Oral Answers to Questions

David Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on implementation of the UK’s domestic and international legal obligations on human rights. [R]

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on implementation of the UK’s domestic and international legal obligations on human rights.

[The Attorney-General (Jeremy Wright)]

Hon. Members will know that I cannot discuss legal advice that I may have given to members of the Government, but I have regular discussions with colleagues about a large number of issues. Domestic and international human rights are an important aspect of our law and are a key consideration in the Law Officers’ work.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney-General]

I welcome clarification from the European Court of Human Rights on whole-life tariffs, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not just the outcome of these cases that can be problematic but the time, effort and taxpayers’ money spent defending them. He is quite right that the convention is an excellent document; there is very little to disagree with in it. The problem is the way in which the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted that document. Once again, the Conservative party will do something about that, but, as far as I can tell, the Labour party in government would do nothing whatever about it.

[Mr Anderson]

One of the basic human rights is the right of association and, through that, the right to combine together in trade unions. Will the Attorney-General say why his Government are making it harder for civil servants to exercise that basic human right by withdrawing the right to have trade union subscriptions taken off pay at source?

[The Attorney-General]

I do not accept that we are taking human rights away from civil servants. Let me repeat the point that I made: the Conservative party in government has a proud record on human rights. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was a Conservative Home Secretary who brought forward the Modern Slavery Bill, of which we are very proud. Clearly, it was a “human-rights enhancing measure”. Those are not my words but those of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It was a Conservative Foreign Secretary, now Leader of the House, who has done excellent work on preventing the use of sexual violence in conflict—again, huge steps forward in the defence of human rights in this country and abroad. We are proud of that record, but see no reason to combine that pride with a blind and meek acceptance that every judgment of the European convention on human rights by the European Court of Human Rights, however eccentric, should be meekly accepted.

Kevin Williams

David Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your Chairmanship, Mrs Main, on what is a busy day for you. I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on the forensic way in which he went through the detail.

I want to stand back a little, and to be dispassionate. I want to work out, coming from the other end of the question, why the Attorney-General might not support Mrs Williams’s case. The facts according to the coroner were, as we know, first, that the death was accidental; secondly that it resulted from traumatic asphyxia; and, thirdly, that Kevin, along with everyone else, was dead by 3.15. Mrs Williams’s e-petition has asked for the opening of a new inquest under section 16 of the Coroners Act 1988. Her case is that Kevin did not die until 4 o’clock and he did not die from traumatic asphyxia. She has evidence to back up her case, and she claims that people who were helping Kevin well after 3.15 are prepared to testify.

If we are going to be told today by the Attorney-General that he does not accept that case, we can apply three simple tests. Is Mrs Williams simply wrong? Is she misguided? Or, God forbid, is she deliberately misleading us out of her understandable need for justice for her son? If the Attorney-General cannot answer yes to at least one of those questions, how on earth can he justify anything other than agreeing to reopen Kevin’s inquest or some other form of process that will allow her to get justice? Whatever obstructions are put in the way of the Attorney-General in trying to reach that justice, he should knock them out of the way. He should also not allow the inbuilt bias that has a long history in this nation, of the establishment closing ranks to protect its own. Why things happened as they did has been mentioned, to an extent, by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram). I do not intend to go into that, but I suggest that if facts come to light as a result of this case that show even more overwhelmingly that people did not do the things they should have done as public servants, it is not too late for them to be called to account. That is something that the nation should pursue.

The Government have made some very positive statements about transparency. As recently as 19 December, the Deputy Prime Minister said in a speech to Demos:

“The third characteristic of an open society is the sharing of knowledge and information. In a closed society the elite think that, for the masses, ignorance is bliss: But in an open society there is no monopoly of wisdom. So transparency is vital.”

I could not agree more. According to the coalition programme for Government of May 2010 the Government believe

“that we need to throw open the doors of public bodies, to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account.”

Today the Attorney-General can show whether his Department will live up to those fine words. He can show the people of this country that justice is more important than secrecy. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton is right. This is about families—dads, mams, brothers and sisters; but it is also about us as a nation, and what sort of country we want to live in.