inflation will drive the economy around the world to experience a hiatus in growth. We want to see growth return, and one of the reasons that we have windfall taxes is to raise funding to support our constituents and businesses through this winter.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Exchequer Secretary cannot have failed to notice the exhibition in Portcullis House showing the gross human rights abuses committed by Russian forces in Ukraine. As well as justice, the victims of these war crimes deserve compensation, but so far that has not come from seizing and distributing the assets of Putin’s allies or the Russian state. Why can it not come from BP and others’ Russian earnings?

[James Cartlidge]

I always enjoyed working with the hon. Gentleman in my previous position at the Ministry of Justice. He makes an extremely powerful point. The abuses that we have seen have been horrific, and he is right to draw attention to them. A great range of activities are taking places in that regard—for example, the significant support that we have given to the International Criminal Court at The Hague so that it can look into those abuses. Of course, it will be very difficult until we get a resolution to the conflict, which is why the most important thing we can do in all these cases is to continue supporting the people of Ukraine, their armed forces and the humanitarian effort.

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords]

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

Yes, I do, and I will give some other examples of local authorities considering the same actions that my hon. Friend describes.

The argument that I wish to advance is that, for too long, we have seen public pension schemes pursue pseudo foreign policies.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will make a bit of progress and then I will return to the hon. Gentleman.

All too often, the foreign policy of these public pension schemes is, I am afraid, exclusively focused on re-writing the UK’s relationship with the world’s only Jewish state, Israel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate his interest.

The latest example of the politicisation of public pension schemes is by Wirral Council, which is currently considering realising almost £5 million-worth of investments in seven companies. This pet project of a small minority who seek to hijack the money of hard-working taxpayers for their own political ends is of no interest to the public pension scheme holders of the Wirral, or indeed, I suggest, to the public pension scheme holders and rate payers of Hertfordshire.

The politicisation of public sector pension schemes, such as that seen by Wirral Council, is also to the detriment of the UK Government’s relations with states abroad. Supreme Court Justices Lord Arden and Lord Sales established in their judgments that, because the schemes are managed by councils that are part of the machinery of the state, receive taxpayer funding and are underwritten by state regulation outlined in the 2013 Act, they are liable to be identified with the British state. It is perfectly reasonable for an individual, an organisation or a nation abroad to look to these decisions and believe that they are the British state’s intentions. It would be wrong that, owing to a minority of an extreme and well-organised clique, the UK Government’s relationship with an ally has the potential to be undermined. Ultimately, central Government must reclaim their constitutional responsibility for the conduct of the UK’s international affairs. It is for this House to be the place in which those decisions are debated, as I am sure we will see later today. Public service pension scheme trustees must return to their primary duty of achieving maximum returns for scheme members.

[Andy Slaughter]

The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that this is public money. He will be aware that the Supreme Court, in making a judgment on the previous guidance, specifically said that it is not public money when it is employee or employer contributions; it comes from the rightful employment of the employees themselves. Why does he think that his new clause is different from that? As he has gone on to the specifics, while I am not talking about BDS here, does he think there is a possibility that decisions on investments, say, in illegal settlements, which the Government advise against on economic grounds, could also be caught by his new clause?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Supreme Court raised two central arguments. One was whether the 2013 Act explicitly gave the Secretary of State the power to issue guidance with respect to investment decisions that conflicted with UK foreign and defence policy. The second point that some Supreme Court Justices raised was whether it was within the remit of the Secretary of State to speak to all public service pension schemes, including those that are funded and unfunded, particularly the Local Government Pension Scheme.

This new clause explicitly provides the Secretary of State with the power to issue that guidance. Were it to pass, and were this ever to be litigated and reach that court, I expect that the Supreme Court Justices would see clearly the intention of this House, which is that the Secretary of State should be able to issue guidance and that that guidance should be applicable to all public service pension schemes. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point, which is an important one for us all to be clear on if the new clause is passed.

The new clause does nothing to stop private individuals making individual choices about their consumer habits. They remain at liberty to invest in or divest from, purchase from or boycott whichever companies they wish and for whatever reason they so choose. It does, however, make a distinction between the liberties of the private individual and the obligations of public bodies in receipt of public money, and it is grounded in the principle that public money should be spent in accordance with the wishes of the UK Government as expressed by this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

Perhaps I should begin by following the example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in declaring my association with a local government pension fund. I chaired the pension committee of my local authority for a number of years. I am pleased to say that since I stopped doing that it has become much more ethical. I can now tell the House that the pension fund now has the lowest percentage of its fund invested in fossil fuels of any local authority in the UK, with the aim of net zero by 2030. I take no credit at all, other than the fact that it is now chaired by my researcher.

I should also say that I used to be member of the local government pension scheme, but I moved the tiny amount of money I had in that to the MP scheme, so I do not know whether I should declare that. I wonder if we should all be declaring that fact, given that although the MP scheme is not subject to the McCloud judgment, its trustees have said they will follow the McCloud judgment. For the avoidance of doubt, I put all that on the record. I do not think I have much time left now, but let us see.

I generally support the Bill, which is undoing mistakes that the Government made which were exposed by the McCloud judgment. I do, however, have a slight reservation. Nobody has mentioned the matters relating to judicial retirement ages. I see exactly the force of why they need to be increased, although I share the reservations of the Law Society that going from 70 to 75 will actually set back diversity in the judiciary, hopefully only temporarily, because of those who will be eligible to stay on in their roles. However, we are in such a parlous state in relation to the shortage of judges and the crisis in the courts that I can see the force of the argument.

I will be brief because, in a way, by talking too much about new clause 1, we are giving it more credibility than it deserves. It does not really deserve a place in this Bill. I suspect that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) knows that, and actually, we should congratulate him on managing to squeeze it into the long title of the Bill. I felt that it was slightly surreal to be listening to a speech about the Abraham accords in relation to a technical Bill about pensions. We will have, hopefully, a three-hour debate on recognition of the Palestinian state on Thursday in this Chamber, in which it might fit, although that might be stretching it a bit as well. Perhaps he will speak in that debate as well.

Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. Everyone has a part to play. I cannot outline the Government response now; we are still working on it, as I announced in my statement. However, the report makes recommendations not just for Government, but for the public sector, the private sector, businesses and individuals. There will be plenty that we can do to address those issues, and we will see what the Government have to say on them in their response in the summer.

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

The commission’s chair says that it found no evidence in Britain of institutional racism, which it defines as

“racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours in a single institution.”

How does the Minister for Equalities square that with the policy of holiday park operator Pontins to ban Gypsies and Travellers from its premises? Is not deliberate discrimination on the grounds of race, whether by arms of the state or private corporations, institutional racism in plain sight?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The commission looked at specific areas; it did not examine Pontins. It did not say that there is no institutional racism in Britain; as I said in my statement, it said that about the areas it looked at. I do not believe that the holiday sector was one of the areas it examined. For what it is worth, no business should discriminate against people on the basis of their ethnicity or background. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I share that view. I do not know the full details of the Pontins situation, but that is exactly the kind of thing that we want to address in Government, so that we can make sure that communities get fair treatment. What is good about the commission’s report is that, unlike many reports that look at race and racism, is actually looks at the Gypsy, Romany and Traveller community, especially in respect of education—many people ignore them because they are classified as white, which I do not think is the right way to go. That is one reason why it is important to disaggregate BAME and talk about specific groups.

Support for Self-employed and Freelance Workers

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for putting it forward. It is a shame that we have to cram six months of misery into an hour and a half, but we will do our best.

Many of those excluded from Government support over the past six months work in the creative industries—in TV, theatre and the arts, but also in events and exhibitions. Sometimes I feel I have got all 3 million of the excluded in my constituency, which is very arts and ents heavy. With 70 years of the BBC, we have grown a massive media industry, including commercial broadcasters. We have three highly regarded theatres in the Lyric, the Bush and the Riverside. We have major national music venues, such as the Hammersmith Eventim Apollo, the Shepherd’s Bush Empire and the Olympia exhibition centre. Such venues have had a double-whammy, because in many cases they and their industries do not get any help and are not being allowed to open—it is likely, the way things are going, that that will be further delayed—and many of them rely on exactly the excluded groups we are talking about today.

Of course this is not just about those groups. I have been involved recently with everything from the wedding industry to the Bar. Anything that brings barristers and wedding planners together must be quite extraordinary. We go to them at different times of our lives when we may be happy or sad, but there is an interesting point there, which is what all these organisations have in common. Often they are entrepreneurial. Often they are risk-taking. Often people who are at the beginning of their career are investing and have limited incomes. Often, also, they are following professional advice from accountants and the Treasury that has got them into the situation they are in. They are not wilfully ending up in this situation; they are there because they have entered into it in good faith.

I have to declare that I was a self-employed barrister for a number of years, and the figures from the Bar Council say that not only have three quarters of chambers lost 50% of their work, but the majority say they will not be able to last more than six to 12 months. Some people may not cry many tears over that, but the fact is that these people—I hope that many of them are successful and go on to great careers—cannot make do on the income that they have, and they are being done down in that way.

I have so many letters from constituents, and often they are from couples who both work in those industries. I think that most of us know the common problems. They could be people who are just above the £50,000 earnings threshold. They could be people who recently became self-employed having set up their businesses. They could be people who have moved between jobs. They could be people whose incomes come from a range of different sources. Whatever it is, they fall through the gaps in the Government’s scheme, and they cannot get any help at all in many cases.

The Chancellor, of all people, pooh-poohs them and says, “These are wealthy people,” and talks about dividends, but I have a letter from a constituent who gets £10,000 basic and then relies on dividends to top up their income. I could go on for a very long time—I am sure all Members could—in relation to these matters, but I will end on this: whereas we have got our act together with the Excluded UK all-party parliamentary group and through ExcludedUK, the Government are all over the place. We often have to deal with four different Departments to get an answer. We are taking two or three months to get Departments to answer. Please will the Treasury Minister sort that out, make the change retrospective and help people who are genuinely in need?

Economic Update

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My North Yorkshire constituents might have something to say about that, but I know how important tourism is to my hon. Friend’s constituency, similar to so many of our rural constituencies up and down the country. I am glad that he will be doing his bit to eat out to help out. I hope that others will join him. In doing so, we can collectively help to protect 2 million jobs across our country.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

While the Chancellor has made welcome announcements on the hospitality and cultural sectors, he has said nothing in support of the events industry and those who work in it, despite the Prime Minister promising a timetable for reopening last week. From wedding receptions and conferences to world-famous exhibition centres, such as Olympia in my constituency, events make a £70 billion contribution to the economy. When will safe, organised events with more than 30 people attending be permitted, as they are in most other countries?

[Rishi Sunak]

I sympathise with the hon. Member and agree that the best thing we can do to help these sectors is to get them to reopen. I know this is something that the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary are looking at as we speak. Hopefully, in the weeks to come, as we progress our fight against this virus, we can continue to reopen all the closed parts of our economy and progressively loosen some of the restrictions that currently we all face.

Economic Update

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

The Government telling people not to visit those places, or to hold back from them, was based on the advice of scientists and medical experts to ensure that our health as a country is protected. The measures we announced today directly go to help those in those industries to protect those jobs. As I said, we will work urgently with the unions and businesses to see what further measures can be put in place.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Many decisions the Government have taken on isolation, at-risk groups and testing limit the ability of NHS staff to go to work. It is easy to say, “Whatever it takes,” but how can we be sure that our hospitals in particular have the resources to save every life that can be saved?

[Rishi Sunak]

Of course, we take the advice of the chief medical officer in this regard and we will continue to do so. We have been absolutely clear that the NHS will get whatever support financially it needs from the Government to help get us through what will be a very challenging time. We are considering all measures to increase the capacity of the NHS to respond to this, and indeed provide the support to those on the frontline who are going to deal with a very difficult few months.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

Is not the difference between the Government and the Opposition on tax avoidance quite simply that this Government are serious about it, having brought in and protected £200 billion since 2010? The tax gap is at a near historic low. If it was as high as it was under the last Labour Government, we would be deprived of sufficient funds to employ every policeman and woman in England and Wales. This Government are serious about avoidance and evasion, and we have a record of which to be proud.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

3. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the fiscal effect of the no recourse to public funds condition on local authority budgets.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)]

I have regular discussions with the Home Secretary and the Local Government Secretary about their budgets and how they are best managed.

[Andy Slaughter]

Will the Minister at least acknowledge that there is a problem? London boroughs are spending about £50 million a year—which they have to spend, but usually under the Children Act 1989—on families in extremis with no recourse to public funds. Will she acknowledge that that is the case and look at how local authorities are funded?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the spending review is coming up. If there is a specific issue with London local authorities or other local authorities, I would expect that issue to be raised by the Local Government Secretary, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to meet him to discuss the issue.

EU Customs Union and Draft Withdrawal Agreement: Cost

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

What I can say is that unemployment in this country is at a record low, demonstrating the coherence of this Government’s economic policy.[Official Report, 12 November 2018, Vol. 649, c. 2MC.]

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister looks as though he wishes he was somewhere else, and he has referred most of our questions to the Prime Minister, for which I am sure she is grateful. He must be able to answer this question: does he stand by the Treasury forecast that this country will be worse off outside the customs union, the single market and the EU?

[John Glen]

What I stand by is the desire of the Government to find the best possible solution for the United Kingdom—that maximises the advantages to the UK economy of the growth in economies outside the EU. There is a range of assumptions to a range of forecasts, and the Treasury always goes into considerable depth in setting those out clearly.

Food Labelling and Allergy-Related Deaths

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

I will come back to my hon. Friend with further thoughts when we can meet to discuss that matter further.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Natasha Ednan-Laperouse was my constituent. When I met her father early last year, he relived the hour he spent trying to save her life on the British Airways flight from Heathrow to Nice. No parent should have to go through such an appalling experience. I say gently to the Minister that I think he is the wrong person giving the wrong response today. Pret and the other food outlets have passed the buck to the Government, and the Government should not pass matters of policy to the Food Standards Agency. Will he at least say when the review will report back and whether he will issue unofficial guidelines to food outlets in the meantime about listing ingredients and contamination? Finally, will he co-ordinate with his colleagues in Government on consumer safety? Local authorities are now so denuded of funds that trading standards and other agencies are unable to enforce the law even as it is.

[David Rutley]

I am sitting next to a Health and Social Care Minister, so I can assure the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) that we will be working closely and carefully across Government. He makes an important point about the tragic circumstances in which Natasha’s parents found themselves, and this situation is testament to them and the way that they have conducted themselves. The Secretary of State has written to them and is keen to meet them to discuss their concerns and how to move things forward. The report will be swift, but we received the coroner’s report only today and it sets out some challenging conclusions to which we need to respond properly.