Shrewsbury 24 (Release of Papers)

Debate between Bob Russell and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

[Sir Bob Russell]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Sir Bob Russell, I apologise about earlier. As the House will know, we alternate between sides. Follow that, in six minutes.

Points of Order

Debate between Bob Russell and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), is in his place, and he will have heard the hon. Lady’s point of order. I will ensure, with him, that the Leader of the House investigates the matter and reports back not only to Mr Speaker but directly to the hon. Lady on the rather strange circumstances that she is experiencing with the Home Office parliamentary unit.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Please could you discuss with Mr Speaker the possibility of the need for a guidance note for Members on the names of deceased persons being used to make a point? I refer to the publication of the names of all the fallen in Afghanistan, many of whom were my constituents. The only communication that I have ever had from the relatives of the deceased has expressed admiration for what their loved ones have done in Afghanistan, and I simply ask whether it is seemly that the names of the fallen should be used to make a point.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I must be frank with the hon. Gentleman on this matter. Rather than giving him a direct response today, I will take the matter to Mr Speaker so that he can reflect on it and decide whether there is a need for further action.

Defamation Bill

Debate between Bob Russell and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

It was the late Enoch Powell who was first quoted in The Guardian, in December 1984, as saying:

“For a politician to complain about the press is like a ship’s captain complaining about the sea.”

I hope that all these assurances can be given in the other place. My concern is that the freedom of the press should be maintained and not curtailed, but one would hope that alongside that there was a recognition by the press that with that freedom comes responsibility. We have to acknowledge that the curse of Murdoch has dumbed down British journalism over the past four decades, to the extent that Private Eye is now more accurate and reliable than many newspapers.

I should declare an interest. For a few weeks in 1973 I was a sub-editor on The Sun, then newly acquired by Murdoch and pre-page 3, and that was between jobs as a sub-editor on the former London Evening News and the London Evening Standard. I come from a background of journalistic training where standards were high. In the National Council for the Training of Journalists and in good old-fashioned news gathering there were very high standards. Some 44 years ago I was editor of the Maldon and Burnham Standard, a weekly newspaper in Essex, and before that I was secretary of the north Essex branch of the National Union of Journalists. I mention that because there is no doubt in my mind that journalism is not as strong or as good as it used to be, but that is still no excuse for legislation that could be interpreted as an attack on the free press. I sincerely hope that will not be the case.

Those of us who enter public life must accept that we will be attacked and criticised. I do not think that any of us object to that, provided that we know who is doing the attacking and criticising and that the attacks and criticisms are valid or at least have some merit. Madam Deputy Speaker, you might be aware that last Wednesday I raised a point of order with Mr Speaker about a false Twitter account that had been set up to impersonate me. It was used by someone with a sick, evil and warped mind to make a range of vile comments, such as the inference that I was a paedophile or had paedophile tendencies, which is not very pleasant. I was very grateful for Mr Speaker’s observation that that was unacceptable behaviour and a form of harassment. I am therefore pleased that the Bill includes measures that—I hope—will deal with social media.

When I made my point of order, I said that the Twitter account had to be viewed in the context of three years of dirty tricks against me in Colchester by three immature young men. That included a spoof YouTube video of me, a snooper photograph and letters to newspapers with false names and addresses. With regard to the latter, I have written to Lord Justice Leveson to suggest that one of his recommendations should be that, when a newspaper has been shown to have published in good faith a letter that is subsequently found out to have come from someone who gave a fictitious name and address, the person who has been wronged, as I have been on several occasions, should be given not only an apology by the newspaper, but a right of reply. In fairness, on those occasions when I have been able to take the issue up, I have been given the opportunity to reply.

As a former editor of a weekly newspaper, I argue that the onus is on the newspaper to establish the authenticity of the person who has written the letter. When an attack is made on a public figure, such as an MP or the chairman of a football club, there is an even greater onus on the newspaper to check that the person exists. I have no problem with genuine people having genuine concerns. That is something I hope Lord Justice Leveson will include in his recommendations—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his case, but we are supposed to be debating Third Reading of the Defamation Bill. References to the Lord Leveson inquiry may be made, but the hon. Gentleman needs to come back to discussing the Bill; he should focus specifically on that.

[Sir Bob Russell]

I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that defamation takes many forms, and when it is in the printed form, I think the person who has been defamed should have the right of reply. In my case, the author of all the things I referred to is a gentleman called Darius Laws, who is a member of another political party.

Question put and agreed to

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Whitsun Recess

Debate between Bob Russell and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacShane]

Does the hon. Gentleman know the German term “Kauft nicht bei Juden”? If he does not, he can look it up when he reads Hansard tomorrow. I was in South Africa, where the minority white Government behaved abominably. I could not meet a black friend in an hotel. I worked with the black trade unions there. I share many of the hon. Gentleman’s criticisms of Israel, but the last time I was there, I could meet Arab Israeli parliamentarians and Arab supreme court judges, and I saw Arab women and their families swimming alongside Jews in the sea off Tel Aviv. The apartheid comparison is there for one reason only: an apartheid state cannot exist; it has no right to exist. Those who call Israel—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman spoke for 20 minutes, and he knows full well that interventions must be brief. A lot of Members are still waiting to speak, and I will need to consider imposing a time limit if speeches do not get a little shorter.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am unable to comment on what the right hon. Gentleman has said, as I have no personal knowledge of the points that he made.

I shall conclude by reading part of early-day motion 9, which

“calls on the UK Government not to support Israel in its continuing acts of breaches of international law and UN resolutions in respect of illegal action in international waters and in the illegal occupation of the West Bank and the annexation of East Jerusalem.”

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Bob Russell and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Bob Russell]

I do not think that I can agree with the hon. Lady on that. We are talking about authority in its broadest sense, whether it involves the police, the local authority or whoever. The public are entitled to live in peace, and if their peace is disrupted, the matter could be dealt with by the police or by the local authority. The two working in concert would be the best way; that has always been the way in which I have approached these issues.

The Bill proposes a further test that the crime that is to be prevented or detected should carry a minimum prison sentence. Noise offences do not, however, carry custodial sentences, and the effect of the provision would be to remove that ground for authorising surveillance. This matter needs to be thrashed out in Committee, because RIPA was never intended to deal with problems such as these. At a time when local authorities are shedding significant numbers of officers, they will need to become more efficient in order to maintain services. I have no argument with that, but barriers to achieving it will need to be removed, rather than new ones being erected. When there is no evidence that noise investigations are being carried out inappropriately, additional controls are neither justified nor in the public interest. I suggest that we should take the opportunity in Committee to remove them from the ambit of RIPA altogether.

I am sure that many of us will have read the letter in The Times yesterday from Mr Howard Price, the principal policy officer of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health—[Interruption.] Well, Members are going to hear it now. It says:

“The Protection of Freedoms Bill is about to receive its second reading. It contains provisions to amend the Regulation of Investigatory Power Act…to limit the surveillance activity of local authorities by requiring authorisations made by senior officers to be approved in addition by magistrates. Hundreds of thousands of neighbour noise complaints are made to local authorities each year. Listening to such noise in the course of investigation amounts to ‘surveillance’ under the Act and arguably requires authorisation. The Bill will make that more time-consuming and harder for authorities to obtain, especially at night when most complaints are made. Complaints will go unanswered. RIPA was never intended to apply to this activity. It will be a further unintended consequence if this Bill protects the freedom of noise-makers over that of householders wanting only a peaceful night’s sleep. Noise investigations should be excluded”—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman may provide us with a quotation, but I do not think we need him to read out the entire letter. He can make his point quite succinctly now, as we still have a few more speakers wanting to contribute.

[Bob Russell]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accept what you have said and I shall now sit down as I had only 10 more words to go.

UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan

Debate between Bob Russell and Baroness Primarolo

Thursday 9th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you have been asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other Treasury Minister if they could give a statement to the House. I saw the Chancellor talking to you a few minutes ago and I was hoping that he was seeking your permission to give a statement. Within the last 10 minutes the BBC has run a story from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there would be additional public spending cuts of £4 billion. If that announcement could be made to the BBC, do you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it should have been made to the House first? Frankly, I do not recall that figure appearing anywhere in the coalition agreement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the business of the House is not a matter for the Chair. I have not been notified of any additional business. The Speaker has made it clear that any additional announcements by the Government should be made to the House first. I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point, and if there is anything in that point of order I am sure they will bring forward the necessary proposals.