Interpreting and Translation Services

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

You have ruined the round of applause at the end of my speech, Mr Pritchard. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon.

If the Minister did not know at the beginning of the debate how important this issue was, she will now, from the quality of the debate and from the contributions from Members on both sides of the House, including from very senior Members of the House; and whereas it is right to say that she did not preside over the inauguration of what the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), has called a shambles, she has been defending that shambles since she was appointed, so she does need to give some clear and full answers today.

Included in the contribution from the Chair of the Select Committee was the worrying information, which is in the report, that there was interference with the inquiry by the Ministry of Justice to prevent the fullest account of what has happened coming to light. Perhaps the Minister would like to address that and say whether she wishes to see that there is no repetition of it in the future. It is difficult not to conclude that the reason for it was that the Ministry did not want the full facts of the contract to emerge. I am delighted to hear that this is not the end of the matter for the Select Committee, because it not only has severe implications, as many hon. Members have said, for the quality and the standard of justice in our courts, but it has implications for the Ministry of Justice’s generally shambolic tendering processes.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said that in his experience, and looking at the three substantial reports from the NAO, the Justice Committee and the PAC, he had rarely seen such an indictment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) quoted some, but only some, of the examples of failure. The dossier from which he was reading is only one of several dossiers about hundreds of individual cases that have been prepared. I was grateful for those contributions, and grateful also for the contributions from the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), and for Redcar (Ian Swales), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who brought to the debate their own experience, either from their private life or from the Committees on which they have served.

A number of Members wanted to take part in the debate, and what their contributions come to, in summation, is the anatomy of a disaster. The Ministry set out to save relatively small amounts of money; I shall explain why I use that phrase. Some Members—certainly Members on the PAC—will have seen the interrogation by the Chair of the PAC, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), of the senior responsible officer, who had not read the report and was not aware of the fact that when a £42 million contract was let to ALS, it was subject to a £1 million limit. He had not read that because he thought that it was de minimis and below his estimable gaze, and things went from bad to worse in that interrogation.

There appears to have been no assessment of the risk in this case. There has been contempt for the way in which professional interpreters should be dealt with. I am very grateful for the way in which professional interpreters have assisted us. I particularly mention Geoffrey Buckingham of the Association of Police and Court Interpreters, but I am also referring to many of the organisations that make up Professional Interpreters for Justice. They have been prepared to brief hon. Members at length on what is going wrong in our courts every day. The only party that appears not to wish to listen to that is the Ministry of Justice, which is why we have had the meltdown in our courts during the past 18 months.

Let me deal first with the issue of costs. I do not expect to get an answer from the Minister on costs, although many hon. Members have asked her about them. I have been trying to get answers to these questions for months through parliamentary questions and Freedom of Information Act inquiries. Let me tell Members what my latest inquiries have gained me. I asked the Ministry to provide the information on wasted costs in courts, and it said that it would not do that, although it could, because it was too expensive. I am appealing that decision, because it seems to me that the Ministry could simply contact each court and ask it to supply that information as raw data, and my office could collate that. Failing that, I asked whether the Ministry would provide me with the e-mail addresses of the country’s courts, so that I could undertake the exercise myself, and it said, wrongly, that that information was available publicly. It is not available publicly, so I am appealing that as well. The fact that the response to one of those inquiries was addressed to Mr Safranov and the other one was unopenable and caused my computer to crash only confirms that the Ministry is either unable or unwilling to provide the information because it knows how devastating it is likely to be.

What we do know—these are in part estimates but also in part statistics—is that about 50% of the requirement for interpreters is being fulfilled through the Capita contract. We know that after 500 days, the alternative system—courts finding their own interpreters—is still in effect. We know that whereas the Ministry claims that from a 58% starting point, Capita’s performance has got better, which is not much of a claim, in fact it got worse again from the middle of last year—it does not acknowledge that. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton, gave the figures for the trials that have been aborted—more than 600 in the magistrates court and more than 30 in the Crown court over that period.

Those are appalling figures, but it should not be up to any Member of the House to go away and find out that information. That information should be made available, and if the Minister does not have it available, perhaps she could undertake today to give a clear answer about the costs of the failure of the ALS-Capita contract. They include, of course, not only the costs from wasted court time, but the costs from unnecessary remand, the costs to the Crown Prosecution Service and the costs to the Prison Service.

In relation to the impact, I will not read out a great swathe of examples from the dossiers that have been prepared, but they range from the hugely serious to the almost comic. Examples include interpreters who cannot translate the word “guilty”; an attempted murder case in which the interpreter had received no training and did not appreciate the need to translate everything; an interpreter who chatted to witnesses about the case, causing a mistrial after 12 days; and a Crown court trial that was postponed because there was no rare language interpreter, the rare language being Polish—the second most commonly spoken language in the UK. This is going on now.

There was the very serious quadruple murder case at Nottingham Crown court last month. The BBC report stated:

“The failure of an interpreter to show up for a murder suspect’s court appearance has been described as a ‘complete disgrace’ by a judge…No Mandarin interpreter was available, and Nottingham Crown Court heard it was ‘not worthwhile’ for one to turn up”—

according to Capita—

“as they would ‘not make enough money’.”

That was described by the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) as the service being “out of control”. I wonder whether the Minister agrees with her colleague’s view on that matter. A murder case is going on today at Birmingham Crown court for which no Capita interpreter—certainly at the time when I was briefed, early this morning—had turned up, and that case is therefore also in jeopardy.

I do not think that I have to elucidate for Members at this debate how serious these matters are, not just in terms of cost but in terms of the administration and execution of justice. I am not being pompous in saying that these matters go not just to the heart of the Administration, but to the heart of justice itself.

I have with me the translation of an article from Lithuanian, and because it was done by someone on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters, it is certified and I trust it as a translation. It is from a Lithuanian website and is telling people about the interpreting service in this country. It quotes a Lithuanian interpreter in the UK as saying this about dealing with clients:

“We just advise them to tell the truth about how everything happened. For example, how and where they went to steal”.

The most fundamental part of an interpreter’s job is not to interfere in the process of justice—not to do the solicitor’s or the barrister’s job and certainly not to give the client legal advice or advice on how to conduct themselves, yet that appears to be the way in which these matters are routinely conducted.

In the few moments left to me, I would like to deal with where we go next. I do not think that the case against this contract has to be made any further; I think that we have to say, “Where do we go now?”

The MOJ is in a parlous state, in terms of letting contracts; its complete reliance on payment by results; what it is doing with the probation service; and what it is threatening to do with the privatisation of the entire Courts Service. I read in the technical press this week that a £300 million MOJ desktop and laptop support contract has been postponed, reportedly after the four most serious contenders had already spent millions bidding. That is the computer contract for the entire court, prison and probation system, which has been in planning for some years and which has now simply been pulled. We do not know why; perhaps the Minister will tell us. The point is that there is no coherence to the contract letting process in the MOJ and the contract is perhaps the clearest example of it. It is also one of the smallest contracts that it has let, and I fear for what may now happen.

So what should now happen? First, the Government need to stop being in denial about the failure of the contract. They need to stop saying that there has been a dramatic improvement when the situation is getting worse. They need to stop misrepresenting what they say about the view of professional interpreters. In their response to the Select Committee, they claimed that the slight amelioration of conditions was something that had been welcomed. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it is clear in the minutes of the meetings between the Minister, officials and interpreters that the terms being offered do nothing to meet the concerns of the professional interpreters or to adequately compensate them. Until the Minister realises that and begins to address that matter, the contract will continue to fail.

What interpreters want is the reinstatement of the national agreement; proper—not excessive, but fair—remuneration and conditions of service; legislation to protect the title of registered public service interpreter, so that there will no longer be the types of extraordinary cases that we have heard examples of this afternoon; and to work with the Government to establish a regulatory professional body that is robust and rigorous in its approach, enabling interpreters to provide quality interpreting services to public bodies. They do not seem extreme or unreasonable claims or ambitions.

There is a break clause in the contract. The Government could—and should—act now to suspend while they determine how they can properly address the concerns raised. In my opinion, there is now sufficient evidence that the contract with Capita should not continue.

I will stop now, because I want to give the Minister sufficient time to reply to all the points that have been raised. She is a courteous Minister, but she tends to read from her civil servants’ brief, rather than answering the points raised in debate. As we have a full house today and interpreters are present who have come to hear the Government’s current stance, I hope we will hear about some progress and movement towards a fair deal for interpreters, which is important, because they are professional people whose livelihoods are at stake, and that we can have within the courts of England and Wales what we used to take for granted. Certainly when I was in practice, I would take it for granted that interpreters would be competent, efficient, present, and able to discharge their duties.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Minister, as is convention, I intend to call the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) to make some concluding remarks for two or three minutes, if he wishes to do so, before the end of this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Slaughter]

I was not greatly shocked to be told that recovering the figures that I asked for would involve a disproportionate cost. If the Minister is going to persist with that line, she cannot give a figure for savings, because, if it is accurate, it is clearly a gross figure. The collapse of any of the serious Crown court trials that I mentioned will cost tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds. The Government must be able to make some estimate of the costs. It is not good enough just to say, “We’re not going to collect that information from the courts.” Although it may not be 100% accurate, we need some idea of the cost to the public purse of this contract going ahead.

[Mrs Grant]

I am afraid that I cannot honestly say any more than I have already said; I do not want to be disingenuous. I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and if we can do any more—if we can give him any further and better particulars—I will be happy to try to do so.

The system has been operating well in the National Offender Management Service. The senior presiding judge told the NAO that the system had improved since initial roll-out through the Ministry’s actions. I am pleased to confirm that complaints are declining. I have outlined the improvements in our success rate. Just 0.4% of magistrates court listings were delayed because of interpreter problems in the first and second quarters of 2012, which was the difficult period. We will continue to work closely with our partners and to bring about changes that deliver improved performance in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

It certainly brings competition to bear. We are trying to take tough decisions on legal aid in a way that, where possible, impacts on the top end, not the bottom end, of the income scale. That is what we believe in, and I am surprised that Labour Members appear to disagree with us.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Has the Secretary of State read his interview with the Law Society Gazette this week? I would not blame him if he had not, because it is a bit of a car crash. Does he stand by the passages where he says that he has no evidence of a lack of public support for legal aid but has received “lots of letters”, where he is “unsure” where £160 million of Department spending has gone, and where he defends taking away a choice of solicitor because

“people in our prisons and…courts come from the most difficult and challenged backgrounds”

and are not

“great connoisseurs of legal skills”?

[Chris Grayling]

Not surprisingly, I do stand by interviews I give. We are now three years into this Government and Labour Members have no answers to any of the challenges we face. We have big financial issues to deal with and we need to create a system that is affordable. They have no alternative suggestions about how to do that.

[Mr Slaughter]

The Justice Secretary has one answer: payment by results.

Last Friday, the Justice Secretary was forced to investigate alleged overpayment to G4S and Serco on the tagging contracts. Today the Financial Times is reporting that he has suspended outsourcing prison contracts to Serco, Sodexo and Amec. Should not he review all current contracts with the chumocracy of private firms who get the MOJ’s shilling, including Capita’s disastrous running of the interpreters contract, and should not he suspend plans to hand out another £500 million of probation contracts to more of the cosy cartel?

[Chris Grayling]

Sometimes Labour Members are breathtaking. I am not going to say much to the House today about the investigation that we are carrying out into the tagging contracts; I will provide that information in due course. I simply say to Opposition Front Benchers that the contracts we are investigating date back to 2005 and were signed and put together by the previous Government.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement—it is generous of him to share his thoughts with the House on this important subject so soon after briefing the national media. He is right that one of the best ways to cut crime, the number of victims and the cost of our criminal justice system is by tackling reoffending. It is disappointing that it has taken the Government three wasted years to reach that conclusion, but we welcome the intent of today’s announcement.

Reoffending rates are too high. We started to reduce them when we were in government—especially the rate of youth offending, which breaks the cycle of reoffending at an early point—but much more needs to be done. This is an ambitious programme. Unfortunately, it is based on fewer resources, on untried and untested methods and on putting faith in exactly those private sector organisations that have failed to deliver other major public sector contracts.

Let us take the proposal for support for everyone leaving prison—an extra 45,000 offenders on the Secretary of State’s figures. Can he explain to the House whether that is an uncosted demand for more resource or whether existing moneys will be spread much more thinly to deliver it? Resettlement prisons, as he said, represent a major restructuring of the prison system. What is the cost of that restructuring and what additional resources will go into preparing offenders for release? He knows that the prison estate is still chronically overcrowded and understaffed, so does he seriously think that a reorganisation can take place against such a backdrop? In London there is a major shortage of prison places, which means that offenders from London often end up housed hundreds of miles away from home and family, so how is resettlement to work here?

On release, even those who have served the shortest sentences are promised a year’s supervision and support with addiction, housing and employment. Who will pay for that at a time when drug treatment centres are closing? Housing is perhaps the most expensive item for newly released prisoners. On the “Today” programme, the Secretary of State speculated that housing associations would help out, so during the worst housing shortage for a generation are ex-offenders to get priority for social housing?

Who will fund the army of mentors, and who will vet them to ensure that the right people mentor offenders? The probation service has been cut by almost 10% so far and those cuts will continue. The service, which received an award for excellence two years ago, is by definition not to blame for rising reoffending by short-sentence prisoners, because they are currently unsupervised. However, it is not probation officers who will now undertake 70% of the supervision. The Justice Secretary places a great deal of faith in reformed old lags helping out, but he admitted on the “Today” programme that they will have to be paid. Professional probation officers sacked and replaced with ex-offenders: is this the Justice Secretary’s brave new world?

In reality, it is the Secretary of State’s old friends Serco, G4S and the rest of the cartel who will profit from today’s announcements. The 21 contracts are too large for smaller providers. An extra £500 million of public contracts are going to the people who gave us the Work programme and security at the Olympics. Now he is to impose his untested and untried payment-by-results methods on probation. Perhaps most seriously, a dangerous chasm will open up between public and private providers on the basis of an offender’s risk level, taking no account of the fact that in 25% of all cases offenders move between risk levels. Therefore, contrary to his assurance, private firms will be in charge of the most serious criminals, and we genuinely fear that that will put the public at risk. Failures in delivering probation services even to medium-risk offenders will mean that those guilty of domestic violence, burglary, robbery, sexual offences and gang activity will walk our streets unsupervised. Regardless of whether private sector providers deliver, they will still get paid at least 90% of the money. Do they have the incentive or the skills to supervise dangerous and violent people in the community?

Reducing reoffending while maintaining public safety should be our twin priorities. A focus on reoffending is to be welcomed, but the Government’s ill-thought-out policies and total reliance on payment by results are putting at risk the safety of communities up and down the country.

[Chris Grayling]

I plead guilty to having done a couple of media interviews this morning, but I am at least in the House right now. My opposite number, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), also gave some media interviews this morning but has not made it to the House, which is rather a surprise to me.

We learned an important lesson in opposition, which is that sometimes when one aspires to be a Government it is necessary to accept that something is the right thing to do. That is a lesson that today’s Opposition have not learned. I do not understand why they are coming out with this faux anger about what we are doing when the legislative foundations that enable us to push through these reforms were passed by the previous Labour Government. If they supported the concept then, why do they not support it now?

The hon. Gentleman asked about costs. That highlights an important difference between us and the previous Government. They believed that a problem would be solved by throwing money at it, and they ended up with an over-bureaucratic, over-complex system which simply did not deliver. Thanks to the work done by the Select Committee, we know that probation officers spend only about a quarter of their time at work on supervising offenders, while about 40% of their time is spent on providing support services. Are the Opposition really saying that it is not possible to run that system more efficiently and deliver support where it is needed to the offenders who are most likely to reoffend when they leave prison? Again, there is a divide between us and them. They think it is a question of spending more taxpayers’ money and having higher taxes; we want to get better value from the taxes that we already raise.

On resettlement prisons, again, it is about making our system work more effectively. At the moment, we move far too many prisoners all over the country in a fairly haphazard way. Over the past few months we have worked with prison governors and prison officer teams to work out a better way so that short-sentence offenders will almost always stay in one place and longer-sentence offenders will go to a prison close to where they will be released to ensure that when they are released we can deliver continuity of support through the prison gate. The Opposition should welcome that. It is the right thing to do and it should have been done years ago.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the past three years. It is only a few months since the Opposition were attacking me for not undertaking pilots on this issue. In fact, for the past few years we have been looking at how such a system would work, in Peterborough prison and in Doncaster prison. The work that has been done there is first-rate. It has also shown how effective older prisoners who are turning their lives around can be in supporting and mentoring younger offenders who have yet to do so. The hon. Gentleman needs to go out and look at what is happening, not in the world of big businesses, which his party’s Government contracted with regularly, but in the voluntary sector with some of our first-rate charities, where there are living examples of former offenders who have gone straight and who are now helping to turn around the lives of the next generation of offenders. I want to capture those skills in helping to bring down reoffending.



The hon. Gentleman questioned payment by results, but why is it such a bad thing in the eyes of the Opposition? They want to pay a whole-contract fee, but I believe that we should pay part of a fee based on whether the taxpayer gets a good deal or not. We should pay not unconditionally, but conditionally, and that is what we will do under these contracts. I want to pay for real results that bring down reoffending and crime.

Under the previous Government, reoffending barely changed. We ended up with a situation in which people were going round and round the system. We finally have a set of proposals that will start to change that. It is shame that this did not happen, not three years ago, but 13 years ago, when the Labour party was in power.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the things that I have found most surprising about the system that we currently operate is that we do not currently provide all-round support for those who get sentences of less than 12 months. A central part of our reforms is to change that. It is this group who have the highest propensity to reoffend. It is simply not acceptable that we continue not to provide them with the same level of support as longer-sentenced prisoners when they leave jail.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I do not know whether the Secretary of State has looked at the National Audit Office’s response to his consultation. It says that, in the Work programme, the majority of providers were big private companies. It also says that it is likely that the most difficult, prolific offenders will not be picked and that there will be cherry-picking. So despite his warm words, does he not think that this is going the same way as his failed Work programme? Is he intending to have moved on before this fails as well?

[Chris Grayling]

I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the Work programme is succeeding in getting very large numbers of people into work, and is delivering much better value for the taxpayer than the programmes that we inherited from the previous Government. The truth is that the National Audit Office has contributed some valuable thoughts to our preparations for this exercise. I have listened to its contributions, as I will listen to all contributions, and we will deliver the most sensible, rounded package, particularly one that ensures that no one is left at the fringes of the system and that we provide rehabilitation and support to all offenders.

Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Friday 1st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the key reasons why the majority of people in this country would support the Bill.

We have not heard from the Opposition or our friends in the Liberal Democrat party. Perhaps they have been convinced by the strength of the arguments this morning, but they may well oppose the Bill. However, I find that supporters of all political parties support what my hon. Friend’s Bill seeks to do. It is not a party political issue among ordinary voters. They are all equally outraged at some of the cases that have hit the headlines in recent years. I agree with my hon. Friend that people see the Human Rights Act as something that diverts their hard-earned taxpayers’ funds away from the things that they should be spent on, such as providing more doctors and nurses, to paying lawyers to bring forward spurious cases.

Perhaps I could refer the House to one such case. Samuel Betteridge was a young man who raped a 14-year-old girl after luring her to his flat and forcing her to drink alcohol. In 2005 he admitted at Lincoln Crown court two counts of rape and one of attempted rape. His minimum jail term of five years was later reduced on appeal to three and a half years. His parole hearing was fixed for May 2009 but later postponed until January 2010.

Through his lawyers, Mr Betteridge appealed to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that the delay in his parole hearing violated article 5 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a speedy hearing. The Strasbourg judges, needless to say, agreed with Mr Betteridge’s submission and found in his favour. They said that

“the delay in reviewing Mr Betteridge’s case was the direct result of the failure of the authorities to anticipate the demand which would be placed on the prison system following the introduction of IPP sentencing”.

Those are indeterminate public protection sentences which, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and other hon. Members know, are now being abolished—[Interruption.] Yes, changed; effectively abolished, perhaps.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I will address the hon. Gentleman’s request for the Opposition’s views on the issue under discussion, but IPPs are being abolished, which Opposition Members think is something of a shame. The issues of public protection that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and the balance between the offender and the victim, are being changed not for better but for worse.

[Mr Nuttall]

If my memory serves me rightly, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) I took a similar view on that matter and— I think—went into the Division Lobby to try to avoid it happening. There is a place for such sentences but I do not want to be drawn down that avenue. This debate is not about sentencing policy, but that was the subject of the case I mentioned and it is therefore right at least to touch on how it came about.

The High Court in London originally dismissed the case, but the European Court of Human Rights backed Mr Betteridge and awarded the rapist £640 in damages plus £1,710 in legal fees—I bet that did not go far towards paying those fees. According to my information, Mr Betteridge was apparently not alone in receiving payments for delayed parole hearings and was one of 100 prisoners who has received in total more than £313,000 over the past three years as a result of an alleged breach, found to be an actual breach, of their human rights. Most of our constituents would agree with Robert Oxley of the TaxPayers Alliance who said:

“It’s disgusting that taxpayers are being made to pay for an award to a rapist thanks to European Court meddling.”

Of course, he was referring to the European Court of Human Rights, not the European Court of Justice.

As the House is aware, that was not the only case to hit the headlines. A case with an even more substantial effect, certainly on proceedings in this place, was that of Hirst, which was, in effect, the leading case on prisoner voting rights. In 1979, John Hirst used an axe to kill his landlady in her own home. In the following year he was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff of 15 years, after which he could be released on licence. In fact, he was not released until May 2004 because of concerns that he might present a danger to the public; for example, he was found guilty of an offence under prison rules when, in 1998, he slammed a van door against a female prisoner officer.

Mr Hirst used his time in prison to teach himself law. He became a student of human rights legislation and a serial litigant against the authorities. There is no time this morning to go into his various cases, but suffice it to say that in one of them the court ordered that the Government pay Hirst £1,000 in damages and a further £7,500 in costs. That was before what we might call his cause célèbre—Hirst v. United Kingdom (No. 2)—which was to prove far more controversial, and related to whether his human rights had been violated because he was not able to vote while he was in prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and to agree with him on the matter of IPPs—but not, I suspect, much else. We seem to be in the one-hour club, as we are averaging about an hour for each contribution. As someone who regularly exceeds that time in Committee—I get some criticism from the Whips on both sides when I do—it is nice to be among friends in that respect at least on a Friday morning. I am not, however, going to speak for more than an hour today, as I want to leave time for the Minister to respond and perhaps for us to move on to other business.

I do not think that, even if I wanted to, I could match the eloquence of some of the speeches that we have heard, particularly that of the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and his exchanges with the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border made a compelling case on many issues, not least on minority rights. Human rights legislation is about individual rights, and it is often about minority rights and unpopular minority rights. That issue has not been much addressed in contributions today other than by the hon. Gentleman.

I hope that the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who has produced a very impressive Bill, will forgive me, or will not misunderstand me, when I say that during his speech I thought that my article 3 rights might be affected—not, of course, because of his argument or his oratory, but because I felt that we had been here before. We have, in fact, been here before, as recently as last December, when the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) presented a ten-minute rule Bill that proposed the abolition, or repeal, of the Human Rights Act. It was defeated by, I believe, 196 votes to 72. Although the debate was short, the arguments that were advanced were very similar to those that have been advanced today.

I mention that occasion—it was not the only occasion on which the House has discussed these matters—because I suspect that, notwithstanding the considerable effort that has gone into this Bill, it was born of frustration rather than a belief that it would ever reach the statute book. Under the coalition Government, there have been two consultations and a commission report. I think it is accepted on all sides that the resolution of the issue that the commission was set to consider is going nowhere, certainly during the current Parliament. That is clearly frustrating for some Conservative Members, but perhaps it is not surprising, given that in their respective manifestos one of the coalition parties promised to replace the Human Rights Act and the other promised to protect it. That is one of the clearest contradictions between the two parties. I am sorry if we are not going to hear from the Liberal Democrats today, perhaps for reasons connected with hangovers.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I want to correct that statement, and also to reassure the hon. Gentleman of the Liberal Democrats’ support for the Human Rights Act. Let me point out to him that there is not a contradiction, but simply a disagreement between the coalition parties. That happens sometimes in coalitions, and he ought to welcome it.

[Mr Slaughter]

It may be a distinction without a difference; I do not know. The point is that, as was made pretty clear by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)—the former Lord Chancellor and now Minister without Portfolio—when he was asked to pronounce on the subject, nothing will happen during the current Parliament. He is a supporter of the Human Rights Act. Indeed, as we have heard today, as we have heard from the Attorney-General and, for all I know, as we shall hear from the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, there are some fairly strong supporters of the Act in the Conservative party.

I believe—this may account for the rather sparse attendance of members of all parties today, apart from the four who have spoken so eloquently—that the issue will not be resolved by any method other than the continuation of the current Act, perhaps with additions or amendments. Nothing is perfect, particularly in this field. I do not think this will be resolved unless we have a majority Conservative Government, and, judging by the declaration of the returning officer in Eastleigh at 2.45 this morning, I think that that is an increasingly remote possibility in the foreseeable future.

I am not going to recite our reasons for enacting the human rights legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) said two months ago in response to the hon. Member for South Norfolk, we were and remain very proud of it, but, as several Members have pointed out today, it came about as a result of an historical process, and one which had support from all parties.

I think it fair to say that it was under Labour Governments that the principal advances were made, albeit with the support and encouragement of senior members of the Conservative party—none more senior than Winston Churchill, who, as early as 1943, proposed the foundation of the Council of Europe, and none more so than David Maxwell Fyfe, who was in large part the drafter of the convention. Although it came into effect in 1950, it was not until the late 1960s that British citizens had the right to go to the European Court, and not until the enactment of the Human Rights Act that human rights issues could be adjudicated in the British courts. All of that seems to me to be sensible progress, undertaken in a considered way that even, perhaps, the hon. Member for North East Somerset would approve of, as it took us some 40 or 50 years to decide how to address human rights. This has not been rushed into; it has been considered over a long period.

The whole purpose of the convention’s incorporation into English law is to give direct access to British judges and British courts, rather than matters having to be dealt with in Strasbourg. In fact, only about 10 judgments a year now come from Strasbourg. We intended that British citizens should be able to bring human rights cases to British courts in front of British judges, and I think we achieved that in the Human Rights Act. The Act enshrined in domestic law most of the rights contained in the convention, and it also included two additional clauses to underline the importance of freedom of conscience and religion and a free press.

The Act was deliberately crafted to ensure British courts were not merely an echo chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. It took the rights of the convention but allowed our judges to interpret them as they saw fit, meaning that while UK courts have to take account of Strasbourg case law on cases relating to a convention right, they do not have to incorporate it and can depart from it where appropriate. That was made explicit by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, when he said domestic courts must be allowed “flexibility and discretion” in developing human rights law, which is precisely what the Human Rights Act gives.

It is for those reasons that we find it perplexing that Government Members find incorporation of the convention and having a British Human Rights Act to be less acceptable than the previous situation. As has been said, there are absolute rights, limited rights and qualified rights. Crucially, the Human Rights Act maintains parliamentary sovereignty and the supremacy of Parliament as the only law-making authority. If a British court finds that our legislation does not comply with the Human Rights Act, it cannot use the Act to force Parliament to change the law. Instead it will issue what is known as a declaration of incompatibility, and it will then be up to Parliament and Parliament alone to decide the best way to respond. It may choose not to respond at all. There are sufficient safeguards in respect of the margin of appreciation and other measures to permit the Act to function in the organic way intended.

It is true that there are problems with the exercise of jurisdiction by the European Court of Human Rights, and that it is an unwieldy body with a huge backlog of cases. Those matters can be addressed, however, but none of them is sufficient of itself for us to choose to opt out, which no other country apart from Belarus would contemplate. It would be damaging to both UK jurisdiction and our reputation abroad.

We hear many stories—often apocryphal, exaggerated or only partly told—about the deleterious effects of the Human Rights Act. In reality, however, it has empowered many individual citizens and vulnerable people in respect of domestic violence, disability, mental health, age discrimination, sexual orientation, religious discrimination, maintaining a private life and maintaining the right to protest. There have been landmark cases in all those areas. I will not go through them case by case, as they are a matter of public record. It remains the fact that this is a valuable addition to English law. It is not an alien creature. It is an important check on Executive and state power in the interests of the individual, and, frankly, it is worrying that this Government wish to attack the Human Rights Act, especially when considered alongside other steps they are taking to restrict legal aid and access to justice.

On Monday, the House will debate the Justice and Security Bill, which is another attempt to hide away, in an excessive way, public scrutiny and the right to fair and equal access to justice in this country. We should be looking for ways to expand and extend the rights of individual citizens, and that is exactly what the Human Rights Act did. As I said, Labour Members are extremely proud of that legislation. We do not say that it cannot be improved, but we do say it is wrong-headed and misconceived to think that by repealing the Act and trying to invent something in a unique way, separate from that which has been established, primarily through the agency of British lawyers and British politicians, over a period of 60 years, we are going to get a better deal. That is a fantasy on the part of some Government Members. They are not going to get their way in this Parliament and I hope that they will not get their way in any future Parliament. I hope that the Minister will confirm that it is the Government’s intention not to legislate in this Parliament in the way that has been indicated, be it through a private Member’s Bill or in any other way.

Metropolitan Police Service

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Last night, Hammersmith had an unwelcome visitor—the deputy Mayor for policing and crime, Stephen Greenhalgh, who is of course also remembered in the borough as the previous leader of the council. During his time there, he cut most of the things that are needed for civil society to be harmonious and law abiding, including youth clubs, Sure Start, housing and social services. He was a hugely divisive figure and his signature policy, of course, was the social engineering of the borough through the demolition of social housing and its replacement with luxury housing.

Since Stephen Greenhalgh was elevated to the post of deputy Mayor, he has been a controversial figure. He held the Greater London assembly in contempt by, at the first meeting, standing down the police commissioner. The tawdry incident before Christmas of inappropriate touching in a lift makes him unsuitable for his post, in my view; and for the past three weeks, the Independent Police Complaints Commission has been deciding whether to investigate him for possible criminal activity. I want the Mayor to come to the borough to talk to us—not someone who is highly discredited and unfit to hold his position.

I was not able to attend the event as I was here for last night’s important vote, but my staff who attended told me that there was the usual bombast and platitudes; but that could not disguise what is happening in Hammersmith and Fulham, which is that Shepherd’s Bush police station, in the poorest area with the highest crime, will close, and Fulham police station will go on to reduced hours. Despite that, the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) and the Conservative council support the strategy adopted by the Mayor and Stephen Greenhalgh. I do not accept that supermarket counters and post offices are an alternative to police stations for the reporting of sensitive and important matters. People want a police station.

A letter from my borough commander said:

“At this stage we are not intending to close Fulham or Shepherds Bush Police Station”.

However, I believe that once counters have closed, it is likely that whole police stations will close in due course, as the police sell their estates around the borough. We are told that we are merging with Kensington and Chelsea and will lose our borough commander. We are also told that the boroughs will be split into three—north, middle and south. That looks to me like a three-tier service, because the two boroughs have a poor north and wealthy south. I am sure that I know where the resources will be put.

Our safer neighbourhood teams are universally popular. The idea that they will be based on one police constable and one PCSO is disgraceful. We have already lost 5% of officers and 45% of PCSOs. That will not have changed, according to the Met’s figures, by 2015. All we get is spin and false statistics. Crime has not materially changed; concern about crime has gone up in Hammersmith and Fulham. The council spends more than £1 million on publicity, mainly aimed at telling people what a good job it does on law and order. It is a disgrace; it is similar to the Mayor of London’s saying after the riots, before the election, that he opposed police cuts, although now he proposes horrific police cuts.

It is burned into my memory that the cabinet member for policing in Hammersmith said, when asked a question at a sensitive public meeting following a murder a couple of years ago in the borough, that his solution to crime was to increase owner-occupation. Greenhalgh said last night that he was thinking of using money from estates sales to invest in policing. That is not the solution to crime in London. The political leadership—not the police leadership—of policing in London is unfit, and the Minister would be well advised to consider that and think about how we are to get the leadership that we deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Like many hon. Members, I was elected in 1997 and at that time I went out on the beat with police officers, as many of us did. Some may recall John Hannington, who used to work in the House of Commons. He was one of my beat officers and we went round Barnhill ward together. We had one beat officer per ward then.

I had one of the earliest safer neighbourhood teams. We got the sergeant, two PCs and the PCSOs and it was a major success. We set up the ward panels and mapped out the beats, in terms of crime problems in a particular area. I set up initiative meetings—I still have them every quarter in each ward—where I meet councillors, police and local residents, and we tackle the problems together. We have launched projects for the young people, including anti-drugs, domestic violence and safety for the elderly projects. It has been an overwhelming success in building confidence in policing in the local area. That process has been destabilised since 2010.

Sergeant vacancies are either not filled or there are delays in recruitment, PCs are not replaced for long periods and PCSOs are not replaced at all, in many instances. Premises on estates in my constituency, where we have relocated teams, are now under threat of closure. In addition, staff are withdrawn from the whole area—I do not know whether other hon. and right hon. Members have noticed this—to police demonstrations, and so on. I understand that there are priorities, but there was a commitment that there would be sufficient resources so that safer neighbourhood teams were not withdrawn in that way.

What has happened in my community? If hon. and right hon. Members read the newspapers this morning they may have missed it, but as a result of the changes Hayes is now in the top 10 in the country for burglaries. Drugs are becoming a real problem, particularly drug dealers preying on youngsters. We were working hard in the town centre to reduce the fear of crime and attract people back in at night. However, the town centre teams have been hit hardest since 2010. I fear that we are going backwards rather than forwards.

It is not just about numbers. Ben Bradford, the Oxford criminologist, made a valid point when speaking to the London assembly. He said that it is not just quantitative, but about the qualitative relationship: how police interact with constituents, to give them confidence, respect and reassurance. When experienced staff are lost, particularly sergeants with years of experience, and that level of supervision is lost for new, young officers coming in, it undermines the quality of the policing and the interaction between the police officer and members of the public, and it undermines an element of accountability upwards as well as downwards.

Right hon. and hon. Members may have talked to police officers. Morale is low in the Metropolitan police. Their pay and pensions have been hit and they have been hit with increased work loads and demands on their time. When the Police Federation ballots to see whether officers want the right to strike, that is a warning that morale is at rock bottom, and Ministers, mayors and others, should take heed. There now needs to be a halt to the cuts, proper investment in the police service and engagement with the community, rather than our being ridden roughshod over as we have been recently.

We have the consultative meeting in Hillingdon tonight at 6 o’clock, although I will be here objecting to one of the cuts in welfare benefits. I will communicate these views to the Mayor and others, but the view that I am getting back from the consultative meetings so far is that they are public relations exercises, simply set up to convince people that the numbers are going up when they know that the reality is that the number of police officers is falling and cuts are taking place. I hope that this debate will help.

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend’s constituents should not get too excited, because I am told that the meeting last night ended with the deputy mayor saying that he was on the home run. Clearly, he believes that the task has been done and they are going through the motions. I apologise to my colleagues who still have to go through this process, but it is purely cosmetic and a matter of dressing up unacceptable cuts in false statistics in a way that will make those palatable to the media.

[John McDonnell]

When MPs, members of the public, local councillors and the police themselves at street level are saying that the Mayor has got it wrong, someone needs to listen, and if the Mayor does not the Minister should.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the queues, as he put it, in Crown courts in particular are coming down. We will consider the proposal from the Magistrates Association and others to increase the maximum sentencing length, but that has to be considered along with many other reforms that are needed to improve the process of justice throughout the criminal justice system.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I think that that sounded like a no to extending magistrates’ powers. In addition, a third of indictable offences of violence were dealt with by issuing cautions last year, rather than their coming to court. While the cautioning of violent and dangerous criminals is being dealt with outside court, minor offences are being sent to the Crown court. Does that not look incompetent, even by this Government’s standards? What does the Minister have against magistrates, and why is he treating them with contempt?

[Damian Green]

That is the most absurd interpretation of what I have just said—that I was considering the proposal originally made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). May I tell the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), given his way with the facts, that the use of cautions has come down considerably since the Government of whom he was a supporter were in power?

Freedom of Information

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 24th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The fears expressed by the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), about the quantity of Members in this debate have been laid to rest by the quality of the contributions. We have had three outstanding contributions by Members who are quite expert on this subject. There has also been, among the three parties represented so far, a large degree of consensus. I hope that I can make the official Opposition a fourth party to that consensus and I hope even more that the Minister will join it when she replies to the debate for the Government. I say that because I agree with what the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) said. I think that he said that freedom of information was the best thing that the Labour Government did. I had written down that it was “one of the best things” that the Labour Government did. Of course, if we were here to discuss all the good things that the Labour Government did, we would use up the rest of the time, but can we at least agree on that?

I am not surprised that we are still discussing the way in which the Act works 13 years after it was passed. It took five years for it to be introduced, and I think that that was probably right. It has taken eight years, judging by what the Select Committee says in its invaluable report, to bed in, and I think that that is also right and nothing to cause us concern, because, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said, this is a major change in culture for Government—a major change to the way in which administration takes place in the public sector. It has affected, for the better, decision making, as well as the operation of the Government and the public sector.

Through the stance that the Select Committee has taken in its report but also by—if I can put it this way—flushing out the Government in their response, it has done a great service to advancing the cause of the Act and freedom of information. I find very little to disagree with on the policy issues dealt with in the report, although perhaps there is a slight degree of complacency in relation to some of the practicalities of the way in which the freedom of information system works—I have had some experience of that myself. More needs to be done to ensure that the existing system operates effectively, but before I come to that, let me just review where I think the parties are.

I looked at the manifesto commitments. The Liberal Democrats’ manifesto said that they wished to extend freedom of information legislation

“to private companies delivering monopoly public services such as Network Rail.”

That was on the same page as replacing the House of Lords with a fully elected second Chamber, but we cannot have everything.

The Conservative manifesto made no mention of freedom of information, but in some ways what it did say was more interesting. It talked about

“transforming the way the state goes about its business, using decentralisation, accountability and transparency”.

It says that

“we will bring the operation of government out into the open…we will create a powerful new right to government data, enabling the public to request—and receive—government datasets in an open and standardised format.”

It says, for example:

“We will…require public bodies to publish online the job titles of every member of staff and the salaries and expenses of senior officials”.

All of that resolved itself into one sentence in the coalition agreement:

“We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.”

What that throws up is a matter that the Chair of the Select Committee has already referred to—the difference between the voluntary publication of information and the ability of the citizen to request that information. There is general agreement that transparency and the publication of data is not only a good thing in itself, but can assist the process of freedom of information. Clearly, if more information is put into the public realm and if public authorities get into the habit of being transparent about the way they conduct themselves, that is not only complementary; it actively assists and removes some of the bureaucracy from freedom of information. However, the two things should not be confused.

It is interesting that the Liberal Democrat manifesto specifically referred to Network Rail. I had a meeting with the head of transparency for Network Rail—there is one—earlier this week, and they were gently trying to persuade me that, given that it has a proactive policy for being transparent, perhaps it did not also need to be subject to freedom of information. I do not want to put words into their mouth, because they did not go quite that far, but that was the gist of the discussion. Well, I disagree. I think that it is laudable if Network Rail has that aim, but that should not remove from it the burden of having to comply with the Act.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 was mentioned. Some of the additions under that Act were simply consequential on other changes. Bringing academies into the same ambit as state schools is controversial, but it does not add much. I am sorry that we have not—

[Sir Alan Beith]

Of course, the hon. Gentleman would have complained pretty bitterly if we had not taken that action. He should be a little less churlish about the Protection of Freedoms Act, not least because, for example, it brought in the Association of Chief Police Officers, which was carrying out very significant public policing functions while also being a representative body for chief police officers. That extension was an extremely important one. I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said about Network Rail, which is a very ambiguous body, created originally under the previous Government, but we are only a coalition. We get some of our proposals through, but not all of them.

[Mr Slaughter]

I hope that, rather than being churlish, I am being balanced in saying that the Government—both parties in the coalition—have taken steps on transparency and that there is an impetus from at least some parts of the coalition to move forward the ambit of the Act. I have never been able to understand why, for example, council housing departments should be subject to it but housing associations should not and why the NHS should be subject to it but Network Rail, which is also a large public sector organisation, should not. We should be resistant to special pleading from organisations.

I addressed a conference of university officials some time ago, and freedom of information was a big concern of theirs—that is, not being subject to it. I will say a little more in a moment about the research, with which I do have some sympathy, but the idea was that universities should not be subject to it because, they were saying, it costs them money and they are relatively small organisations in the great scheme of things. I am not sure that is true, for a start, but the number of requests that an organisation receives probably bears some relation to its size and therefore to its means. I suspect that many of our universities are rather bigger than, say, some small district councils.

We should therefore resist special pleading. Where there are grey areas, we should err on the side of openness rather than exemption. In particular, we should look at the points that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made in relation to the increasingly blurred lines between the public and private sectors.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), the shadow Lord Chancellor and my boss, made it very clear in his Labour party conference speech last year that the next Labour Government would extend FOI to

“cover the delivery of public services”,

such as prisons, schools and hospitals, by private companies and the voluntary sector. That must be right. It is right in any event, but the contractual roles that organisations —we know the usual suspects: Capita, Serco and G4S—are taking on not only involve huge additional powers, but often mean that whole areas of Government service, policy and decision making are devolved to them.

[Mr David Amess in the Chair]

I was talking to the Public and Commercial Services Union this week about the fact that it is envisaged that the criminal fines enforcement process—collection—be passed to a private company on a very long contract that delegates not only administrative, operational and decision-making powers, but some powers that until recently were judicial.

[Mr Llwyd]

What the hon. Gentleman says is right. The transfer of public functions to the private sector may not have been uppermost in people’s minds when the Act was drafted, but it is increasingly becoming an issue. Before we know it, much of the prison estate will be privatised, so, in that regard, it is absolutely crucial that FOI structures are in place.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am grateful, I agree and I hope that the Minister will address that point directly when she responds.

I shall leave that aside, because we could all discuss for a long time the types and numbers of organisations that we want to add. I would rather talk about the other two issues I mentioned: how the Act is operating and how the ongoing policy issues are being resolved or not resolved. The report deals with those matters well.

I have serious concerns about how the Act operates on a day-to-day basis. I am a prolific but I hope responsible user of the Act, so I can say from experience that the quality of service one gets varies hugely. Some organisations are good: they take matters seriously, provide comprehensive information timeously and obey not only the letter but the spirit of the Act. Many do not.

I shall give one example. It is not an extreme example at all; it is very typical. On 26 October last year, I made a request to my local authority. I was aware that it had delegated to itself, from committee to officers, the ability to sell off property as it became vacant, but it was not reporting it anywhere. Simple questions: how many properties have you sold in the past four years and what is the value of those properties? Every two or three weeks after the 20-day deadline passed, we chased them. Nothing was done. There was no attempt to comply with the Act—“You’ll get it next week.” “We’re very sorry. Don’t you have that yet?” Those were the kinds of faux-amateur ways in which it responded.

I am sure that I would not have the answers now had I not written to the chief executive earlier this week and said that I was going to raise the matter in this debate. The very straightforward answers arrived yesterday. They reveal that over that period, more than 200 properties were sold, at a value of more than £88 million, which, in the past two years, represented more than 10% of the total stock that had become vacant. Those facts and figures are important, not only because of the amount of public money involved, but due to the policy and human implications of disposing of good quality property that could be re-let, when 11,000 people are on the waiting list and many of my constituents are being moved out of London because it is said that there is no affordable accommodation. Those data should and could be available, not in 20 days, but in 20 hours.

That is a mild example. In other cases, I have waited over two years for responses. If a public authority does not wish to respond, it can find myriad ways not to do so. To give another example, we have a proportionately large number of free schools and academies in my constituency and I wanted to see the financial base on which they were funded, the capital grants, the costs they were paying for land and matters of that kind. Two years on, I still do not have that information. The excuses I have been given vary from commercial confidentiality to the notion that it would be embarrassing for those organisations, lest they are not successful, to reveal what their basis for bidding is at the time. They have even been based on tiny semantic points. It was not one of mine, but another request asked what a particular piece of land was sold for, and at the end of the process the response came back after months of delay, “Although contracts have been exchanged, there has not been completion, and therefore it cannot be right to say that this property has been sold.” I thought that was slightly disingenuous given that the people who bought it were building on the land at the time.

I will not take up the House’s time with my private grievances, but I use those examples to show that if a public authority does not wish to follow the Act, it can find myriad ways not to do so, which can range from using unqualified staff and devoting insufficient resources to deliberate obfuscation and devious avoidance. The problem is, as the Committee correctly notes, that there is no immediate penalty and the elaborate process of review is, again, often used to delay rather than bring justice.

I hope I am not quoting out of context, but the Committee says:

“We were pleased to hear relatively few complaints about compliance with the 20 day response time. We believe that the 20 day response time is reasonable and should be maintained.”

I suspect that people are put off and do not go through an additional complaints procedure or use the process of internal review and appeal. I agree with the Committee that it is important that the process of internal review is also prescribed, so that what should be a method of redress is not used for further delay. I have taken cases to the Information Commissioner where that process has had to be gone through, and unfortunately, it can take one or two years—longer in some cases—by which time, saving the most important cases of national interest, the issue will almost certainly be dead. That, of course, is the objective of the defaulting party. I hope that there is more scrutiny, by Government and the Ministry as well as the Select Committee, of the simple procedural operation of the Act and whether its spirit and letter are in turn being obeyed.

The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills mentioned Maurice Frankel and the Campaign for Freedom of Information. I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. The campaign is a fantastic organisation, which does more than anyone else to keep us on the straight and narrow. It notes that more than 44% of requests to central Government exceed the 20-day limit. That is poor, even when the correct process is followed. We could do much better.

I shall turn to some of the policy issues. I cannot better what the Committee said on the veto and the alleged chilling effect on policy development. The Chair would not put it in these terms, but the Committee has seen through those objections and does not recommend change. I hope the Government will follow that view. There is a risk, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd acknowledged, that people will try to subvert or get round the Act in many ways, and we have heard examples of using private devices or e-mails to keep things out of the public realm. The last thing that we want to do in response to that—we should acknowledge the problem and try to work out ways of challenging it—is to say, “Well, in that case, we should allow more secrecy, because that is the only way to get that balance right.” Those debates will continue, because the agenda is both moving and changing.

There are other issues, which I had hoped could have been put to rest, that the Government in their response have kept going and even revived. The first is the issue of fees. I appreciate that the Government have resisted that, which is right, and requests to cover their costs. None the less, they have introduced the possibility of fees at tribunal, which may be a slippery slope. Certainly, if a complaint has reached such a level, which is quite a challenge for any applicant to achieve, the issue of fees should be resisted.

The Newspaper Society, in its briefing for today’s debate, as well as the Campaign for Freedom of Information and a number of national newspapers, have tried to draw attention to the worrying fact that ways are being found to limit access by way of cost. Generally speaking, those are occult ways of doing it; it is not a head-on attempt to restrict. When I say occult, I am not referring to the ghosts and zombies in the Cabinet Office or in Leeds city hall. I am talking about ways that are, ironically, not open.

I have a number of questions for the Minister to answer. If the Government are thinking of reducing the number of hours beyond the marginal levels that the Select Committee proposes, what are those proposals and how can they be justified? Are they thinking of introducing the aggregate claim, whereby an individual or an organisation will only be able to put in a certain number of claims before hitting the cash limit? Moreover, in totting up the number of hours on any individual request, will the Government include thinking time? If they do, what is the rationale for that and where is the impact assessment that will show the effect that that will have? Maurice Frankel quotes an estimate that says that just the thinking time clause alone will affect 4% of requests to central Government and 10% of requests to other public bodies. Those are significant figures, but, as Maurice Frankel points out, that is based on the actual time spent and not on the estimated time, which of course could be a lot greater. Any one of those measures, let alone the aggregate of them, would have a significant effect on the number of requests that are refused on the grounds of cost, which is a route that we do not want to go down.

There is a general acceptance, I think, that there has to be a limit on costs. No one in this debate has said that the overall cost of the Act is prohibitive and I do not think that the Government have said that either. None the less, cost is a convenient way to turn down requests without having to justify things more thoroughly. As I have said, I have had every possible reason thrown at me. One very common one is commercial confidentiality, which is often presented in a nonsensical way. Let me give an example. There was a significant and controversial land sale in my constituency between two public sector bodies—part of the BBC estate was being sold to Imperial college. The whole matter was resolved; there were no outstanding issues and no ongoing negotiations. Yet both parties resisted requests on the basis of commercial confidentiality. We need to be more sceptical about some of the excuses that are used. I hope the Government will not be seduced by those arguments, and that we can have some clarity on that.

There is an argument when it comes to research. I do not accept the argument for exemption of universities, but, given what is happening in Scotland, it may well be that the Government are right on this. We want to protect genuine research, but we do not want to allow that to become a catch-all for refusal. We should consider exemptions very carefully. This is an area in which the Government, thus far, do not have a bad record.

The Minister will have heard me say very often, even in the short time that she has been in post, that the Government have a bad record on the citizen’s right to access justice and information. We have cuts in legal aid and the prospect of further cuts, the wholesale change to conditional fee agreements, a review of judicial review, and charges increasingly being introduced for courts and tribunal services. That is a poor record, and a signature of this Government of which they should be ashamed. Let us not add freedom of information to that catalogue. So much has been achieved over the past 15 years with a reasonable degree of consensus. We want to allow the citizen far, far greater access to information, and to change what has been very secretive government in this country, under all parties, into something that is genuinely open. That will be as beneficial to the Government as it will to the citizen, so let us not shy away from it now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Inevitably, we cannot avoid considering all the financial issues that face the Department. We are focusing on delivering the changes that we must soon introduce on civil legal aid; a number of measures need to come before this House in the next few weeks. That, for now, is our prime focus.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

To avoid a 12th defeat in the other place on the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, the Secretary of State’s predecessor promised this House that he would not cut legal aid at first-stage appeal in welfare benefits cases if a point of law were involved. The proposals finally brought forward were so inadequate that two weeks ago their lordships voted them down and told him to come back with something better. Now we hear that the Secretary of State, in a fit of pique, intends to do nothing at all. Why is he breaking a promise to Parliament and to some of the most destitute and vulnerable people in the country?

[Chris Grayling]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have promised to consider the decision by the Lords. I was a little surprised to see the rather unusual step taken in the other place of voting down a statutory instrument that was granting a concession, but we will of course review the issue and decide how to proceed.

Leveson Inquiry

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My right hon. Friend has given an example that we can all reflect on. I also bring to his attention the problems that have been experienced recently in Ireland despite the fact that it has a regulatory system, albeit light-touch, in place.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

rose—

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I want to talk about costs in libel, privacy and other proceedings against the press. This is not an ancillary issue, either in itself or in the context of providing an effective self-regulatory system, according to Lord Justice Leveson. It will require fresh legislation to correct the current state of the law and to give effect to the whole Leveson framework. That is something that Leveson has said, and that the Government have conceded as well.

Prior to the enactment of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, it was possible for persons grievously wronged by the press to sue using conditional fee—no win, no fee—agreements. The McCanns, the Dowlers and Christopher Jefferies used them. On the back of spurious attacks on personal injury claimaints, the Government legislated in part 2 of the LASPO Act to remove the protection from such claimants in bringing libel or privacy claims. They claimed that they were following the recommendations in Lord Justice Jackson’s report on civil litigation costs, but they were not.

Under the LASPO Act, no win, no fee is available only if the claimant’s solicitor receives their costs from the claimant’s damages, up to 25% thereof, but the damages in libel cases are now quite low—perhaps £10,000 or £20,000—and it is not possible to run a libel case on £2,000 or £4,000. Even if it were, no claimant would risk bankruptcy, as it is no longer possible since after-the-event insurance premiums became non-recoverable to insure against losing a case and paying the defendant newspapers astronomical costs.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Could not the independent regulator give good advice to people who have clearly been wronged and, with it, some assistance with getting recompense for the hurt that they have suffered? Going to court is so expensive for normal people, and it would be really good if the independent regulator could do something to put that right.

[Mr Slaughter]

That is what Lord Justice Leveson recommends, in a rather more organised way, but he says that it must be underpinned by statute.

Going back to my previous point, I want to quote Sally Dowler, who said:

“At the outset we made clear that if we had to pay the lawyers, we could not afford to bring a claim; or if we had any risk of having to pay the other side’s costs, we couldn’t take the chance. If the proposed changes had been in place at that time we would not have made a claim. Simple as that, the News of the World would have won, because we could not afford to take them on.”

Lord Justice Jackson said that the losing claimant should be given protection in costs—so-called qualified one-way costs shifting—but the Government ignored him. The result of that has been summed up by Lord Justice Leveson, on page 1507 of his report:

“In the absence of some mechanism for cost free, expeditious access to justice, in my view, the failure to adopt the proposals suggested by Jackson LJ in relation to costs shifting will put access to justice in this type of case in real jeopardy, turning the clock back to the time when, in reality, only the very wealthy could pursue claims such as these…An arbitral arm of a new regulator could provide such a mechanism”—

this relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—

“ which would benefit the public and equally be cost effective for the press”.

Those matters were discussed at length in proceedings on LASPO in both Houses. Victims of phone hacking, including Lord Prescott, raised the plight of all the victims and received this response from Lord McNally:

“I cannot imagine that the kind of issues that the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, has raised tonight will not be dealt with fully in that Defamation Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 March 2012; Vol. 736, c. 1332.]

Yet nothing was in the Defamation Bill when it was published. On its Second Reading in this House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) quoted Lord McNally’s promise, and added:

“Yet I do not see those issues being dealt with anywhere in the Bill. If the Government do not bring forward proposals to address this deficiency in Committee, we will have to do so.”—[Official Report, 12 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 196.]

Indeed, that is exactly what we did. In Committee, we offered a variety of means for restoring the position of the claimants, but each of them was rejected by the Government, using what became a mantra that was repeated at all stages of the Bill, and that has been repeated today by the Secretary of State—namely, that the Government would look at the rules on costs protection for defamation and privacy proceedings when the defamation reforms came into effect. I am going to ask the Minister what exactly that means.

First, however, let me read out what Lord Justice Leveson says about costs. This is in paragraphs 68 to 72 of the executive summary:

“The need for incentives, however, coupled with the equally important imperative of providing an improved route to justice for individuals, has led me to recommend the provision of an arbitration service that is recognised and could be taken into account by the courts as an essential component of the system…Such a system (if recognised by the court) would then make it possible to provide an incentive in relation to the costs of civil litigation. The normal rule is that the loser pays the legal costs incurred by the winner but costs recovered are never all the costs incurred and litigation is expensive not only for the loser but frequently for the winner as well. If, by declining to be a part of a regulatory system, a publisher has deprived a claimant of access to a quick, fair, low cost arbitration of the type I have proposed, the Civil Procedure Rules (governing civil litigation) could permit the court to deprive that publisher of its costs of litigation in privacy, defamation and other media cases, even if it had been successful. After all, its success could have been achieved far more cheaply for everyone. These incentives form an integral part of the recommendation, as without them it is difficult, given past practice and statements that have been made as recently as this summer, to see what would lead some in the industry to be willing to become part of what would be genuinely independent regulation. It also leads to what some will describe as the most controversial part of my recommendations. In order to give effect to the incentives that I have outlined, it is essential that there should be legislation to underpin the independent self-regulatory system and facilitate its recognition in legal processes.”

He then goes on to explain, as mentioned by other Members, what the legislation would achieve and what its purpose was. The third of his three reasons is that

“it would validate its standards code and the arbitral system sufficient to justify the benefits in law that would flow to those who subscribed”.

What that means is that, as far as Lord Justice Leveson is concerned, the costs issue is at the heart of his principles and legislation is needed for it to take effect.

I was unable to intervene on the Secretary of State, so I would like the Minister to address in his winding-up speech the question of what type of legislation—primary or secondary—the Government envisage introducing to deal with the costs issue, which they have been promising for about two years, ever since the misguided legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders proposals first came about. If the legislative principle is ceded in the process—as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said—there will of course be some legislation relating to regulation of the press and here is a clear example, or a central example, according to Lord Justice Leveson, providing the entry to the entire regulatory system—it is the incentive given by the arbitral system and by the cost penalties that will lead to the whole self-regulatory body operating.

If that is ceded, what problem do the Government have in ceding the concept of legislation on the other two points that Lord Justice Leveson made? The first of those is

“to protect the freedom of the press”

and the second is to

“provide an independent process to recognise the new self-regulatory body and reassure the public that the basic requirements of independence and effectiveness were met”.

At the end of the day, that is all that Opposition Members—and, indeed, from what I have heard today, many Government Members, too—are asking for. The Government are setting up straw men in order to knock the proposals down. They are colluding with the proprietors of newspapers who are talking in the most arrant and nonsensical terms about what the implications of this will be. I believe that dealing with the costs route will justify the proposals that Lord Justice Leveson has made.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We have heard many thoughtful contributions from Members on both sides of the House, and I am sorry that I may not be able to do justice to all of them in the time available to me.

The Government recognise the strength of feeling on these issues both in the House and more widely among the victims of phone hacking and the public. As Lord Justice Leveson noted, some of the behaviour of the press has “wreaked havoc” with the lives of innocent people and

“can only be called outrageous”.

The central issues of this debate—press regulation and the relationships between the press and the police or politicians—are central to the confidence that people have both in how the country is run and that the rule of law is being upheld with impartiality and integrity.

As the shadow Police Minister has just said, there has been a degree of consensus across the House tonight. I am glad that the official Opposition have moved from the position of the Leader of the Opposition, who said that the Leveson recommendations should be accepted in their entirety, to the position that the shadow Police Minister stated: that he would accept the core recommendations. That is a sensible move.

As Lord Justice Leveson pointed out when publishing his report, the relationship between the police and the public is central in our system of policing by consent. The media have a vital role to play in facilitating this relationship, but there is a trust that goes with that role. That trust has been damaged and needs to be repaired as quickly and effectively as possible.

On the central issue of media regulation, as the Prime Minister made clear on Thursday, we accept completely the central principles of Lord Justice Leveson’s report, namely that an independent regulatory body should be established, and it should be a body that is independent both in its appointments and its funding; it should set out a code of standards by which the press have to live; it should provide an accessible arbitration service for dispute resolution; it should provide a mechanism for rapid complaints handling; and it should have the power to impose million-pound fines where there have been flagrant breaches of the code. The culture change that my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) mentioned is certainly needed.

[Mr Slaughter]

What system is the Minister going to put in place to give victims of the press protection in costs—is it Leveson or something else? Does the Minister agree that this will need legislation? What is his vehicle for that—is it the Defamation Bill or something else?

[Damian Green]

I will come on to answer the point that the hon. Gentleman made in his speech, if he can be patient.

The Prime Minister made it clear that we have serious concerns and misgivings that the recommendation to underpin this body in statute may be misleading. Such concerns were echoed by hon. Members from both sides of the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). They were also echoed with inimitable eloquence by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). We should be wary—this House is wary—of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and a free press. That point was also made eloquently by the hon. Members for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) and for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), and by my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray). We should be wary about whether legislation is truly necessary on this point.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in opening the debate, it is right that we should take the time to look at the details. I agree with many of the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) made a good point in saying that many of the failures were breaches of the criminal law; my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) was right to warn against regulatory creep in these things; and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) was exactly right in saying that the ball is in the press’s court now, that they have to take the immediate decisions and that it is up to them.