Exiting the EU and Transport
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Alistair Carmichael(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance in relation to a matter, notice of which I have given to Mr Speaker and, indeed, to the Foreign Office. Yesterday, during Foreign Office questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), in answer to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), concerning the demolition in the Negev of Umm al-Hiran in Israel, said:
“I will be looking at this particular announcement and making a statement on this later today.”
—[Official Report, 22 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 749.]
At about half-past 6 yesterday evening, my office made an inquiry of the Minister’s office and was told that a statement would be issued as soon as possible. We were told the same thing this morning. We were then told that, in fact, it would be a media statement. At about 5 o’clock, when my office phoned again to give notice that I intended to raise this as a point of order, a very short press release was put on to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website.
The point on which I seek your guidance is this: is a Minister in compliance with his or her duties to the House by saying that he or she will make a statement and then issuing a press release, given what Mr Speaker has said in the past about the House being told first before the media?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He and the House know that it is not a point on which I can make a ruling from the Chair, because, of course, the way in which statements are made by Ministers is ultimately a matter for the Minister himself or herself, but I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. He has effectively drawn the matter to the attention of the House and, I hope, rather more widely, because it is a sensitive and important matter. Mr Speaker has said many times in the past that, when a Minister has something to say, it ought to be said first to the House. I cannot make a judgment or a ruling about the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises, but one would hope that if a Minister has given an undertaking to come to the House with certain information, he will do so at some point. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this sensitive issue to the attention of the House.
Policing and Crime Bill
Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Alistair Carmichael(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Carmichael
Indeed. I will come to the distress that is caused by this conduct in my remarks on new clause 62. The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that, in relation to these offences, we should focus on the outcomes and effects endured by those who suffer the abuse—and when I say “abuse”, I use the term advisedly.
From April to December last year, 1,160 cases were reported, which is quite remarkable, given the period we are dealing with—indeed, those figures are from England and Wales alone. Only 11% of the cases that have been reported have led to charge, with 82 prosecutions and 74 cautions resulting from those charges. That suggests that with regard to the need to see a change in attitude and behaviour, we first need to see it among some of the criminal justice professionals dealing with this—the police officers, prosecutors, and judges.
This takes me back to my early career, when as a trainee and then a qualified solicitor, I worked for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Edinburgh, where one of my first bosses—she was then a senior legal assistant—was Elish Angiolini, who became the first female Lord Advocate, and the first solicitor Lord Advocate, in Scotland. At that time, along with other colleagues, she did tremendous amounts to drive forward improvements in how the victims of sexual abuse in general, but child sexual abuse in particular, were treated by the court system. A lot of it seems very rudimentary and basic stuff now, but in the early and mid-1990s, when we were arranging for court visits ahead of trials so that victims of these sorts of offences could give their evidence from behind a screen or by live link, it seemed pretty revolutionary, and it met with substantial resistance from the police—not so much the police, in fairness, but certainly many within the legal profession. We were right to drive those changes, as has been demonstrated by the way in which the law and procedure in that area has developed ever since. A similar attitude and a similar drive is now required in relation to the offence of revenge pornography.
New clause 46 goes right to the heart of this by seeking to extend the protection of anonymity to victims of revenge pornography. That would mean that we would not necessarily have to wait for a review to look further at where cases and procedures will develop in this area. As we have heard, the principle of anonymity is accepted by the Government in relation to victims of forced marriage. I welcome new clause 55, which extends that protection. However, it surely strikes at the heart of the offence that we introduced last year that we should seek to protect those women—they are nearly all women—who are, in essence, subject to an invasion of privacy. No really meaningful remedy is available to them if making complaints seeking to reinforce the criminal sanctions that come as a result of that invasion of privacy only makes them vulnerable to further invasions of privacy. That is why it is important that at some point, by whatever means—I will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response—we should look at extending the protection of anonymity to these victims.
New clause 47 would allow the court to make compensation orders to victims of revenge pornography. Many campaigning in this field would like a full civil remedy to be available, although that would have taken us somewhat beyond the scope of this Bill. However, we ought to be taking advantage of the quite remarkable degree of consensus that we have seen across the Chamber tonight. I hope the Government will recognise that and take full advantage of it, because that sort of consensus is rare enough, and when we see it we ought to make the most of it.
New clause 61 would extend the test from an intent to cause alarm, as in section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, to include recklessness. This strikes at what is required evidentially to provide mens rea in relation to the commission of the offence. It would bring people in England and Wales into line with the protections that are already afforded to people in Scotland through the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016.
The offence would also be extended from one that required disclosure of the material to one that required a threat to disclose it. Research indicates that no fewer than one in 10 ex-partners make that threat. If the outcome is to provide meaningful protection, it would make sense to extend the ambit of the offence to include a threat to disclose. That is being pursued by the #CtrlAltDel campaign, which is being led by the Women’s Equality party and which I commend to the House.
The final new clause standing in my name is new clause 62, which brings me to the point made by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman turns to his next new clause, I am not suggesting for a moment that he has spoken for too long, because he has not—he has been quite brief—but this debate is time-limited. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) has indicated that he wishes to speak and I trust that he will be brief, because I am sure that the House would be disappointed if the Minister did not have time to answer the many points that have been made to her this evening.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for saying that I have not spoken for long, because I have actually spoken for longer than I had intended.
I do not have a great deal to say about new clause 62, but it might assist the House if I explain that, by seeking to extend the definition of the offence, we are striking at the stress caused by, and the actual outcome of, the behaviour suffered by victims of this abuse. At the moment, the definition is drawn tightly, for reasons that I think are understood by all. Those experienced in the field, however, say that the harm and distress caused is the same for those who have suffered this wider disclosure and that it would make sense to ensure that they are equally covered by the criminal law.