Phone Hacking
Denis MacShane Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and, of course, the demand for a public inquiry, but I want to argue that its remit should perhaps be a little wider than the immediate phone hacking affair.
The central question concerns the governance of News International, the present chief executive of which, Rebekah Brooks, says that it is “inconceivable” that she knew about phone hacking—[Laughter.] That was her word. A former News of the World journalist, Paul McMullan, said in effect that it was inconceivable that she did not know, however. The idea that she will stay on, effectively to investigate herself, is simply surreal.
It was News International that paid out large sums of hush money to cover up evidence of criminality within the organisation and that, according to the PCC, lied to the regulator, yet that is the company seeking the right to become the most powerful media company that this country has ever seen. Based on the evidence that is already known—never mind that which is still due to come out from the other 11,000 pages of Glen Mulcaire’s notes—I cannot see how the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport can let that go through. After today and after this week, almost the whole country will be behind that view.
There are wider questions. The first concerns the media plurality that the Secretary of State likes to pray in aid to explain how hemmed in he is by statute. The answer to that question is that, as formulated, the system is antique and obsolete when faced with a behemoth such as the Murdoch empire. The combination of News Corporation and BSkyB will be in a position to distort or bend competition through cross-promotion, price bundling, preventing rivals from advertising and other distortions in the advertising market. The fact is that none of those issues, which are crucial to the question of competitiveness, was even considered by the Secretary of State. That is the decisive reason why he should reconsider.
Mr Meacher
I would love to give way to my right hon. Friend, but I am under instructions not to give way.
In particular, the idea cooked up by News International that putting Sky News into a separate company somehow preserves media plurality is utterly spurious. Newco, the company that will run Sky News, will be dependent on News Corporation for 85% of its revenues and for access to the market, and the safeguards for editorial independence are weak and of the kind that News International has repeatedly undermined before. Neither Ofcom nor the Office of Fair Trading regards this arrangement as a sustainable solution, the two-week consultation period was clearly inadequate, and the arrangement puts far too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State rather than independent regulators. Those are all very strong reasons why the Secretary of State has to look at this again, after a pause, which the whole House is asking for.
Lastly, I want to say something about the Press Complaints Commission, which is surely one of the most ineffective performers in the regulatory landscape. It played absolutely no role whatever in uncovering the phone hacking revelations; indeed, it far too readily dismissed The Guardian’s original warnings nearly two years ago. I really do think that the PCC has been so poor that the public inquiry should look again at the future of self-regulation after so many cautions, including David Mellor’s warning 20 years ago—
Voting by Prisoners
Denis MacShane Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Straw
I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point, and hindsight is a wonderful thing. If I thought that the only thing preventing the Court from coming to a reasonable compromise was the fact that I had not organised an earlier debate, I would be happy to be taken to Strasbourg to make my apologies. He knows better than anybody that neither set of Whips was keen on such a debate, not least because it was clear that it would be impossible, particularly in the pre-election atmosphere, to have the sober debate that we are to have today.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the matter was that important to the then Opposition, they could have had an Opposition day debate on it?
Mr Straw
That is true. I shall now move on.
Our motion has been carefully drafted. It is respectful of the Court and our treaty obligations, but is intended to answer one of the three objections that the majority of the Court in Strasbourg had to our so-called blanket ban—that there had not been any substantive debate on the matter in the light of modern penal policy and human rights standards. This debate is a response to that.
One cannot judge the fairness and effectiveness of penal policy with reference to just one aspect of it, such as the ban on prisoners voting. That judgment has to be made in the round. Since the Strangeways riots of 20 years ago and the Woolf report that followed, there has been a quiet revolution in penal policy. As the chief inspectors of prisons have recognised, conditions for prisoners have been transformed. Every effort is rightly made to treat prisoners with dignity, and to prepare them better for the outside world. The overall environment of our prisons stands up to comparison with any in the world, and is far above that in many European countries.
However, the exact mix must be for domestic Parliaments to decide. They have the knowledge and legitimacy to make appropriate judgments, and we have supervision by our courts of our Executive’s administration of our prisons. The ban on prisoner votes is part of the mix of our penal policy. It is the subject of wide consent among the public, and at least of acquiescence by the vast majority of prisoners, as the silence of our postbags makes clear. Our motion is intended as part of a process better to strengthen the hand of the UK Government in arguing in Strasbourg that the majority of members of the Court are seeking a change in UK legislation which, on the face of it, is difficult or impossible to deliver, and in inviting them to find a constructive way forward.
Two objections to our approach have been raised. One is about the example that we may set, and the other is about compensation. On the first, the argument is that if we fail fully to implement the Court’s decision, we will be unable to put pressure on others who also have outstanding Court judgments against them. That argument does not take account of the reality of the situation. There are scores of as yet unenforced judgments against countries such as Russia—but not just Russia—for egregious breaches of human rights, and for presiding over standards so low as to lack any notion of fair trial.
If I thought that our acquiescence in the Court’s decision in Hirst would be the instrument for a change in approach to those recalcitrant countries, I might be persuaded to drop my objections for the greater good. However, there is no evidence of that—indeed, I suggest the reverse. By extending its remit into areas way beyond any original conception of fundamental human rights, the Court in Strasbourg is undermining its own legitimacy and its potential effectiveness in respect of the purposes for which it was established. In other words, the Court and the Council of Europe would have greater success if they reined in their unnecessary excursions into members states’ policy. In that way, we might see some of those judgments better enforced.
This is my last set of points and I shall be brief. On compensation, I simply say this: there are many predictions that the Court in Strasbourg will award compensation against the UK Government, but as yet there is no certainty. In 2005, the Strasbourg Court denied Hirst compensation. Unless the Court now sees the purpose of compensation as some kind of gratuitous fine on the elected British House of Commons, I fail to see by what algebra or alchemy any court could equate the absence of a vote for prisoners, which almost no prisoners of their own volition ever sought, and which still fewer would exercise, with some monetary amount.
I am a strong supporter of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Council of Europe and the text of the convention. I seek no train wreck, but a solution—that is the purpose of our motion. In turn, I hope the Court pulls back from placing the supporters of those instruments in a near-impossible position.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), although I was a bit worried by his suggestion that legal aid should be taken away from people, so that only the rich—the Max Mosleys—have the right to go to Strasbourg.
I am nervous of getting between my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the former Foreign Secretary, and the former Deputy Prime Minister, whom we heard on the “Today” programme this morning. When these two Labour buffaloes lock horns, smaller beasts in the jungle are advised to stay away. However, I want to make the case to the House that we should not completely throw away the good and honourable tradition of British liberalism. I know that this will make me unpopular with the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, The Sun and The Daily Telegraph, which have constantly supported my political views over so many years, but surely we can still find a tiny space for classic, do-gooding, bleeding-heart British liberalism in contemporary politics. It is sad that there is no one left on the left to say that the right is not right, as we are told to bow to this atavistic tabloid hate against prisoners.
What are the facts? Different democracies in Europe take different approaches. In January, I was with Conservative colleagues at a meeting with Swiss parliamentarians. In non-EU Switzerland, all prisoners have had the right to vote for 40 years. That is also the case in Conservative-governed Sweden, Denmark and other EU countries. Britain stands with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova and—let us not forget—Russia in banning the right for prisoners to vote. Since WikiLeaks has told us that the mafia runs politics in Russia, it has been clear that criminals there get elected rather than end up in prison.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Is it not the case that in the European Community, six other member states have an outright ban on prisoners voting, and 13 impose varying limits on the right to vote?
Mr MacShane
The hon. Gentleman takes me on to my next point. In other EU countries, prisoners can vote according to the sentence. In France, a judge adds a loss of civic rights to sentences for serious crimes, which is a compromise that satisfies the European Court of Human Rights and could easily be introduced here. However, sadly we are turning out backs today on more than a century and a half of prison reform. Retribution seems to be the order of the day for those who commit crimes. My view is that although someone may enter prison as a criminal, we should hope that they leave prison as a future citizen. Allowing people to take part in, think and read about, and ultimately—for non-serious cases—vote in elections would help the osmosis of turning criminals into future citizens.
Mr MacShane
The ECHR is not in Brussels, as my geographically slightly ignorant hon. Friend says from a sedentary position.
The ECHR has worried at this bone for years, just as it did over beating children at school. Who wants to bring that back?
Mr MacShane
Ah! Some Government Members might want to bring back beating for children in school.
The ECHR outlawed domestic violence and upheld the right of British Cypriots not to be dispossessed of their homes in northern Cyprus. As has been rightly said, the European convention was written 60 years ago, mainly by British jurists. It does not mention prisoners voting, but nor does it mention gay rights, domestic violence or capital punishment. The European Court has handed down rulings—yes, like the US Supreme Court, it interprets old language. However, I believe that we are all the better for expanding liberal, democratic British values across Europe. Right now the ECHR is bogged down with 100,000-plus cases from Russia, but is that not a good thing? Russian citizens can now appeal against the neo-authoritarian concept of politically dictated justice in Russia. I am sure that there are comrade ex-Supreme Court justices in Russia who also think that the ECHR should keep its nose out of Russian business.
This has nothing to do with the European Union. Like the Council of Europe, the ECHR was shaped by Britain under Winston Churchill after world war two. It quietly and steadily upholds the values of liberal democracy. Britain began decriminalising gay relationships and abolished hanging in the 1960s. The ECHR took this British example and used it to prod other nations to follow suit. Some 47 countries adhering to the treaty and convention of the Council of Europe are expected to follow its rulings. I believe that the peoples of other regions of the world—such as Africa, Asia and south America—would die to have an ECHR to tell their Governments what to do.
Mr MacShane
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me, but we only have five minutes each, and I do not want to overrun.
Traditional social and political liberalism has now been replaced by a raw economic liberalism—or perhaps a Labourist punitionism—since May 2010. There are no Roy Jenkins, no Jo Grimonds, no Michael Foots and no leading Liberals such as the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) and the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) to stand up for unpopular or even lost causes. The press has only to indicate its displeasure at a proposal for giving prisoners serving short sentences the right to vote, and MPs of all parties queue up to join this illiberal campaign. Populist illiberalism is the new politics of much of the continent, and it is a shame to see it arrive in the Commons. I hope that my country does not tear up the treaty or quit the Council of Europe. However, the fact that we are having this debate shows how far we have moved from the promotion of human rights that Winston Churchill and his successors up to May 2010 always believed in.
Mr Davidson
Is not the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks on behalf of the people of Rotherham and Berlaymont Central, in fact reflecting his own desire to be a controversialist, rather than the opinions of his own constituents?
Mr MacShane
When the day comes that any right hon. or hon. Member cannot express his point of view in the House of Commons on the basis of sincere beliefs, frankly we have a real problem with this, our House of Commons.
Chris Bryant
It does help me, and I think that it helps the House as well. What Britain was seeking to do was enshrine throughout the rest of Europe the freedoms that we had enjoyed for centuries in this country from the Bill of Rights onwards. That was Churchill’s vision.
Even in Britain, rights have been won thanks to the Court. The Attorney-General cited a couple of instances in which he agreed with the Court and disagreed with the previous Labour Government. Successive Governments, for instance, held out against allowing gays in the military in this country. It was the European Court that insisted in 1999, and today I am not aware of a single Member of Parliament who thinks that someone should be sacked from the Army, the Navy or the RAF solely by virtue of his or her sexuality. Likewise, it was as a result of the Court’s judgment in the case brought by Denise Matthews against the Labour Government that Gibraltarians were granted the right to vote in elections to the European Parliament in 2004. So Labour supports the European Court, but as a critical friend.
We have heard several criticisms of the Court’s operation today. Let me add a couple. The court has a backlog of many thousands of cases, which would take 47 years to complete. Its members are not all equally qualified. It has no effective triage system to filter out vexatious claims of little or no merit. There is no requirement for an appellant to seek leave to appeal to the Court from a national court in the first place, which is something that we might want to consider. Most important, some of its members believe that they are, or should be, a supreme court for all the contracting parties—to which I simply say that they are wrong.
Every high or supreme court in Europe has a democratic safety valve which allows its duly elected Assembly or Parliament to overrule the courts in certain circumstances. In the UK, that is our parliamentary sovereignty. We firmly contend that the 1688 Bill of Rights was right to assert that proceedings in Parliament cannot be
“impeached or questioned in any Court or Place”.
Chris Bryant
I hate the fact that there was a pause there. I give way to my right hon. Friend.
Mr MacShane
Would my hon. Friend advance the same argument in respect of the European Court of Justice?
Chris Bryant
To be honest, I think that that is a debate for another day. I am keen not to conflate discussions about the European Court with discussions about the European Union, and I think that in that respect my right hon. Friend would agree with me.