Revenge Pornography
Martin Horwood Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend puts her finger on the main issue. The law predates the digital age and as a result of the work I have done I would say that it has not kept pace with the challenges we face today. I urge her to listen to some of my later remarks, which might address some of the issues she raises.
We all owe a debt of gratitude to the people who are already doing a great deal to support those who are affected by these heinous crimes: the UK Safer Internet Centre, particularly Laura Higgins, and, of course, the experts at Women’s Aid, who are doing a great deal of work in this area. I also thank Saffo Dias, who helped me with her expert legal advice as I prepared for the debate. It is the matter of law that we must focus on.
The UK Safer Internet Centre has identified between 20 and 30 websites displaying revenge pornography that are available for people to view in the UK. Some are pay-to-view, some are free to access, but all display sexually explicit images of women that have been posted without their permission. The situation in the United States of America is so severe that three states have already passed new laws criminalising revenge pornography and more are considering following suit.
The problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, is that the law we have predates the digital internet age and fails to cope adequately with such situations. In many ways we are trying to tackle digital problems with an analogue law. We now need to look at that in more detail. Some have sought to dismiss it as something that affects only the younger generation. Although the images are for the most part electronic, many have been scanned and clearly predate digital cameras, so the issue could affect many people of all ages.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing the debate, which is on a subject that is very important to one of my constituents as well. One of the problems she has faced is not so much the existence of the website itself, but the search engine results, which almost always put the website at the top of the search. Google, while very sympathetic, will not act without a legal sanction. Is that something she thinks it might be possible to address by changing the law?
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must have the law in place first. As I will say later, if the act was illegal, of course Google, Yahoo and others would respond accordingly. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton is that at this point in time the situation is, at best, confused. I hope that the Minister can help to shed some light on the situation today.
As with so much to do with the internet, as a society we are constantly running to try to keep up. We all agree that the internet is a force for good. For the most part, internet service providers, social media organisations and many more want the internet to liberate us to think freely, to inform ourselves and to see our backyard as the whole globe, not just our street, village or town. However, a force for good can also provide a platform for those with less worthy aims and ideals. It is in that regard that the Government do have a role.
I applaud the work that the Government have already done in that area, for example to address illegal online child pornography. We heard in the news today about the sheer scale of the problem and the use of the dark net by those who want to access that sort of appalling imagery without the threat of being traced. I saw for myself how the UK is leading the way in cross-border action on the issue when I visited the Washington-based Centre for Missing and Exploited Children last year. It is vital that that work continues.
Internet revenge porn does not involve children, but it does use sexually explicit images to publicly abuse and humiliate a victim. An image that could have reasonably been expected to remain private can, with the press of a button, be distributed without permission to thousands of individuals in seconds, through the dedicated websites I have already mentioned, but also through a number of bespoke applications such as WhatsApp, Kik, Snapchat, which has 5 million active users every day, Facebook Poke—and the list goes on.
The case studies provided to hon. Members by Women’s Aid in preparation for today’s debate are, at best, alarming, demonstrating how social media and the posting of images, or indeed the threat of posting images, are being used to threaten and intimidate women. Some of the people Women’s Aid has supported have had such images taken under duress and then distributed to family members, friends and employers. Too often the victims of such crimes have found it difficult to get action—to get the police to take the crime seriously or to get the website owner to take the material down. One revenge porn website goes a stage further still by asking victims to pay a $400 fee to have the material removed—it is called reputation management, but I can think of other words to call it—although I understand that some material has been known to reappear on the same site.
It is clear that the police are struggling to identify a way to support women who have been subjected to revenge pornography. There are, of course, civil law protections under copyright, but few people have the resources to pursue that route, and does that level of legal sanction really reflect the nature of the offence? I do not believe that it does.
Some revenge porn postings are part of a pattern of behaviour. Given the nature of the material involved, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 could be used to provide protection in some cases. However, a series of events would have to be involved—not a one-off, which many of these postings are. I am concerned that the existing legal framework does not provide the protection required. Perhaps the Minister will detail how many revenge pornography cases have been prosecuted under the 1997 Act, to indicate how effective it is already.
The days of treating the internet as the wild west are, I am glad to say, long gone. Freedom on the internet is not unconditional. The challenge for the Government is to be able to respond swiftly and nimbly to new cybercrimes as they present themselves. Today there is a clear opportunity for the Minister to provide leadership and reassurance to our constituents. There is a need to demonstrate clearly, as is happening in the US, that revenge pornography will not be tolerated in a modern free society and that loopholes in the law will be closed, and quickly. In the US, a number of states have decided to criminalise such actions and we should take a similar approach.
The Serious Crime Bill will shortly be before the House. It would provide a vehicle, perhaps under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, to establish as a serious criminal offence the distribution, without permission of the subject, of a sexual image or recording. That would sit well alongside other similar offences in the 1997 Act, such as voyeurism and indecent exposure.
Secondly, the Crown Prosecution Service is in the process of updating guidance to courts on the prosecution of domestic violence. Although not all cases of revenge pornography involve domestic violence, many do. According to detailed research done by Women’s Aid, 45% of domestic violence survivors have experienced online abuse in some form. As part of the current consultation process, which I believe closes next month, changes need to be considered to ensure proper recognition of abusive online behaviour as yet another part of the growing spectrum of domestic violence. The proposals in the consultation do not seem to cover online abuse; perhaps the Minister could clarify whether such a change could be made.
Then, of course, there is the role of the police. The same research identifies that three quarters of women who have been victims of cyber-based domestic violence said that the police simply did not know how to respond. A critical part of getting the issue right is ensuring that the strategic policing priority given to domestic violence is turned into operational reality on the ground—something raised by the recent Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary report, which identified that victims of domestic violence are still not always taken seriously by the police or, indeed, believed. That is a problem, particularly when it comes to cyber-based domestic violence.
We need to be assured that there is a strong programme of training on the nature of cybercrime and its corrosive effect. I very much welcome the National Crime Agency’s focus on cybercrime and hope that it can be expanded to include revenge pornography.
Finally, the social media and ISPs need to play their part. They should improve their policies, respond so that people can use their services safely and ensure that, when images are posted that should not be, there are clear ways to take action. I know from my discussions with Google, Facebook, Yahoo and others that they, as major global businesses, do not want their business model to include support for those who break the law. If revenge pornography were clearly illegal, they would, I am sure, ensure that such sites could not be promoted through their search engines. That issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton earlier.
This debate is about making sure that the law of the land supports women properly and about sending a clear message to the perpetrators of these crimes—that their behaviour should be seen as criminal and will not be tolerated. It is about saying that we as a nation show total abhorrence for all sexual abuse against women in whatever form, whether it occurs offline or online.
Mr Vara
My right hon. Friend raises another very good issue. There are questions of logistics in terms of obtaining specific information, given the number of cases involved. For example, in 2013 the number of section 2 cases proceeded against was just under 6,000—5,970, to be precise—and the number of those found guilty was 4,459. The total number of section 4 cases proceeded against was 1,040 and 641 of them were found guilty. I very much take on board what my right hon. Friend asks in terms of specifics and I would be happy to look into that, but I hope she will recognise that when such large numbers are involved there can sometimes be a logistical issue.
Other laws in the area of cyber-crime may be breached if, for example, the images have been obtained via computer hacking. Section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 provides for a criminal offence of unauthorised access to any programme or data held in a computer, which is commonly known as hacking. This carries a sentence of up to two years on indictment.
As with all crime, although we need strong sanctions when offences are committed, the ideal, of course, is to prevent them from being carried out. That is why, across Government, we are carrying out work that touches on areas affected by the use of revenge porn. For example, in schools we are giving teachers stronger powers to tackle the scourge of cyber-bullying and we are helping to educate pupils about the dangers of the internet.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the internet is a force for good. It is a great resource for learning, entertainment and many other positive activities. It is also, of course, a great British invention. However, like many tools that are capable of doing immense good, in the wrong hands it can equally do immense harm. That is why we need to be alive to those possibilities and to take appropriate and proportionate measures to counter them.
Martin Horwood
I am afraid I am going to go a little further than the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) and say that nothing I have heard suggests that there are any laws that can be used in a situation when, for instance, the image has not been hacked, the person is an adult, the photos are not grossly offensive—because they were probably taken in a private context originally—and Google, or whichever search engine transmits them through links, does not intend to cause offence. There do not seem to be any legal remedies among the Acts the Minister has mentioned, so I think a more thorough review of which laws need to be passed or which amendments need to be made to imminent legislation is now called for.
Mr Vara
If my hon. Friend can be a little patient, he might find that I will be able to give him some food for thought later. There may be remedies in the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or the Communications Act 2003, where there is a fair amount of flexibility. I will come back to the issue he raises a little later.
When indecent images have been circulated via social networking sites or abusive behaviour has occurred on social media networks, the Government expect social media companies to have robust processes in place to respond promptly when abuse is reported. That includes acting quickly to assess a report, removing content that does not comply with existing acceptable use policies or terms and conditions and, where appropriate, suspending or terminating the accounts of those who breach the rules.
The Government are working through the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, as well as at EU level, to improve the transparency of reporting processes and the ways in which reports are handled. We will continue to work closely with social media companies to ensure that they have measures in place to protect their users.
Following consultation, in June 2013, the Director of Public Prosecutions published guidelines for prosecutors considering cases that involve communications sent via social media. The guidelines are designed to give clear advice to prosecutors who have been asked for a charging decision or to give early advice to the police, as well as in the review of cases charged by the police. The guidelines seek to draw the difficult balance between protecting freedom of speech and acting robustly against communications that cross the threshold into illegality.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked about the consultation currently being undertaken by the Crown Prosecution Service and specifically referred to online abuse. I am happy to look into whether the consultation covers the issue of online abuse, and I will write to her in due course.
The Government already have a strong framework of offences for dealing with, and projects in place to respond to, this deeply upsetting and, frankly, cowardly behaviour. However, I very much recognise that the internet is fast moving, and it is important for the law of the land to keep pace with it. This is a global issue. Countries such as the United States of America, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, and Australia and Israel have legislated on the issue, and other countries across the globe are looking at it further. Let me be clear that the Government take the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend very seriously. I am happy to look again at this area and to assess the extent of the problem to see whether we need to legislate further to ensure that such behaviour is dealt with appropriately.
Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords]
Martin Horwood Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I cannot understand why Labour wants to vote against providing 12 months of supervision support for everyone who leaves prison, which should ensure that they do not reoffend.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
There is one reference in the Bill to the controversial changes to the probation service—found in the new clause 1, which was introduced by our noble Friends up the corridor. Will the Secretary of State reassure those of us who are reassured by that precautionary clause that no change to it will be attempted?
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Martin Horwood Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julie Hilling
I want to say more about that. I agree with the hon. Lady, but the issue does not apply only to social housing, which is why we need legislative change so that the problem of people having too many dogs can be tackled wherever somebody lives. She is right that we need to do more for people in social housing and other rented properties.
The number of dogs creates a problem not just in relation to community safety. A recent event was organised on Hag Fold estate by Wigan council to micro-chip dogs and promote responsible ownership as part of the Jade campaign. Two volunteers, Councillor Karen Aldred and the wonderful local resident Sandi Lucas, went knocking on doors to try to find dog owners to encourage them to attend the event. When they knocked on one door, they were told, “Well, I haven’t got any dogs, but go over there because the owner has loads of dogs and is creating mayhem in the community.” That owner had seven dogs in a small house, creating noise, unpleasant smells and making life a misery for the neighbours. I am working with Wigan and Leigh Housing on tenancy clauses for dog ownership, but as I said, the issue is not confined to social housing; we need simple remedies for all.
The new clause does not specify how many dogs should be in a household because I am not trying to restrict the responsible ownership of dogs. Frankly, if someone lives on a country estate with vast grounds, they can have as many dogs as they want, as long as they do not cause danger or disturbance to anyone else. I hope that the Government will listen to calls from communities to give them the powers they need for people to live peaceful and safe lives.
Let me touch briefly on the issue of breeding dogs. We know that a strong contributory factor to dogs becoming out of control is how they are socialised in the first few weeks of their lives—whether, for example, they are taken away from their mother too soon or are appropriately socialised with other dogs and people or are sold to people who know how to train and look after them. This may be an issue for the urgently needed dog welfare and control Act, which I shall continue to press the Government to introduce because, whatever the results of these provisions, we still need holistic legislation to deal with those issues.
Finally, I want to press the Government to extend the legislation to cover attacks on all protected animals. Attacking other animals is a sign that dogs are becoming dangerously out of control and therefore a threat to people. Why should a responsible pet owner have to face the trauma of an attack and the related veterinary expenses and heartache? Many owners are actually injured while trying to protect their beloved pets, such as the woman in Atherton who, just two weeks ago, lost part of her finger when she picked up her dog to protect it from a ferocious dog.
There is much in the Bill to be welcomed, but it does not go far enough. I ask the Government to look again and to support our new clauses and amendments to strengthen the Bill. Jade, her parents and all the other victims of dog attacks deserve no less.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). I am sure that she spoke for the whole House in relation to the case of poor Jade Anderson. Sadly, that is just the latest and most tragic example of what the hon. Lady rightly described as an epidemic of dog attacks which are hospitalising thousands, and injuring thousands of postal workers and others. I am afraid that there have been many distressing cases in my own constituency, which led me to become involved in what has been quite a long campaign. I pay tribute to, in particular, the hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), both of whom have campaigned very persistently.
For many years it seemed as if the Government were not budging at all on the issue, so it is enormously welcome that we are considering it in the context of this Bill, and that the Government are taking action. Their action is being taken step by step—it is rather gradualist—and that may be frustrating for some of us, but we should not make the best the enemy of the good. We should recognise the positive steps that are being taken in the Bill, not least in the context of the Government’s earlier action in setting a timetable for the introduction of universal microchipping. That will help us to identify the real culprits, who—as many Members have pointed out—are irresponsible dog owners as much as the dogs themselves, some of which are just more victims of this phenomenon.
The hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) and others have made a strong case for dog control orders. I have been sympathetic to that idea for many years, but I should be content if we could achieve the same outcome by other means. I understand the Government’s position; I realise that their main purpose is to simplify and rationalise antisocial behaviour legislation without sacrificing flexibility. The Bill underlines the important point that the issue of dangerous dogs is inextricably linked with that of human antisocial behaviour. If we can tackle one by tackling the other, I shall be satisfied, even if the legislation does not include the actual words “dog control order”.
One of the most important provisions involves the extension of liability for dangerous dogs to private property. Liberty has expressed some concern about the so-called “bite a burglar” provisions, and I think that Ministers need to consider those carefully. Our two contradictory instincts are to say, quite rightly, that burglars who enter other people’s properties with malicious intent should do so entirely at their own risk, and to support the extension to private property of liability for the dangerous behaviour of animals. Both are worthy instincts, and resolving that conflict will be a difficult task for Ministers. I speak as the brother of a postal worker who is very keen for the Bill to proceed.
Martin Horwood
I am sorry, but I will not, because of the time.
Another important provision, which has not been mentioned much in the debate so far, is clause 99, which begins the necessary shift from breed to deed. It requires a court to establish whether a dog is
“a danger to public safety”,
given
“the temperament of the dog and its past behaviour”,
and to establish whether the dog’s owner is a “fit and proper person” to own a dog. I agree with the criticism by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge of the rather strange list of obscure breeds, which I am not sure that most police forces would recognise even if they came across them. I do not know whether we will eventually abolish that list, but I certainly think it significant that the Bill is embarking on that shift towards tackling deed and behaviour rather than just breed.
I have some sympathy for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). They seek tougher sentencing, underlining the fact that in many instances dogs are used as lethal weapons, and that we should see that in the context of the responsibility of their owners. I also have some sympathy for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), as, I think, will legions of Liberal Democrat “Focus” deliverers. My constituent Councillor Rob Reid provided me with a paddle which I now use to push leaflets through letter boxes. A deliverer can take some responsible action. The paddle now bears a good many teeth marks, which could have been on my fingers. Councillor Reid made it by cutting up old “Yes to the alternative vote” campaign placards, which is probably one of the lesser but more positive outcomes of that campaign.
Angela Smith
Is it not true that, if we legislate specifically to require dog owners to put guards on their letter boxes, we will run the danger of neglecting the other risks that people face when they go on to private property, such as dogs running free in back gardens? Is it not the case that there are a number of possibilities in terms of dog attacks once someone passes the boundary of the gate?
Martin Horwood
It is important that the Government consult carefully on all these things. We do not want to intrude too much into the realm of private property and what people are allowed to do with their dogs in their property, but the point that the hon. Lady makes is well made.
I ask the Minister to consider carefully the campaign by Naturewatch, which is based in my constituency and led me to table early-day motion 412 to address the issues of irresponsible breeders and the need to regulate the advertising and selling of pets. That could be the next important step that the Government take in their rather gradualist approach to the issue. In many ways, that is one of the root causes of the phenomenon of dangerous and trophy dogs and dogs used as weapons.
For now, however, we should congratulate the Government on taking some important steps to tackle the issue. The steps we are voting on today will help to save lives. They will potentially save the lives of children like poor Jade Anderson and the lives of adults. They will certainly save the lives of pets. Those steps are overwhelmingly to be welcomed.
Luciana Berger
In November four years ago, my constituent, John Paul Massey, was killed by a dog in Wavertree. He was four. It happened during the run-up to the general election. I remember the impact that his death had not only on his family and their friends but on the wider community. To this day, I have people who come to talk to me about the experience of that happening in our community and how it has impacted on them, even though they may just have been a neighbour or someone who lived in a neighbouring street. It is not just John Paul Massey who tragically lost his life. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned many other victims. One life lost because of a dog is one life too many. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that in his response.
I am going to echo many of the comments made by hon. Friends and Members on the Government Benches. I notice that there are people present who have been long-standing campaigners on the issue for far longer than I have following my election in May 2010. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for the hard work that she has done for so many more years than I have on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) has been affected in more recent times. We have heard the worst examples and seen evidence in newspapers and on television of the most tragic injuries and of people who are permanently disfigured. As we have heard, every year, thousands of people are hospitalised. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people are attacked by a dog and may not present themselves to the NHS. For many of those people, there are long-term psychological consequences. For people on the front line who go into homes, be they social workers, BT workers, meter readers or energy company staff, such attacks can have a long-term impact on their ability to work.
As we have heard, the attacks come at a great cost. The estimates that we have are very conservative. There is a cost of £10 million a year to the NHS. That should cause any Government concern. Equally, as the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) said, people who are visually impaired will be affected if their guide dog is attacked. I do not think that enough of us know—I learned this only recently—that it costs £50,000 to train and look after a guide dog over its lifetime. That is all charitable money. If a guide dog is attacked by a dog, not only will there be a cost and long-term consequences for the guide dog, but the owner, who has spent time bonding with the guide dog and has depended on it, will no longer have a friend. That can also have long-term consequences.
I support new clause 3, which is in my name and that of many hon. Friends, because I share the criticism by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and many hon. Members on both sides of the House. Although I welcome what the Government have done on the issue, the clear message that I have heard from professionals in the field is that we should prevent dog attacks from happening in the first place.
I have listened very closely to the contributions of Members on both sides of the House, in particular those on the Government Benches who spoke in support of what the Government have come forward with thus far. I have also looked very closely at the community protection notices and I have listened to the professionals who know far better than I do how this will operate in practice, and I will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response, too, but I have strong concerns. As it stands, CPNs are very bureaucratic and practitioners will need a lot of time and resource to implement them. They will not sufficiently address dog behaviour and welfare. That is, essentially, what all of us here are talking about today. There are also concerns that the CPN will come too late, because the dog owner must be served with a written warning before they can be issued with a CPN.
Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill
Martin Horwood Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Damian Green
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. He is right that the European Court might prove a better friend of the UK taxpayer than our courts in that regard.
That is not the only area in which it is possible to regard what comes out of the Strasbourg Court as more sensible than what emerges from our courts system. In my previous job as Minister for Immigration, I was struck that the Strasbourg Court had a more sensible test of what rights should apply when deciding whether someone should be removed from this country than was sometimes applied in our domestic courts. It may be unusual for a Minister to wish for European jurisprudence to take precedence over UK jurisprudence, but there were some cases in which I did so. My hon. Friend makes a good point about damages, but that is not a unique area in which the Court can be regarded as quite sensible.
It would be reasonable for the House to debate a number of other detailed technical issues, but I hope that over the past few minutes I have illustrated that, as one would expect, there would have to be significant scrutiny of large parts of this Bill were it to proceed further.
I wish to say a bit more about what will happen now because, as I have said, a twin-track approach is needed and we must know what will happen during the rest of this Parliament. As several hon. Members have said, the United Kingdom played a pivotal role in shaping the original human rights framework in which the rights were, literally, fundamental. Indeed, then hon. Members from across the House, including David Maxwell Fyfe and Hartley Shawcross, were architects of what was at the time a document that everyone in Britain was very proud of.
The convention was designed to address terrible abuses of human rights in a fractured continent. We have all read in history books about the state of post-war Europe, and it is important to put this debate into an historical context. Today we talk about European rows and problems, great though they are, but just 70 years ago—it is not ancient history—the continent was completely fractured. We now have a Europe in which we can argue about how human rights are best enforced, rather than a Europe in which we have to enforce basic human rights. The situation is immeasurably better now than it was, and that change has taken place during our lifetimes. We have come a long way from the time when the convention was absolutely necessary, but not everything has changed and our concern then—as now—was to give those who most needed protection from the excesses of state power a clear understanding of the rights and remedies available to them. That means that the human rights framework must be accessible and proportionate in its application.
The convention should be used to defend the most vulnerable, but because of the way some articles in the convention have been interpreted by the Court, people do not feel that that basic fairness is being applied any more. Indeed, the desire to ensure that the mechanisms in place to protect the most vulnerable exist for that reason and no other was at the heart of the programme of reform that turned into the Brighton declaration, just as it is at the heart of our calls now for further reform of the Court of Human Rights.
The Court is important for the protection of human rights from Iceland to Turkey, but as I have said it faces a huge backlog of nearly 130,000 applications. Some of those may include examples of the type of fundamental abuses that Maxwell Fyfe and others sought to remedy back in 1950 and in a very different world. However, if the Court is to retain its legitimacy—this point has rightly been raised in the debate—it must focus on its core functions. The UK helped draft the convention and there is no controversy about its values, which everyone still supports, even those most sceptical about the value of the Court. Many more people are extremely sceptical about the Court’s performance yet they nevertheless sign up to the basic values in the convention.
It cannot be repeated too often that the convention has contributed to important changes for the good in many countries across Europe; for example, the decriminalisation in many countries of homosexuality, or the recognition in former Soviet countries of religious freedom. Given our discussions today, and the frequent public discussions, about the necessity of protecting people’s capacity to express their religious views, it is worth remembering that in other countries the convention has been extremely helpful in allowing people to express their basic freedoms.
There are other examples. Legal systems and police behaviour have been improved by the convention in countries where the tradition of democracy and the rule of law is less than it is in ours. I hope we can all agree that the problem is not the convention itself, but how it is sometimes interpreted.
Our concerns about the Court bring us back to its fundamental role; it is supposed to focus on the most egregious violations of human rights throughout Europe. We might think that the UK would rarely, if ever, be found in breach, and I am happy to say that is the general situation. Last year, the Strasbourg Court ruled against the UK in only 10 instances. The underlying question we need to consider is whether those cases, and the apparent breaches, were of a magnitude that the founders of the convention would recognise. We have to ask ourselves what we expect of the Court today and how we can help to restore its legitimacy. Those are the questions we are dealing with now.
We would like the Court to have the following priorities, particularly after the Brighton declaration. First, it should not involve itself in cases that national courts have already decided properly. In this country, one would expect that to be so more often than not. Secondly, the Court should focus its resources on the most deserving cases; on the surface, a backlog of nearly 130,000 suggests that is not happening. Thirdly, the Court should not delve into our own legislation without very good reason. The margin of appreciation must be observed. Fourthly, judges adjudicating serious cases must be of the highest quality. Each of those priorities would involve a big programme of reform for the Court, but individually and collectively they are extremely important to ensure continuing support for the legitimacy of the Court. We may yet need deeper and more fundamental reform to preserve the role of the convention.
At the outset, I mentioned a Commission on the Bill of Rights, and I referred to its findings in relation to the provisions in my hon. Friend’s Bill. I remind the House of some of the commission’s key conclusions.
Martin Horwood
I am eager to hear the commission’s conclusions, but given the fact that the Government are opposing the Bill and supporting the next Bill we are to debate, which would reinforce the Government’s commitment to devoting 0.7% of our national wealth to international development, I hope the Minister will be able to share the commission’s findings with the House in writing rather than extending debate on the Bill unnecessarily.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I welcome this opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate, not least because I have the privilege of being chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Council of Europe. We deal on a regular basis with the subject that has been debated today. I have also recently been appointed as the rapporteur with responsibility for drawing up an opinion from the parliamentary assembly on proposed protocol 15 to the convention on human rights.
I should like to begin by commenting on the Minister’s typically generous and reasonable speech. He talked about the universality of human rights, and about how we must concentrate on defending the most vulnerable people in our society. In relation to the Commission on a Bill of Rights, he argued that the time was not now right for this measure. However, I do not see any great distinction between the views being expressed in Scotland and those in the rest of the United Kingdom on this issue.
Bearing in mind what the Government are doing on prisoner voting eligibility, there is a strong case to be made—especially in the light of the Bill, into which my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) has put so much work—for saying that the Government should introduce a draft Bill, perhaps along the lines of the proposals for prisoner voting, in which the different alternatives put forward in the commission’s report could be set out. It could then be submitted, in the form of proper legislation, to scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses. We would then be able to make some progress.
One of the messages from yesterday’s by-election result is that there is an enormous amount of public cynicism about the lack of progress on issues such as these. The public are concerned about abuses of human rights legislation and the perverse judgments being implemented, and they want the House to take action in those areas and others.
Martin Horwood
As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the by-election—and my “I like Mike” lapel badge—will he allow me the privilege of being the first Member to congratulate Mike Thornton on his imminent admission to the House as the new Member of Parliament for Eastleigh? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to reflect on whether the historic victory of the Liberal Democrats in Eastleigh—we are the first party in government in at least 30 years to defend successfully a marginal seat in a by-election—can be attributed to the fact that we have not displayed the same kind of ideological disunity over issues such as human rights and international development that he is demonstrating right now from the Conservative Benches.
Mr Chope
To reinforce the point I was making, the complacency that flows through every word that the hon. Gentleman has uttered will be seen as anathema to the majority of people who voted in the by-election in favour of Eurosceptic parties who want a completely fresh look at our relationship with the European Union.
European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]
Martin Horwood Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is great to see the European Union Act 2011 in action. It has certainly drawn in the crowds today, in just the way that we might have warned that it might not do when we discussed the Bill. During its passage through Parliament, we warned that the Bill might represent a slightly disproportionate response to concerns about scrutiny and democracy in relation to European affairs.
The fact that we have ended up spending parliamentary time on the Floor of the House discussing the publication in electronic format of the European Parliament record suggests that we might have had a point. I remember Ministers optimistically assuming that a debate such as this might assuage the Eurosceptic concerns about democracy and scrutiny in relation to Europe. I thought at the time that that might be optimistic.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend heard all of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), which explained that the Germans have an exactly similar procedure in regard to article 352 on the treaty of the functioning of the European Union to ensure that those measures are legislated upon by their Parliament. Surely if it is good enough for the German people to have proper ratification procedures, it should be good enough for us.
Martin Horwood
Only yesterday the hon. Gentleman was declaring on Radio 4 that he was taking his lead from the Catholic hierarchy. Now he tells the House that he is taking a lead from the German Parliament. At this rate he might get a reputation for being a Europhile, which might not do his reputation within the Conservative party too much good.
Wayne David
Does the hon. Gentleman think the generous allocation of time by the Government has anything to do with the lack of any other Government business?
Martin Horwood
It is above my pay grade to judge, but I am sure that is not true.
The substance of the Bill relates to three measures, two of which are completely uncontentious—the e-publication of the Journal and the business plan, effectively, of the Fundamental Rights Agency. Other hon. Members are right that the third measure is worth more substantial debate, as it adjusts a mechanism that was supposed to limit the size and endless growth of the Commission. There are a number of issues that that growth has raised. It was not simply the practicality of having an ever-increasing number of commissioners. Without being unkind to some of the smaller member states, we know that there is a bit of a capacity issue in terms of their ability to produce candidates of sufficient calibre for a portfolio that affects the entire continent. Moreover, in terms of public perception, it slightly muddies the whole idea of the Commission. The Commission should be, in essence, the equivalent of our civil service. It should be the servant of the Council of Ministers, the various European ministerial councils and the European Parliament, and not pretend to be a representative body.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree with that sentiment, but the reality is that the Commission and its officials act like a Government rather than a civil service. Only this week, I was told by someone who knows about these matters that when Commission officials decide on something it generally happens.
Martin Horwood
I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman on matters European, but I do agree that there is a slight risk of that happening, as we have all been aware over many decades. We have to be careful about the level of democratic accountability in the European Union. I would always support increasing democratic reform and democratic accountability in the EU where we can do so.
There is the potential for endless growth in the number of commissioners, or at least for the number to be limited only by the number of European states that might join the EU. It was clear from the Irish referendum debate that, as any fan of the TV series “Borgen” will know, for smaller countries the appointment of a European commissioner is a major political issue to which people attach a great deal of importance, and we have to respect that. We are a community of many nations with many different priorities, and it is important that we acknowledge that. To that extent, I support the Government in backing this measure.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) made a brave effort to make this debate sound like a very contentious one that demands this level of scrutiny. In the spirit of coalition unity, I recognise that the European Union Act 2011 has brought a greater level of accountability and scrutiny to European legislation in this place, and that process could go further. At the beginning of last year, Ministers announced that there would be a review of the way in which scrutiny of European legislation took place. Submissions were invited, and I found myself in rare agreement with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) in suggesting that Select Committees should automatically and routinely vet European legislation that was relevant to their briefs. Will Ministers update us on the progress of that process and say how far down the path we are towards introducing such routine and automatic scrutiny by Select Committees?
Damian Green
In the interests of the many parliamentarians I see assembled on these Benches, I should point out that the procedures of Select Committees are very much not for the Government to decide but are a matter for this House.
Martin Horwood
The recommendations of the Government on scrutiny was the issue in contention, and many of us made submissions on that basis. In the end, Select Committees might be a better option for scrutinising such legislation, or there could be a greater use of statutory instrument Committees or European Committees.
I absolutely stand by the European Union Act, which was an important agreement between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat wings of the coalition that, for a while, reassured many Eurosceptics on the Conservative Back Benches that we were going to give greater scrutiny to Europe. However, I suggest that we might in time reflect on whether it is a good use of parliamentary time to deal in the main Chamber with issues that are relatively uncontentious and, in many cases, relatively unimportant in the great scheme of things. With that major caveat, I am happy to give my support to the Bill.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), with whom I disagree on almost every matter regarding Europe, this being no exception. I think it is fantastic that we are spending parliamentary time scrutinising what is being done in the European Union. So many laws come to our nation from the European Union practically rubber-stamped as an appendix to a report put out by the European Scrutiny Committee that is not even debated in a Committee upstairs. The percentage that we send through for debate in Committee is small, and that which comes to the Floor of the House smaller still.
Article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union allows the European Union very widespread powers to extend its abilities to legislate across its areas of competence, and it is important for us to scrutinise and control that.
Martin Horwood
How many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents or lobbying organisations have contacted him with their concerns about the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union?
Jacob Rees-Mogg
I am bombarded with messages from across the country, and probably internationally, from people who want to know that the laws that affect them are made clearly so that they know what they are and are not caught out by trickery and underhand practices. That is a fundamental principle of why they send me here. I would argue that everybody who voted at the last election wants to sleep securely in their beds knowing that the law is fairly and properly made.
Mr Cash
Not long enough, says my hon. Friend. The fact is that article 308 is and always has been a very contentious issue. It is reflected in provisions in our own domestic law that deal with whether or not, when something is enacted, anything that flows from it can be done without the need for further primary legislation. It so happens that article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union has similar words:
“If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously…after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.”
That means that there is already a big amber light in relation to the acquisition of these further powers, although there is no legal base for them.
That is, in a nutshell, the reason for the Bill. Sections 7 and 8 of the 2011 Act do not apply to the two draft decisions that were made under article 352. An Act of Parliament is therefore required. That is a safeguard. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset is right that it is important that we have an Act of Parliament, despite what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said, not because of the nature of the provision in question, but because the 2011 Act, which the hon. Member for Cheltenham was so keen to endorse, did not provide for circumstances of this kind.
Martin Horwood
I am tempted to ask the hon. Gentleman to comment on the extraordinary assertion of the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) that we do not discuss these matters in enough detail in this place. However, what I want to say to him is that I think he may have misquoted me. I did not say that we should not have legislation on these matters. I supported the European Union Act 2011 in that regard. I just suggested that we do not need primary legislation in every case.
Mr Cash
I do not want to be drawn too far down that route, but the simple reason for primary legislation is that, without it, there would not be adequate legislative authority, even for the questions that arise under this Bill.
I shall now turn to one or two issues relating to the Bill that required a considerable amount of consideration by the European Scrutiny Committee. I will give a tiny bit of history on the multi-annual framework for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, but I will try to be as brief as possible. The Justice Minister, Lord McNally, stated in an explanatory memorandum that was issued to the House and the European Scrutiny Committee in January 2012 that he thought that the proposal was justified. He said that the Government would have opposed the proposal to extend the multi-annual framework, but wanted to consider whether the technical issues that they disliked had been addressed.
The European Scrutiny Committee reported on the proposal on 1 February 2012. We asked the Government whether they accepted the view of the European Commission that
“with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Agency’s remit automatically extends, in principle, to all areas of EU competence under the TFEU, and that the Agency may therefore undertake activities within the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters without any further amendment to its founding Regulation”.
We questioned the Government’s view that this decision satisfied the exemption requirements under section 8(6)(a) of the 2011 Act and would not require an Act of Parliament. Our 10th report, which was published on 17 July 2012, set out our concerns in greater detail. The draft decision remained under scrutiny.
The former Lord Chancellor, who is now the Minister without Portfolio, told the European Scrutiny Committee in July 2012 that a political agreement had been reached on the draft decision which excluded any new activity covering EU policing and criminal law measures. In a letter that he sent on 22 November, he told the European Scrutiny Committee that, having heard what we had said, the Government were now—although they had not been before—of the opinion that the exemption did not apply in this case, and that primary legislation would be introduced.
That is why we have this Bill—the European Scrutiny Committee did its job and asked for further clarification. [Interruption.] I am extremely grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), for nodding his head, because sometimes people wonder what all the detail is about and whether we have to be so intricate. The bottom line is that the European Scrutiny Committee, by pointing out the legal objections and having a dialogue with the Government, who in turn had a dialogue with the European Commission, helped to make the legislation better. We helped to guarantee that there would be primary legislation and that, in the absence of the authorisation through the 2011 Act that had been deemed to be appropriate, this House would have the opportunity to consider the matter in the way we are considering it today. Indeed, after this debate, there will be a Committee stage and a Report stage.
The European Scrutiny Committee reported on the proposal again on 28 November. We cleared the document, but in January 2013 we pointed out to Ministers that the Government’s uncertainty about whether the exemptions applied to this decision had prevented the new measure from being agreed in good time. That is the history of this matter and it is important to put it on the record.
The draft decision on the number of European Commissioners provides another example of the European Scrutiny Committee takings its findings to the Government and, thereby, to the Commission. We received an explanatory memorandum and a letter from the Minister for Europe on 27 September. He stated that the size and composition of the European Commission was a fraught subject. He went on to say that it was difficult to identify a solution that was equitable, legitimate in terms of the relative size and weight of different European countries, and efficient. That is all in our report.
The European Scrutiny Committee considered the draft decision in its 13th report, which was published on 2 November 2012. We noted that because of delays in the draft decision being communicated to member states and because Parliament was in recess, it was not possible for us to scrutinise the proposal before political agreement needed to be reached on the draft decision at the General Affairs Council on 16 October 2012.
I put that on the record because it is important that these matters have a proper legal base and that Parliament has an opportunity to debate them. We are having this debate on the Floor of the House, so it is open to any Member of Parliament to discuss these proposals, to oppose them, to examine them in Committee and to table amendments.