Andy Slaughter
MP for Hammersmith and Chiswick · Labour · United Kingdom
“I welcome the Bill, and thank the Government for introducing it and bringing it back to the House before the summer recess. It is the result of years of committed campaigning, led by the families of the victims and survivors of Hillsborough.”
“I know that case means a huge amount to the hon. Lady as a constituency MP, and I thank her for all the work she does on the Justice Committee. I think we have only begun to scratch the surface. This Bill will be a transforming piece of legislation. I will make one final comment.”
“This would be a new, independent public body that collated, analysed and followed up on the conclusions and recommendations made after official investigations into deaths and state failings, in order to improve oversight and implementation of them.”
“I think I have taken enough time, but I thank the Member for that intervention. This afternoon, the Justice Committee signed off a new major report on legal aid, which will be published on Friday. Those who are interested can read more there.”
“In the time that I have, I will focus my remarks on clauses 1 to 16, which create a new appeals body for immigration and asylum cases known as the independent immigration appeals authority.”
“From that visit, our diagnosis was that these are operational problems. There are two key questions for the House: will the IIAA fix the problems with the current system, and will it be truly independent from the Home Office?”
The complete record
Every one of 7,200 lines we hold for Andy Slaughter, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 144.
“It has also been said that some of the recent, and of course welcome, compensation schemes that have been devised to deal with the injustices in the Post Office Horizon scandal—there are four separate schemes for that—have had to be devised to deal with something that was a national outrage, affecting many thousands of people, because the current system simply does not work on its own merits. I say gently to the Minister that all those factors are reasons why we have to look at both the issue of wrongful conviction and the issue of compensation for wrongful conviction. I do not want to go over the same ground that has been very assiduously described already by the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli, who secured this debate, but it has been said that, with each passing decade, there have been more and more restrictions.”
“Some people who are provably innocent – on the balance of probabilities, which would ordinarily apply in civil compensation proceedings – are denied compensation. The stringent requirements of the current compensation scheme seem to be in tension with the overall objective of the criminal justice system. As noted by Lord Phillips, requiring a wrongfully convicted person to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt is a ‘heavy price to pay’ to ensure that no guilty person receives compensation. We consider that imposing the criminal standard of proof on an applicant is indefensible and inconsistent with the fundamental principles that underlie our criminal justice system.” That is incredibly strong language from a body that is as thoughtful and reserved as the Law Commission.”
“In so many cases, evidence presented to the CCRC is not looked at in good time, and when it is looked at, it is looked at purely on the merits of what is submitted, rather than the CCRC going behind the case to see whether there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice. Let me turn specifically to the issue of compensation. This issue has been added to the Law Commission review, and it has said, in very strong terms, that it believes that the law as it stands is incoherent on that point. The concluding paragraph in that section of the report, paragraph 16.75, says: “The current compensation scheme seemingly prioritises minimising the risk of the guilty receiving compensation at the expense of the innocent receiving compensation.”
““Faulty” is my word; what the Law Commission says is that there is a real possibility that referred decisions would not be upheld due to a new argument or evidence not raised in the original or appeal proceedings, which effectively means that the CCRC is having to second-guess the view of the Court of Appeal. The Law Commission is consulting on that, and it says that it is provisionally persuaded that the current test should be replaced with a non-predictive one. The second important change that the Law Commission is putting forward for consultation is that the CCRC should return to what I think it was originally intended and have an investigatory function.”
“It is right that there are concerns about the process for identifying miscarriages of justice. I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), who very ably chairs the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice, is here, and no doubt she will say something about this issue. Unless we clearly identify cases, and do so in a timely manner, the issue of compensation will come even further down the line or will perhaps not even come to the fore. We have heard that the Law Commission is producing a substantial report—it is a very substantial consultation exercise, at some 700 pages so far—looking at the way that the CCRC operates. The Law Commission correctly says that the test that exists for referring cases is a faulty one.”
“I will say no more than that there has been recent turbulence at the top of the CCRC and that the Justice Committee is holding a public session on that body on 1 April, when we might also touch on the subject of compensation. I will briefly take this opportunity to say to the Minister that we are awaiting the appointment of an interim chair, following the resignation of the previous chair. We need an interim chair, and we need a strong interim chair. We also need a good process for selecting a permanent chair of that body. She will know that the Justice Committee has asked to be involved in that process as part of a pre-appointment approval hearing, and I hope that can happen. If she has anything to say on either of those matters today, that would be most welcome.”
“It is a pleasure to serve for the first time in a Westminster Hall debate that you are chairing, Mr Turner. It has also been a pleasure to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake). I thank him for selecting this topic for debate and for the outstanding representation he has given to his constituent, Mr Buckle. There are concerns about miscarriages of justice that go beyond compensation. This debate is specifically about compensation, which I will come to, but it would be remiss of me not to note at the beginning of the process that there are various concerns, particularly around the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and more generally—I will come to the Law Commission report later.”
“The Sentencing Council is—it should not need saying—a non-political body whose guidelines are carefully drafted and widely consulted on. These guidelines received positive responses from the Justice Committee under its previous Chair and from the previous Government. They do not require that a pre-sentence report is ordered, they do not limit who should be the subject of such a report and they do not tie the hands of the sentencer. Does my hon. Friend agree that by dragging the Sentencing Council into the political arena without good cause, the shadow Justice Secretary degrades both the Sentencing Council and himself?”
“As part of the Justice Committee’s work on rehabilitation, I have come across some excellent projects on preventing reoffending, such as Revolving Doors, Peer Support and Key4Life, that use reformed ex-offenders as mentors. On a visit to Wormwood Scrubs prison last month, I saw the Right Course restaurant, which gets almost 60% of its trainees into employment on release. What are the Government doing to support and expand successful rehabilitation projects like these?”
“Last month, the Justice Committee heard evidence from governors of prisons with some of the highest drug use rates in the country. From detecting drones to body scanners and physical barriers, they all felt under-resourced in technology and investment. What is the Secretary of State doing to better equip prison staff to keep drugs out of prisons?”
“The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) mentioned kitchen knives, which are the main weapons that are used. Will the Home Secretary look into the issue of pointed kitchen knives, which cause so many deaths? Existing knives can be blunted or rounded at the ends if there are incentives for that to be done, and manufacturers can be persuaded to sell knives with rounded ends, as some already do.”
“The Bill is the first vehicle that could rectify that injustice. Will the Minister, in winding up, indicate whether the Government will attend to that? They clearly have to, because of the determination of the High Court, so the sooner that is done, the better. The future of a very vulnerable community that is very much discriminated against depends on this. I hope the Government will, as they are doing in so many other ways, correct the faults of their predecessor.”
“I am pleased to say that not all of that requires legislation—we do not need to add to the weight of the Bill—but those are all matters that need consideration. I am grateful for the indication that the Home Secretary gave earlier. Finally, I will speak about something that should be in the Bill but is not: the law as it applies to Gypsy and Traveller communities, who face many inequalities and prejudice. They were seemingly sanctioned by the previous Government by the inclusion of part 4 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which gave the police extra powers to ban Gypsies and Travellers from an area for 12 months, along with powers to arrest and fine them, and even seize their homes. A High Court ruling in 2024 determined that those powers were incompatible with the European convention on human rights.”
“Pointed knives are much more likely to pierce vital organs and sever arteries, and those injuries are far more likely to be fatal. Of course, there are millions of pointed knives in drawers all over the country. The safer knives group, of which I am a member, supports a pilot scheme in which pointed kitchen knives would be converted into safer, rounded-tip knives. The Government could encourage manufacturers to replace pointed knives with rounded knives and discourage the sale of pointed knives by creating a price differential. They could also support the launch of a knife modification scheme to change pointed knives to rounded knives and collect more data on the types of knives used in any knife-related crime. That is now happening for homicides, but we ought to extend it.”
“Those are both problems left for the Government by the previous Government, but those difficult matters need to be addressed, as both issues are going on at the same time. I turn briefly to knife crime, which I mentioned in my intervention. Between April 2023 and March 2024, 262 people were killed by sharp instruments. Home Office statistics can identify the type of sharp instrument in 169 of those cases; in 165 of them, it was a knife. Where the type of knife was identified, 109 were kitchen knives. In other words, two thirds of the identified knives used to kill people in that year were kitchen knives. There is a growing campaign to phase out kitchen knives with pointed tips as an everyday household item, and to introduce kitchen knives with rounded tips.”
“Secondly, in December, it was announced that the Crown court backlog had reached a record level of 73,105 cases, despite the previous Government setting a target of reducing it to 53,000 cases by now. In response to both those crises, the Government have commissioned wide-ranging reviews: one on the criminal courts, chaired by Sir Brian Leveson, and one on sentencing, chaired by David Gauke. Both reviews are likely to have a significant effect on the justice measures in the Bill. The new criminal offences in the Bill will come into effect at a time when the criminal justice system is in flux. Parliament will be asked to consider whatever proposals the Government decide to take forward from the reviews. We are legislating to create a number of new offences, but it is difficult for anyone to know what their effect will be.”
“I cannot possibly do justice to the Bill’s many needed and well-crafted measures in the few minutes I have, so I will just talk about its effect on the justice system and raise a couple of specific concerns. The Bill introduces a number of new criminal offences—I have counted 27—and makes changes to existing offences. The Bill is being considered at a time when there is significant uncertainty about how the criminal justice system will operate in the future. There are two reasons for that. First, the criminal justice system is in a bad way. Last summer, prisons reached bursting point, and emergency measures were needed to ensure that convicted offenders could be sent to prison, rather than released.”
“I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on the figures that she has announced and on starting to get to grips with her baleful inheritance. However, there is a long way to go. The Lady Chief Justice told the Lords Constitution Committee last week that she was pressing for Crown courts to sit to capacity. Does the 110,000 figure represent capacity? If not, what is capacity? Given that the backlog is 73,000 cases and rising, will the Lord Chancellor guarantee sitting days up to capacity for the whole of the coming year? In her statement, she rightly promised investment in the family and civil courts to bring those jurisdictions to, or close to, maximum capacity. Will she make the same commitment for the Crown court?”
“I understand that the Minister does not want to give a legal opinion, but is it not clear that banning all supplies to Gaza is a breach of the Geneva conventions and the Rome statute? Failure to call that out emboldens Israel in its collective punishment of all Gazans. Will she confirm, as it was missing from her earlier response, that when the Government finally recognise the Palestinian state, it will include not only the west bank and Gaza, but East Jerusalem as its capital?”
“Will the Secretary of State go a little further than she did in her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell)? It is good that she will have a publicly accessible record of recommendations. Will she commit to what the charity Inquest and many others have asked for, which is a national oversight mechanism—a body that collates, analyses and follows up on the recommendations of inquiries and inquests? Otherwise, there is a real danger that these recommendations and others will gather dust on the shelf.”
“The Israeli forces are now using the same tactics in the west bank as they used in Gaza: the forced displacement of communities and the use of heavy weapons against civilians. What is the Government’s response, both to Israel and to the UN? Is it not time that we responded to the advisory opinion?”
“The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and he has identified that there is no one solution to this. The Scotland example shows what can be done, but there are some practical measures that can be taken. For example, half of all homicides with sharp instruments are done with kitchen knives, and that simply has not been tackled. It might be tackled, or the problem might at least be alleviated, by encouraging the transition to blunted knives rather than pointed knives. Does he support that?”
“I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous with her time, as she was in meeting the safer knives group to discuss this issue. I am not expecting a policy position today, but perhaps she could say when the Government are likely to come forward with proposals on the scourge of knife crime that is affecting us.”
“There are inconsistencies already in Government policy—from the last Government as well as this Government—in terms of allowing that trade to continue when we recognise the settlements as illegal. It is also about the segregation of the Palestinian population and the enforcement of that segregation, particularly on the west bank, and about the transfer of population, which we have heard a lot about in the last few weeks. This will be a difficult decision for the Government. The Minister said that he agrees with the central findings, notwithstanding the fact that the UK abstained in the vote, but the implications of the Government agreeing with the judgment are very powerful for our relations with Israel, which is a friendly country.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this timely debate. It is not too onerous to have two minutes for a speech on this occasion, because there is really only one question to ask: when will the Government respond to the advisory opinion? Yes, it is a very significant piece of work and it will take some time, but we have had seven months, so I hope the Minister might indicate today how long it will be before that happens. It will be difficult for the Government to respond, because it is not just about Gaza; it is about East Jerusalem and the west bank. It has fundamental implications for the continued existence of settlements, let alone their expansion, and for trade with those settlements.”
“We have a Government who say very clearly, through the Attorney General, that they believe in the rule of law. That is to be admired, but we must see it in the way that they respond to this opinion. I hope that we will see that soon.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a conflict between some of the Government’s political instincts. They say that Israel is an ally, but sometimes we have to speak as strongly to our friends as we do to our enemies. The reality is that the UK has particular responsibilities, such as historical responsibilities, going back to the Balfour declaration and the mandate, and moral responsibilities. The UK also has power and influence as a member of the UN Security Council. Unlike the last Government, this Government should take that seriously. This issue goes to the heart of the problems in the middle east, and resolving issues between Israel and Palestine will unlock peace in the middle east. What is happening at the moment is exactly the reverse of that.”
“The criminal legal aid advisory board has asked the Government to raise fees in rape and serious sexual offences cases to address the shortage of advocates. Prosecutors often earn 30% to 40% less than defence barristers in the same case. Does the Solicitor General think that she should have a look at fees to ensure that there is not a shortage of advocates, particularly in these serious cases?”
“Since the ceasefire in Gaza, there has been open warfare against civilians in the west bank, dehumanising of the whole Palestinian population, and the threat of ethnic cleansing through a second Nakba. Surely we can expect a proportionate response from the UK Government, starting with the advisory opinion, recognition and the banning of trade with settlements.”
“Can we have a statement on knife crime, and particularly the proposal for knives to be sold with rounded or blunted tips to reduce the risk of death or serious injury if they are used as a weapon? Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Idris Elba, whose powerful documentary “Our Knife Crime Crisis” raised the issue last week, as well as the group of judges, surgeons, psychiatrists and university researchers who have, over the last decade, made the case for phasing out pointed kitchen knives, which are far and away the most common murder weapon in England and Wales?”
“May I congratulate the Chief Secretary on his statement but add a word of caution about his plans for Heathrow? Will he ensure that there is a full cost-benefit analysis of any plans for a third runway which looks at the cost to the climate, to public health and to the already saturated transport infrastructure? Almost 40 years of dealing with Heathrow has taught me that what is good for Heathrow’s shareholders is usually bad for its neighbours and for the climate, leaving Government at all levels picking up the costs and cleaning up the mess.”
“The Secretary of State has announced two major reviews of the criminal justice system—the Leveson review and the Gauke review—and has said that, very impressively, they might report by the spring, which could be 1 March. There is a difference between reporting and taking action, so could she set out exactly when she expects the results of those two reviews to have a direct impact on case numbers?”
“We have just witnessed the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission being prised out of her job, six months after the Secretary of State described her as “unable to fulfil her duties”. When will a new chair be appointed, and will this be accompanied by a wider review of the CCRC, to restore confidence in that damaged organisation?”
“Does the Minister agree that plans for the third runway have gone cold over the past decade, since the airport commission? As he says, there is not even an application for a development consent order. Does he agree that there is no chance of spades in the ground this Parliament? If there were, that is when the problems would really start.”
“Does the Solicitor General agree that what the shadow Solicitor General is asking her to do, in a not very subtle way, is to breach the Law Officers’ convention by the back door? If the Attorney General were to reveal whether or not he is able to advise on a particular issue, that would reveal the fact that he had been asked to advise on it. The Opposition’s intention is clear: it is to gain party advantage. The effect is to undermine the rule of law.”
“The Foreign Secretary rightly says that we must use this agreement to establish a pathway to a two-state solution. Steps along that pathway were set out in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice that was handed down last July, and they would provide the reassurance and security to allow for reconstruction in Gaza. When will the Government publish their response to that opinion?”
“The Minister will no doubt be pleased that the Justice Committee has just announced an inquiry into drugs in prisons, with an emphasis on the use of drones by organised crime gangs to supply inmates. What makes it easy for drones to access prisons is the appalling state of prison maintenance. There is a £1.8 billion backlog, which did not accrue in the past six months. The shadow Secretary of State’s surprise is, in itself, surprising. What is the timetable for repairing the problems in prisons and getting to grips with that maintenance backlog?”
“The Minister says that the US process for identifying genocide is different from ours. Where does she think we are in that process, and what role does she see for the Law Officers in making a determination? If it is a question of evidence, would she not be wise to follow the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) to fund the office of the African Union special envoy on the prevention of genocide?”
“The new year has seen an intensification of attacks on civilians, including medical staff, in northern Gaza. The UK Government’s response does not appear to have changed. The Minister is frustrated, because he is saying the same things to the same people and getting stonewalled every time. Do we not need to raise our game, and should recognition not be the first step in that? Will he clarify what he said a few moments ago about Israelis not having a veto over whether we recognise Palestine or when we recognise Palestine, which should be now?”
“Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench, and congratulate the former Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), on her promotion to Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice. It is sometimes difficult to keep up with this Government’s pace. Given that the Crown court backlog stands at over 73,000 and trials are being listed for 2027, victims are awaiting justice for an unacceptably long time, with the consequence that many no longer feel able to support the process. How is the Solicitor General working, through the CPS, to ensure that victims facing a wait of between two and three years for trials stay the course?”
“What is stopping the Government from recognising Palestine now, particularly given the Commons vote 10 years ago?”
“I can be very brief, Mrs Harris, because this speech has been honed by repetition over the past year, since Israeli tanks, troops and planes went into Gaza against not only Hamas but, significantly, the civilian population without discrimination. It mirrors, on a larger scale, the previous attacks on Gaza over the past 15 years, which I have seen with my own eyes. The Minister replying to the debate could not be more empathetic to the situation, and he could not be more sympathetic to the complaints from all parties. However, there has been a lack of action from this Government, as there was from the previous Government, and that lack of action speaks louder than any palliative words.”
“It is the policy of the Government to recognise the state of Palestine at some point during negotiations. We are a long way from negotiations at the moment, and there seems to be no reason whatever not to allow recognition.”
“The remedies are also clear, and there are many steps that the UK Government could take. They could look at trade, including settlement trade. Why is that allowed to continue? They could at preferential trade agreements with Israel. They could look at arms sales. They should certainly be re-examining, and asking the law officers to re-examine, on a weekly basis, the actions that UK-supplied arms are being used for—not just in Gaza, but across the occupied territories. They could look at sanctions, including those against settlers that go much further than the few that have happened so far, as well as against members of the Netanyahu Government—particularly the extremists such as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. Why have they not been taken so far? We could also look at the question of recognition.”
“Standing Together is a fantastic group, and it is one of many Israeli and multinational groups that are protesting; we have seen that on the streets of Tel Aviv, as we have around the world. There is yet to be any substantive action by the UK, and war crimes are being committed in Gaza. The evidence is clear; it is clear from journalists, and many brave journalists have been killed. It is evidenced by the actions of the International Criminal Court and from the ICJ, through both its advisory opinion and the South African case, and the Irish Government should be praised for their association with that case last week. It is clear from votes, decisions and debates in the UN, from the evidence of non-governmental organisations on the ground, and from the evidence of medics.”
“Alternatively, we may be waiting until such time as something more extreme happens—aid no longer going into Gaza, following what is happening with UNRWA, or the threatened annexation of the west bank—and then we will take some action. That is too late. Now is the time—actually, yesterday, last year, or even 10 years ago was the time to take action. I would love to hear from the Minister, who is not only an expert in the field but cares very much about these issues, about what action his Government is going to take.”
“I could not agree more. I cannot think of a single reason why we are not moving, as many other European countries have, towards immediate recognition. I heard previously from the Government, “We do not want to go it alone.” Well, now we are not just going it alone; we are going behind the curve. My final point—I do not want to take all my time—is to ask one question to the Government: why have the actions I have mentioned not been taken? I would like to hear a coherent response because what is being said is, “We will not take action against Israel because it is an ally.” Well, sometimes we have to speak as sternly to our allies as to our foes. It is also said that Israel will ignore what we say, so we will be shown as a weak country. That is a counsel of despair.”
“I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. May I return to recognition for a moment? The previous Government said that they would recognise Palestine when doing so best serves the object of peace. The current Government say they will recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to a renewed peace process. I am struggling a little to see the difference between those positions. There was a certain amount of sophistry in what the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said, which was that we cannot recognise Palestine when the hostilities are continuing. We do not recognise states based on which Government they have or what is happening there at the moment; we recognise states on the basis of the right to sovereignty, which Palestine clearly has.”
“I welcome the prison capacity strategy. Given the crumbling condition of much of the prison estate, it is right that the Government are pressing ahead with the delivery of modern prisons. I also welcome the explicit linking of this strategy to the independent sentencing review, and the recognition that, without changes to sentencing policy, prisons could be full again in a year’s time, which would mean extending early release. Does the Minister agree that a long-term reduction in prisoner numbers in a way that best protects the public requires a strategy for rehabilitation to reduce reoffending, and when will the Government share their proposals for achieving that?”
“A cynic might think that by utilising a written ministerial statement to launch the strategy, rather than an oral statement, the Government avoid scrutiny by Members and your reaction, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the media being informed of important policy announcements before this House. How can I ensure that this matter can be fully explored by all Members?”