Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]
Edward Leigh Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), the Secretary of State for Transport and I are looking at what should be covered by this offence, taking into account the drugs that can be identified and the levels that should be set for them. The Department for Transport is taking expert advice on what it is possible to identify within the bloodstream and within people’s bodies at the time that tests are taken.
I know that legitimate concerns have been expressed about the impact of this offence on those who take controlled drugs on prescription—for long-term pain relief, for example—but we have no intention of preventing people from driving where they are taking medication in accordance with medical advice, so the Bill includes provision for a medical defence. We will also want to take into account views expressed in response to the required consultation on the draft regulations, but I believe we must take a strong stand against those who would put other lives at risk by driving under the influence of drugs.
The Bill also delivers on our coalition commitment to ensure that the law is on the side of people who defend themselves when confronted by an intruder in their home. Few situations can be more frightening than when someone’s own home is violated. Faced with that scenario, a person will do what it takes to protect themselves and their loved ones. They cannot be expected dispassionately to weigh up the niceties of whether the level of force they are using is proportionate in the circumstances. If the intruder is injured, perhaps seriously, in such an encounter, the householder should not automatically be treated as the perpetrator where, with hindsight, the force used is considered to have been disproportionate. Clause 30 will ensure that, in such a context, the use of disproportionate force can be regarded as reasonable, while continuing to rule out the use of grossly disproportionate force.
I know this change in the law will be particularly welcomed by my hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who have campaigned on this issue for a number of years. I congratulate them on having successfully brought this issue to the attention of Parliament and the public.
Let me now deal with clause 38, which would remove the word “insulting” from the offence of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. This was added to the Bill in the other place. I respect the view taken by their lordships, who had concerns that I know are shared by some in this House about section 5 encroaching upon freedom of expression. On the other hand, the view expressed by many in the police is that section 5, including the word “insulting”, is a valuable tool in helping them to keep the peace and maintain public order.
There is always a careful balance to be struck between protecting our proud tradition of free speech and taking action against those who cause widespread offence with their actions. The Government support the retention of section 5 as it currently stands, because we believe that the police should be able to take action when they are sworn at, when protesters burn poppies on Armistice day and in similar scenarios. We have always recognised that there are strong views in both Houses. Looking at past cases, the Director of Public Prosecutions could not identify any where the behaviour leading to a conviction could not be described as “abusive” as well as “insulting”. He has stated that
“the word ‘insulting’ could safely be removed without the risk of undermining the ability of the CPS to bring prosecutions.”
On that basis, the Government are not minded to challenge the amendment made in the other place. We will issue guidance to the police on the range of powers that remain available to them to deploy in the kind of situation I described, but the word “insulting” should be removed from section 5.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend. Many of us have been campaigning on this issue for years, and the Government have listened—well done.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend.
Finally, let me give the House notice of another set of amendments that we will table in Committee. Members will recall that on 16 October, when I made a statement on our extradition arrangements, I indicated that I would present legislation as soon as parliamentary time allowed to make two key changes to the Extradition Act 2003. The first would introduce a new forum bar to extradition, and the second would transfer to the High Court the Home Secretary’s responsibilities for considering representations on human rights grounds. I have decided that we should seize the opportunity provided by the Bill so that we can give effect to the changes as soon as possible.
I am grateful to the House for allowing me to explain those key provisions. The Bill will build on our reforms of the policing landscape by delivering an effective national response to serious and organised crime and securing our borders, while also strengthening public confidence in the justice system. Its provisions are timely and important, and I commend it to the House.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way, but I say to hon. Members that this issue will be covered in Committee.
Yvette Cooper
I am aware of the points the DPP has made, but I simply ask, because this is important, that the Government undertake an equality impact assessment on the impact on different groups, in order to be sure that they are doing the right thing before this matter reaches Committee.
Yvette Cooper
As did the Government in the other place, and we look forward to their evidence on this measure’s impact on different minority groups.
The problem with the Bill is that it will not deal with the wider difficulties facing policing and the perfect storm of the Home Secretary’s making that we now face. At a national level, she has abolished the NPIA without any clue about what to do with its functions. We now have the National Crime Agency, the College of Policing, NewCo—the new IT company—police and crime commissioners and police and crime panels, but we have no clear view of how any of them will work together. The Bill does not set out how that clarity should be provided.
At the same time, the Home Secretary is cutting 15,000 police officers—the very people who need to do the job of fighting serious and organised crime in every community. The number of young police officers as new entrants has dropped by 50%, yet the most experienced officers are going too. Half of all police forces do not have a permanent chief constable and the officers left in the middle are facing a crisis of morale, with 95% saying that they believe that the Government and this Home Secretary do not support them.
Fewer criminals are being arrested and fewer are being prosecuted, international co-operation is being undermined and counter-terror powers are being weakened; now there is confusion over these reforms. I hope that the Home Secretary will make further improvements to the Bill, but, more importantly, I hope that she will rethink her wider policy on policing and crime before it is too late.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), a former Home Secretary who always brings a refreshing frankness to the proceedings. I do not agree with him on his last point. I think that the Government were right to move away from the idea of the Lord Chancellor sitting on the panel that makes the crucial appointments to the top of the judiciary. I do not think we would ever have been able to persuade anybody that that did not represent an excessive direct involvement of a politician in the process of choosing judges, notwithstanding the fact that the Lord Chancellor is involved at the end of the process.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) described the Bill as a typical Home Office—or, in this case, Home Office and Ministry of Justice—Christmas tree, but it does not contain quite as many unwanted gifts as previous such Christmas trees. Indeed, it contains many welcome things, and I want to concentrate on those that relate to the work of the Justice Committee.
I should say in passing that I very much welcome the Government’s acceptance of clause 38, which relates to the Public Order Act 1986. I noted Labour Front Benchers’ dithering on this matter, if it is indeed dithering; perhaps they will retain their past position of wanting to keep the law as it is—I do not know. From a free speech and civil liberties point of view, bearing in mind the clear statement by the Director of Public Prosecutions about what can be done without having the word “insulting” in the law, the Government have sensibly accepted an overwhelming decision in the other place.
Sir Alan Beith
It is what coalition is about.
I welcome the drug-driving provisions, which I am very glad to see in the Bill, but I will turn first to family justice issues and the single family court, which I strongly welcome. There is still a problem about openness in the family courts, and the lack of it helps to feed very strong views among fathers about how private law cases are decided and among families about how public law cases are decided. That creates, or strengthens, a sense that wrongful decisions may be taken, and people do not understand the reasons for decisions. We have had some advances through anonymised judgments being brought forward, but it remains a problem.
In 2005 and 2006, my predecessor Committee argued for openness provisions of the kind that were eventually legislated for, but when they were on the statute book and we took further evidence for our 2011 report, we did not find a single witness who was happy with them. In the face of that, we were right to say that the Government cannot proceed on this basis, and they are right not to do so. However, we cannot simply abandon the issue. We have to look at more ways of spreading understanding and recognition of what goes on in the family courts and having them exposed to the pressure that public justice—open justice—applies everywhere else. There are compelling reasons why that cannot be done in the same way in the family courts, but we have to take account of the fact that the absence of transparency presents a problem.
On the delegation of functions to legal advisers, the Committee felt strongly that there must be clear supervision by a district judge of any judicial function that is being carried out by a legal adviser.
Fine collection is one area where the Committee said that improvement was still needed. We recognise that some improvement has taken place, but there certainly needs to be more. We welcome the chasing of old debts and recognise that there is potential benefit from the private sector being drawn into this activity. However, there is not merely a loss of public revenue when fine collection is not achieved; there is a serious undermining of the justice system when people see that fines have not been paid and that those involved have got away with it.
The self-defence provisions are probably not legally necessary, but they may have some beneficial impact as regards how the police view cases of this kind. Someone who has been attacked in a terrifying way—whose house has been frighteningly invaded—deserves to be treated as a victim of a crime and have the respect accorded to such a victim even while there is some consideration as to whether there was any grossly disproportionate response on their part. The underlying purpose of the change in the law must be to get that recognition. I do not think that it will actually change the way in which any cases are decided; if I thought that it would, I would worry that it had gone too far.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) referred to deferred prosecution agreements, on which he has done a great deal of work. My Committee took evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions on such agreements. He saw them as an additional tool for prosecutors, but not in any way a replacement for bringing cases to court in many circumstances. However, there are clearly cases in which it would be to everyone’s benefit to take action that did not involve a long drawn-out court case, but that none the less provided restitution for the victims of fraud and perhaps enabled the continuance of a business under new management. The alternative, as my right hon. and learned Friend vividly described in referring to the Arthur Andersen case, can involve a massive loss of jobs and many other adverse consequences that are in no one’s interest.
I want to talk about the provision for non-custodial sentences, and the requirement for a clear element of punishment in such sentences. I do not disagree with that principle, but we should remember that many offenders regard community sentences as more arduous than prison sentences. On more than one occasion, ex-offenders appearing before the Justice Committee have told us that they have committed further offences because they were sick of the requirements of their community sentence and thought that a short spell in prison would be much easier. That might seem counter-intuitive—it might not be what most of us would imagine—but for plenty of criminals, a long and arduous community sentence that places requirements on them, whether it appears punitive or not, is more exacting. They would rather be sitting in prison getting three meals a day and not having a great deal to do.
This provision must not result in our administering a measure that is not the most effective way of changing someone’s life and preventing them from reoffending. We are trying to ensure that there are no more victims of a particular person’s crimes, and to turn around the way in which they behave. We should measure what we are doing in accordance with that aim. More often than not, the challenging requirements that the provision will place on the person to face up to the consequences of what they have done—through restorative justice, for example—to face up to a victim when that is possible, and to make effective reparation to society will be more punitive in practice than a prison sentence. We need to have an understanding of that process.
That leads me to the subject of restorative justice, which has great potential; I am glad that there is provision for it in the Bill. We all recognise that it cannot be forced upon victims, but the level of satisfaction among victims that we have seen in evidence to the Committee has been very encouraging indeed. There is also a growing public view that it makes sense for criminals to be faced with the consequences of their crimes and with the harm that they have done to others, and required to change their lives as a result.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East referred to a provision that was added to the Bill in the Lords, relating to non-custodial sentences for female offenders. The Justice Committee is embarking on an inquiry into women offenders, and we have already expressed the view on more than one occasion that more needs to be done to ensure that courts have at their disposal appropriate and effective means of dealing with women offenders. Indeed, our report on the probation service, which we produced in July 2011, stated:
“The probation service’s approach—where resources tend to be directed towards dealing with offenders who present the highest degree of risk—can fail adequately to support women offenders. The approach recommended by Baroness Corston for the provision of holistic services that address all women’s needs is still a long way from being realised.”
The Government now need to include in the Bill a reminder that more needs to be done in that respect.
This Home Office and Justice Bill provides an us with an opportunity to welcome an unusually large number of provisions. There are others that will be pored over in detail in Committee. The effective implementation of the provisions on fines and on non-custodial facilities for women offenders, for example, will add to our ability to do what we are supposed to be doing, which is using the criminal justice system to stop people becoming the victims of crime in the first place.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I want to speak in support of clause 38. It was inserted into the Bill by those in the other place, who voted 150 to 54 against the wishes of both the Government and the Opposition. That is quite an achievement and I pay tribute to the other place for what it has done. In passing, I say that I do not think that such a rebellion would have happened if the other place had been dominated by elected machine politicians, so once again the House of Lords has justified itself on a cross-party basis and forced the Government to see the light.
What does clause 38 do? It removes “insulting” from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. This is a free speech reform. It has been called for, for years by civil liberties groups, gay groups, Christian groups, secular groups, right wingers and left wingers. It is opposed almost by no one, apart from the Government, until today. Sinners are always welcomed when they repent very late in life, so we should welcome the Government to the lighter side. However, the Home Secretary did not seem entirely convinced, so I hope the House will forgive me for a few moments as I try to explain the rationale for this important campaign, which has been running for years and has united Peter Tatchell and myself—quite an achievement.
Mr Burrowes
I, too, thoroughly welcome this change. On the issue of repenters, there is another category that my hon. Friend has not mentioned—the Opposition. The shadow Home Secretary was distinctly ambivalent in welcoming the fact that the Lords have allowed us to see sense. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that? While we may have the numbers, it is important to recognise the cross-party, cross-issue, cross-everything opposition to having “insulting” in section 5.
Mr Leigh
I do not want to be party political, because many Labour MPs have joined us in the campaign that we have been waging. This is not a Conservative-Labour issue. I cannot really understand why the Opposition are still equivocating when we have had such a long consultation and when the issues are not very difficult. I still hope that the Opposition, at the last minute, in winding up this debate, will get off the fence. The House, along with people who have been campaigning on the issue for years, are entitled to know where they are.
The campaign has been waged for a long time. I spoke about the issue in 2011, during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012—that, too, was on Second Reading. I then tabled an amendment that was exactly the same as clause 38 in this Bill—unsurprisingly, as the same people who have been campaigning drafted both clauses. It was co-sponsored by 64 Members of the House, from every party and every shade of opinion. The Joint Committee on Human Rights—a Committee of Parliament—described it as a “human rights-enhancing measure”. We had been speaking on the issue for years, so we did everything to secure a debate. I do not want to talk too much about Government bad behaviour in the past; one should not perhaps do so when they have done something right. We got the measure tabled as new clause 1—we got there first at the end of the Committee stage. However, unfortunately, after we had got 10% of the House to co-sign it, the Government then took the unusual step—I will not say any more—of using a programme motion to prevent it from being debated. Why? Perhaps they feared that we might defeat the Government—something that happens very rarely in this place.
However, we did force the Government to have a consultation, which was great. The consultation started, lasted a whole year and closed on 13 January 2012—a year ago. We were still waiting and now we have a few words from the Home Secretary. That appears to be the end of the consultation, but it would still be useful to see it, because this is an important issue. We want to know why the Government have changed their mind on this, so it would be quite nice for the consultation, a year after it was closed, to be published.
Why is clause 38 so important? It is important because it removes section 5 of the 1986 Act, which was undermining civil liberties. The breadth of cases suggests that virtually anyone could find themselves at the wrong end of section 5. They have been cited several times, but I want to go through some good cases—there are many others—to show how section 5 was being used against civil liberties and freedom of speech. Section 5 was cited in a court summons given to a 16-year-old protester for holding a placard saying,
“Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult”.
A Tynesider named Kyle Little was convicted and fined under section 5 for saying, “Woof!” to two Labradors. Thankfully, that conviction was quashed. An Oxford student, Sam Brown, was arrested under section 5 for saying to a policeman,
“Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?”
Thames Valley police said:
“He made homophobic comments that were deemed offensive to people passing by.”
My friend Peter Tatchell was charged under section 5 for condemning the murder of gay people by Islamic extremists. His placards were deemed by police to be insulting and likely to cause distress. Blackpool café owner Jamie Murray was told by officers that playing DVDs showing text from the New Testament was a possible section 5 offence.
The police have often used section 5 to freeze debate and stop difficult people speaking out, but in this place we should cherish difficult people. That is what this place is about: cherishing people who do not always go with what the establishment wants. In another case, animal rights protesters were threatened with arrest and seizure of property under section 5 for protesting against seal culling by displaying toy seals coloured with red food dye. One of my favourite cases—I think I can end on this one, because it goes against what I normally talk about and believe in—involved an atheist pensioner in Boston, in my part of the world. He wanted to place a small sign in his window saying:
“Religions are fairy stories for adults”—
I never thought I would repeat that in this House, but that was his crime, apparently. He was told by Lincolnshire police—our very own police—that if anyone complained, he could be arrested and dealt with under section 5.
These cases are worrying. We might be tempted to blame poor on-the-spot decision making, but when there are so many, with such wide variation, and when some of them progress to the courts, it is no longer a joke. We have to conclude—and we have concluded; and now, thank God, the Government have concluded—that there is something wrong with the law.
Dr Huppert
It is a pleasure to be on the same side as the hon. Gentleman on this issue. What he has described is Liberal Democrat policy as well, and I am delighted that the Government have conceded on it, but has he given any thought to section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, which also deals with insulting behaviour?
Mr Leigh
Perhaps my hon. Friend will deal with that in detail when he speaks, because he makes a good point. It is important in the coalition that we try to find things for which, philosophically and honestly, we can work. One thing that is deep in our joint tradition as Liberals and Conservatives is our desire for more freedom, so it is good news that the Government are going with the grain of what the coalition is about.
I hope the House will forgive me if I go into one or two details, because in the law the devil is always in the detail. Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws
“threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”
if they are “likely”—that is the important word—to cause “harassment, alarm or distress”. Clause 38 simply deletes the lowest threshold of the offence—only the lowest; that is the important point—which is the word “insulting”. That would still leave the two higher thresholds of “threatening” and “abusive”. It is important to make the point that we are not removing protection from policemen for those who may feel themselves to be threatened in some way. We all know what being threatened is like: it is quite different from being insulted. The 1986 Act does not define the terms, but the courts say that we all know them when we see them, and I think that is right. A threat is when someone is “in your face” and there is fear of violence. Abuse is when there is, for instance, obscene language. That is why Lord Hurd brought in the law—he was concerned about football hooligans and concerned to protect decent, law-abiding people from feeling threatened or abused.
Insult, however, is clearly less serious and, above all, much more subjective. That is the point about the cases I read out: they are subjective. That is the problem. Most people are surprised to learn that insults are against the law in this country. They think that that kind of law would exist only in some kind of oppressive communist society, not in England and Wales, where traditionally we have given the world this concept of freedom of expression, and the freedom to insult people is an important part of traditional freedom. I believe—and we all know—that insults are minor compared with threats or abuse. An insult is a slight on one’s reputation; it can hurt feelings. Yet just because my feelings are hurt—because I feel that somebody over there has insulted me—should I attempt, or should the police attempt, to make them a criminal? I do not believe that is right.
That is why we have garnered support over the years so quickly. I think virtually everybody who has looked at this issue now supports us. I mentioned the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but those supporting us also include the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Association of Chief Police Officers—that is important, because we were always told that the police were worried about this—the current Director of Public Prosecutions, as has been mentioned, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Justice, Liberty, The Daily Telegraph, the Christian Institute, the National Secular Society, the Peter Tatchell Foundation, Big Brother Watch, the Freedom Association. The list goes on and on. Virtually everybody is off the fence and supporting us. We now just want the Labour party to come on board.
There is nothing party political about this issue. There is nothing in what we are arguing about that runs contrary to traditional Labour belief. After all, despite the Whips in the other place, the Lib Dems in the Lords voted for the amendment, now clause 38 in the Bill, by 29 to seven; Conservatives voted for it by 49 to 30; Labour peers rejected their own Whip and voted 23 to 16; and not a single Cross Bencher voted against it.
Frankly, I believe that this change is not due just to the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions has come on side, as the Secretary of State said earlier. I believe that the Government comprehensively lost the arguments in the Lords. The Lords can be very good on these issues. The Minister was assailed from all sides. Even the Labour spokeswoman, Baroness Smith of Basildon had a difficult time. She suggested outlawing insults might be
“a useful tool which…enables the police to address homophobic and religiously offensive issues.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 1126.]
She cited a case in which section 5 was used to convict someone who peppered people on a train with foul-mouthed verbal abuse. From all sides in the House of Lords, it was pointed out that such behaviour is well beyond the scope of mere insults. It falls clearly into the realm of threatening and abusive behaviour; it would be untouched by clause 38. Under pressure from all sides, the Baroness was good enough to concede that she was open to looking at the evidence and was not opposed to change. We want to see a similarly open-minded attitude from the Labour party in this House.
The Minister in the other place, Lord Taylor of Holbeach talked about balancing free speech with the right not to be caused alarm or distress. We all agree with that, but what does it mean in detail? Do we all have to be vulnerable to prosecution for insults so that the police can have maximum flexibility to decide whom they will or will not prosecute? I do not think that the Minister’s arguments held up. He said that the “insulting” limb of the offence gives the police
“the flexibility they need to respond to hate crime and to defuse tension quickly in public order situations.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2012; Vol. 741, c. 1130.]
Agreed—but the present law was just too flexible.
What we are doing today is right. It is interesting that one of the many Conservatives to rebel was Lord Hurd, the Home Secretary who brought in section 5. At the time he did so, he made it clear that it was not intended to undermine civil liberties. No doubt he has seen what the rest of us have seen: section 5 has undermined civil liberties. He wishes to put it right, the Government want to put it right, and I welcome what the Government have done today.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on leaving in the Bill the Lords amendment in clause 38, as it is wholly in accordance with the proud heritage of upholding free speech in this country. I thank Ministers for listening to those of us in this House, and many outside it, about the detrimental impact of section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, as currently drafted. In this country, we have traditionally enjoyed great freedom of speech—we certainly have in this Chamber—but many people have felt that section 5 has curtailed it and undermined wider civil liberties, and that it needs addressing. As Liberty says in welcoming this amendment and discussing the need to remove “insulting” from section 5,
“the mere fact that this is a criminal offence is enough to stifle freedom of expression.”
It also states that
“section 5 can have a chilling effect on peaceful protest.”
In responding to the Secretary of State’s introduction to this debate, the shadow Secretary of State expressed reservations about the Government’s proposal to include clause 38 and invited examples of the detrimental impact of section 5 to be provided in Committee. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), to whom I pay tribute for his lengthy and persistent campaign on this issue, has cited some of the examples, and I wish to add a few more. I make mention of the couple who used to own a hotel but lost the business as a result of a prosecution under section 5, which arose from a conversation with a resident—a customer—who asked their views on a particular subject and then, when she did not like them, reported them.
Fiona Bruce
That is absolutely right. Ultimately the case was thrown out by a judge, but the strain of enduring the prosecution process proved too much for that couple and they could not keep that business going.
I am particularly concerned about the arrests of individuals under section 5 for expressing views relating to their faith, because I am a committed Christian. Another case was that of Jamie Murray, who runs a café in Blackpool. He had displayed texts from the New Testament on his café wall but received a visit from two police officers who said that they had received a complaint and were investigating a possible offence under section 5. The complaint was simply about Bible texts. Bible texts can be found outside many churches across this land and inscribed on buildings. There are Bible verses on the floor of the Central Lobby in this place and I can even see scripture engraved on the door behind the Speaker’s Chair. However, section 5 is apparently so broad that police in Lancashire thought it banned the Bible. The obvious problem with section 5 is that the word “insulting” is too vague and too subjective; what one person might consider insulting may not trouble another at all.
Incidents such as those I have mentioned frighten people; even where the person does not end up with a criminal record, they create a chilling effect. I now know of church ministers who fear a knock on the door simply for preaching historic Christian truths at their own pulpits. That cannot be right, which is why clause 38 is so welcome. The wording of the current provision needs to be trimmed back; as the recent report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights said, it
“constitutes a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression.”
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, has said that
“the word ‘insulting’ could safely be removed without the risk of undermining the ability of the CPS to bring prosecutions.”
A gap will not be left in the law; the word “abusive” should cover the issue satisfactorily.
I could cite many other instances, not necessarily involving faith aspects: the concerning issue of the 16-year-old man threatened with prosecution for peacefully holding a placard that said, “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult”; the animal rights activists who displayed models of red seals, with the red representing blood; the street-preaching pensioner with Asperger’s who was convicted and fined under section 5 for holding a religious placard—Peter Tatchell, while not agreeing with his opinions, has fully and publicly expressed his right to express them. All or any of those cases, or the views expressed within them, might be regarded as controversial, but what hope is there for free speech if someone can dial 999 every time they hear something controversial? What a colossal waste of police time.
Many groups, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has already stated, have expressed concern about section 5 of the Public Order Act, and I am delighted to note the support received in the Lords from so many worthy Members, including a former chief inspector of constabulary, a former Lord Chancellor, a former DPP and the chair of Liberty.
I also pay tribute to those outside the House who have campaigned on the issue, particularly those who have spearheaded the “Reform Section 5” campaign, with which I have been associated since its launch last year. It is a joint initiative of the Christian Institute and the National Secular Society; how many other causes could unite such implacable foes?
We are all familiar with the statement attributed to Voltaire: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I know that that sentiment resonates within this House, and that is what clause 38 is all about. history has shown that, if societies do not take opportunities such as the one presented by clause 38 to underline and reinforce the importance of free speech, other precious liberties can begin to slide away. Once we cross a Rubicon and allow infringements of free speech, how many other freedoms disappear? I am sure that we all support the campaign of the Chinese journalists for free speech in their press; we should equally support clause 38 and free speech in this country. The United Kingdom has been a beacon of free speech to the world. This is a chance to underscore that reputation.
The publicity it has generated means that the debate on section 5 has been followed not only by a wide cross-section of society in this country but by people around the world. I hope that, through clause 38, we can give them something to celebrate and that Opposition Members will join us when we come to vote on it.
Damian Green
As a former Lord Chancellor, as well as a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman will surely wish to join me in paying tribute to the judiciary, who will be the first people to be televised giving verdicts in the high courts. I am sure he will agree that that will help to explain the decisions they come to.
Returning to detailed points in the debate, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) congratulated the Government on clause 38. Having been a Member of the House for 15 years, I have to say that this is the first time I have ever heard him do so for any Government, and I look forward to many more such occasions in the coming months and years.
Damian Green
As my hon. Friend says, I should not get too excited.
The shadow Home Secretary asked how the NCA would work with police and crime commissioners. The PCCs have a national role in tackling the sort of serious and organised crime whose pernicious effects are felt in every community in every street in the UK. They will be key strategic partners for the NCA. Keith Bristow has already spoken with the newly elected commissioners as part of the central PCC briefing that the Home Secretary hosted in November. He and the wider NCA will obviously continue to engage with them, including through the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners.
The right hon. Lady raised the issue of the tasking element, as did many other Members. She asked whether direct tasking by the NCA director general would cut across the authority of police and crime commissioners. I do not believe that there will be any conflict. Fighting serious and organised crime is a shared concern of the NCA and the PCCs. Tasking by the NCA will be used to fight the kind of cross-boundary serious and organised crime that is more difficult for individual forces to tackle, and to which PCCs must already have regard under the strategy policing requirement to which they, as well as just chief constables, must sign up.
The right hon. Lady also asked about the framework document. It will be a joint statement of intent by the Home Secretary and the director general of the NCA, setting out how they will work together. The final NCA framework document cannot be produced until after Royal Assent; it will be published and laid before Parliament in due course.
There was much discussion of the self-defence clause. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) referred to it, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). We are not changing the fundamental premise that people can use only force that is reasonable in the circumstances as they believe them to be. What we are saying is that when a person is attacked by an intruder in his or her home, in the light of all the terror that that brings—greater, probably, than the emotions that would be aroused in someone defending commercial premises—it may be reasonable for that person to use a greater degree of force than is permitted by the current law. Householders should not be treated as criminals if they have used force that was reasonable in the circumstances as they believed them to be, even if that force turns out to be disproportionate when viewed in the cold light of day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) asked why the provision was limited to householders. It is attacks by intruders in the home that cause the greatest public concern. A home is supposed to be a haven, a refuge, a place where people have every right to feel safe, and that is why we believe that householders deserve special protection.
I am grateful to many Members, including the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for their support for the restorative justice proposals. A number of interesting details emerged, which I shall certainly consider. I share the desire of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady—and, I think, of the wider House—to develop the idea of restorative justice so that it becomes much more important to the way in which we continue to cut crime and prevent reoffending. I know that it is one of the key elements that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary wants to introduce in order to continue our success in that regard.
The right hon. Members for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and for Blackburn (Mr Straw), among others, mentioned family visit visas. The current family visit visa appeal right no longer serves its intended purpose. The appeal right for visitors is an anomaly: no other types of visit visa, such as business and tourist visas, attract the full right of appeal. People who are refused visit visas may reapply as many times as they like, and may provide further information in support of their applications. The expenditure on family visit visa appeals constitutes a disproportionate use of taxpayer funding for the benefit being sought. Removing the full right of appeal from family visitors will save £107 million over the 10 years following enactment.
Inevitably, questions were asked about the efficiency of the system. Of course the system can always be improved. In 2011, however, 79% of family visit visa applications were granted at the initial decision-making stage, 2% were granted as a result of an allowed appeal, and a further 2% were granted after entry clearance manager reviews following the receipt of appeals. That demonstrates that the majority of people are able to follow the application process, and are successful.
I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) on his successful campaign following the tragic incident of drug-driving and its effects in his constituency. He asked various questions. We aim to improve any devices that meet the requirements for testing at a time as near as possible to the commencement of the new offence, which is planned for 2014. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) asked about medically unfit drivers; I am happy to tell her that that specific issue will be the focus of a meeting tomorrow.
I look forward to exploring those and other issues in Committee, along with the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who is the Minister responsible for crime prevention. I believe that the Bill will greatly enhance the national response to serious and organised crime, while delivering a swifter, more transparent and more effective courts and tribunals system, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14 February.
3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Damian Green.)
Question agreed to.
Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(1) expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or a government department by virtue of the Act,
(2) expenditure incurred in making payments to persons who select judges or who select selectors of judges, and
(3) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Damian Green.)
Question agreed to.
Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the imposition, on persons liable to pay sums adjudged to be paid by a conviction or treated as sums adjudged to be paid by a conviction, of liability to pay amounts in respect of costs of collecting sums of that kind,
(2) the charging of court fees by virtue of the Act,
(3) charging by the National Crime Agency for the provision of services or facilities,
(4) provision about functions in relation to regulation of bailiffs and enforcement agents, and
(5) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Damian Green.)
Question agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Edward Leigh Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Harper
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that Ministers take every opportunity—as I have today—to make clear that we have a very good offer to make. The only people whom I ever see quoted in the media saying that the UK is closed for business seem to be people from the education sector. I have pointed out to them directly, and will do so again, that there is a great offer for our university students. They should help us to sell and market Britain abroad, as I take every opportunity to do.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
5. What recent assessment she has made of policing levels in the east midlands; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)
I congratulate the chief constables and police officers of Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire on rising to the challenge of cutting crime with reduced budgets. The latest recorded crime statistics show a 15% reduction in recorded crime in the east midlands in the two years to June 2012, with officer numbers down 6% in the past year.
Mr Leigh
Clearly the new police and crime commissioner will have a very challenging role in the current environment. Should not we as a Government show a degree of humility in admitting that very serious errors were made in the way in which we publicised last week’s elections, show determination to make the system work, and explain to people that replacing anaemic police authorities with a single identifiable head is the right way forward?
Damian Green
I agree very much with my hon. Friend’s second point, but less with the first. The police and crime commissioners, including the very good commissioner who has just been elected in his own county—[Hon. Members: “The Tory candidate lost.”] Unlike the Opposition, I am being non-partisan about this.
The new commissioner can build on work that is already under way. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has found that forces expect the proportion of officers working in front-line roles to increase from 83% in March 2010 to 89% in March 2015. That 15% fall in crime in the east midlands is the biggest percentage decrease in all the regions of England and Wales, which demonstrates that the effectiveness of a police force depends not on overall numbers but on how well it deploys its resources.
Scrap Metal Dealers Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Browne
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that you were about to read out in full all the amendments in the group, which would have meant my not being called to action for quite a while, as there is a substantial number of them. I shall speak principally to new clause 1 and the other Government amendments relating to the heading “Licensing regime”.
The group relates to the licensing regime in the Bill, and in it the Government wish to create one new clause and to add 17 amendments to the Bill. Unfortunately, in our view, the amendments have been diluted by a significant number of amendments tabled by other hon. Members. I do not propose to address all the non-Government amendments separately, but we take the view that, as a whole, they do not add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) is seeking to achieve. We are therefore minded not to support them.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
From what the Minister says, there already appears to be a difference of emphasis. As a victim of scrap metal crime myself, like many others, I am strongly in favour of this Bill. These amendments—this applies to all private Members’ Bills—have a sensitive life. I urge the Minister to ensure that this Bill becomes law, even if he has to make some concessions on the amendments. He has to give more time, because out there, the churches and many members of the public want this Bill to become law.
Mr Browne
I strongly endorse the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. I visited a church in my Taunton constituency a few weeks ago and I was told about the theft of metal from the church roof and the damage it had done. The church was very supportive of the proposals brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, as are Members on both sides of the House. We are keen to see Parliament pass the Bill and for it to come into law. It is obviously not a Government Bill, and my hon. Friend may well be keen to permit a degree of flexibility, but the Government want to see achieved the objective that we both share—to pass this legislation into law.
Oral Answers to Questions
Edward Leigh Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Brokenshire
The whole point of the Bill is that it provides flexibility. The key aspect of it is that it allows co-operation and collaboration with internet service providers to ensure that we respond to the changing nature of criminal operations. Criminals are changing their tactics, and the legislation needs to move with them.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
13. What progress she has made on the matter of deportations and article 8 of the European convention on human rights; and if she will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules that I laid before the House on 13 June has come into effect today. It introduces clear new rules to protect the public from foreign criminals who try to hide behind family life as a reason to stay here. In respect of the most serious offenders, only in exceptional cases will the public interest in deportation be outweighed by other factors.
Mr Leigh
Notwithstanding the excellent work that my right hon. Friend has done, does she not agree that the only real solution to the problem is to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998? Given that it is our Liberal friends who are blocking such action, may I, in the privacy of the Chamber, suggest this course of action to her? Why do we not all vote against House of Lords reform tomorrow, and end the sad, unmourned life of the coalition? Then we can have a general election and a Conservative Government, and we can repeal this hopeless Act.
Family Migration
Edward Leigh Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
We have indeed discussed the issue with the Ministry of Defence, and the current rules will continue for the time being for both serving UK personnel and foreign and Commonwealth personnel. We are considering how we can revise what are called the part 7 rules, which relate to foreign and Commonwealth personnel serving in Her Majesty’s forces, and in the coming months we will consider very carefully what arrangement should apply in future. At the moment, transitional arrangements mean that the current situation will pertain for those personnel.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I warmly commend the Home Secretary for her statement today. It shows that we can come up with good, strong, Conservative statements and be popular with the British people. Our Liberal friends, take note.
May I say to the Home Secretary that the reality must match the rhetoric? We gave a solemn promise at the last general election that we would get immigration down to tens of thousands, and there has been far too little progress. Will she recommit herself today to appointing officials of sufficient quality and in sufficient numbers to achieve that aim? Otherwise, there will be a huge democratic deficit.
Mrs May
The figure of tens of thousands continues to be the aim that we are working towards. My hon. Friend is right that, as I indicated in response to the shadow Home Secretary, the figures to September 2011 have still not shown a fall. If he looks at the subsequent student visa figures through to March 2012, however, he will see a significant fall in allocations. That should have an impact on net migration figures in due course.
My hon. Friend tempts me down a route that I will not go down, but I make fairly and squarely a point that I should have made in response to an hon. Friend earlier: these proposals have been put forward by the coalition Government.
Abu Qatada
Edward Leigh Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs May
I have answered questions about the European Court, the treaty and the advice and guidance given by the European Court on the dates. On the right hon. Gentleman’s final point, Abu Qatada is in detention at the moment. If he and his lawyers apply for him to be let him out on bail, we will vigorously oppose it. It is the case, of course, that he had been on bail prior to his arrest on Tuesday. The bail conditions on which he was held were among the most stringent ever applied to anybody here in the United Kingdom. Those bail conditions were tighter than the control order regime that I know the right hon. Gentleman supported.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Further to the Home Secretary’s answer to the Father of the House, the fact is that the Brighton conference process is designed to weed out trivial cases. It would not affect a serious case like this one. If one believes in the European Court of Human Rights, that Court should deal with this case. I think we all have to be honest and the Home Secretary has to be honest about it. Is she personally prepared to argue for the supremacy of this Parliament, which would mean that we must repeal the human rights legislation and create a British Bill of Rights?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend will recall that I have made my own views on the Human Rights Act absolutely clear. The Conservative party, of course, went into the last election saying that we would bring in a Bill of Rights. The Government have established a commission to look at the whole issue of a British Bill of Rights. I suggest that my hon. Friend waits for that commission to report.
Metal Theft
Edward Leigh Excerpts(14 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Heather Wheeler
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are voluntary agreements, but the difficulty is when cables have been stolen, or great big metal electricity boxes—substations. I do not know how on earth people manage to steal these things without anybody noticing.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) mentioned Lincolnshire, where I too have been a victim of metal theft. My whole home was trashed because thieves stole the boiler without turning off the water. Ordinary people are suffering and we demand that the Government take urgent action. People are fed up. There has been too much prevarication for too long.
Heather Wheeler
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but how do we have a robust licensing process that is not too onerous and expensive? Local authorities are the obvious people to do it, falling in line with alcohol licensing. That would fit really well. I do not want good professional firms to be penalised by more red tape and more cost, but they have to step up to the plate—no pun intended—and say that we need to clean up the whole process. It is not acceptable for everybody to turn a blind eye to the rogue dealers in all our areas.
My hon. Friend talked about boiler theft. It is a most amazing new theft and I keep hearing about it. People are encouraged to put in new eco-boilers that are very green and efficient. Three months’ later their houses are burgled and the boilers are taken. I suggested to the police that we ought to put identification numbers on boilers, but it would be a huge piece of new bureaucracy, so my good police came up with the suggestion of using SmartWater. It is a very good system, but will we really be putting SmartWater on every church roof? Will we put it on memorials? The situation is quite incredible. [Interruption.] We shall to buy need shares in SmartWater.
Protection of Freedoms Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Edward Leigh Excerpts(14 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I beg to move amendment (a), after “Proceedings” on the first day insert—
‘New Clauses relating to the Public Order Act 1986; and’.
I have tabled this amendment to the programme motion because I simply cannot believe that the Government are trying to stifle debate on new clause 1 —the only new clause in the Bill to attract support from dozens of Members from all parties in this House. One would have thought that the Government would welcome hon. Members trying to improve the Bill—is that such an outrageous thing? One would have thought that they would welcome the fact that 65 Members have put their names to new clause 1.
On Friday, the Joint Committee on Human Rights produced a voluminous report which says on page 61:
“We support the amendment of the Public Order Act 1986 to remove all references to offences based on insulting words or behaviour. We consider that this would be a human rights enhancing measure and would remove a risk that these provisions may be applied in a manner which is disproportionate and incompatible with the right to freedom of expression”.
One would have thought that surely a Government committed to free speech would realise that this was an important issue and allow some time for new clause 1 to be debated, especially as it is normal, if not a convention, for new clauses to be debated early on Report because they are debated last in our Committees. Because new clauses are often not reached in Committee, it is normal for a Government who want to have open debate to allow them to be debated at an early stage on Report.
This is one of the most extraordinary programme motions that I have seen, because it ensures that no new clauses are debated. Why have the Government done this? For the life of me, I do not know why we are being pushed to the back of the queue. There is no point in having emollient words. There is not some small chance that new clause 1 will be debated; as a result of this programme motion, there is no chance that it will be debated or voted on. We have had three hours of statements, and we now have two hours to debate many important issues. However, we are going to spend an hour and a half on car parking. I am sure that car parking is very important, but so is freedom of debate. How ironic that the Government are using their own powers under guillotine procedure to stifle a debate on freedom of speech. It is an extraordinary situation.
I know that we are discussing my amendment to the programme motion, not new clause 1 itself, but it is worth saying that it is a very modest proposal that seeks only to change one line of legislation, would not cost the Government one penny, and would not affect anything in the manifesto or the coalition agreement. There would have been no harm in our having a civilised debate. Perfectly valid arguments could have been made on both sides of the issue, and the Government would have got their way in the end, so why not have a debate?
I do not want to be unfair to the Government, who have written to me and said that they are now going to have a review. That is strange. We have been campaigning on this for a whole year. For several months, we got the same letters from the Minister that we used to get from the previous Labour Minister, no doubt written by the same civil servant sitting in front of the same potted plants and serving out the same cups of tea. We made no progress whatsoever. Yet suddenly, hey presto, because 65 people are prepared to put their name to new clause 1 and because my amendment is selected for debate, we get this promise of a review. Why is it starting tomorrow or next week? Why did it not start six months ago, when the amendment was put on the Order Paper? Is this a very complex issue? I have not yet been consulted about the issue, and neither have the National Secular Society, which supports the amendment, or the Christian Institute. We are going to have a review, and the only people who will not be consulted formally are those of us in the House of Commons. What a strange situation. Is this not the home of democracy? Is it not beyond the wit of the Government and the programme managers to allow just three quarters of an hour for an important debate about freedom of speech? But no, the one body that will not be allowed to debate the issue is the House of Commons. We are told by the Government, “Oh, don’t worry, we’ll have this review”—although there can be no debate in the House of Commons—“and then the House of Lords will debate it.” However, they could have had such a review months ago. It is hardly rocket science: we are not talking about a technically complicated issue such as trying to reform the entire national health service or anything like that
I say this to hon. Members on both sides of the House: why do Governments—I am not talking about this Government; I mean all Governments—accept amendments only in the House of Lords? Why not here? Why can we not accept the revolutionary proposal that, in a grown-up way, a Member of Parliament might produce a cross-party amendment on a serious issue, the Government could consider it on its merits and it might actually be agreed to? Why do all Governments take the view that they are prepared to accept amendments only in the other place? Frankly, I have never been an enthusiast for House of Lords reform, but I am beginning to think that until the other place is reformed, the Government will never take this place seriously.
We are talking about an important issue that is too serious to delay. There are so many cases, affecting people from all walks of life: demonstrators threatened with seizure of property and arrest under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 for protesting against seal culling by using toy seals coloured with red food dye; the young man prosecuted for growling at two Labrador dogs; the countless street preachers harassed by police for daring to mention Bible passages that some people do not like. Just last month, a café owner in Blackpool was told by the police that displaying verses from the New Testament on a video screen was a breach of section 5. What are the police suggesting? That we should cut and paste things from the Bible but leave out things that people do not like? Many people do not like many things from the Bible, but the Bible is the Bible and if people want to quote from it, they should be allowed to do so without PC Plod tapping them on the shoulder and telling them that it is against some piece of legislation.
All those things are happening under section 5 of the 1986 Act. There is something fundamentally wrong with the way it is being used. That needs to be properly debated in the House of Commons and nowhere else. The fact that the Government have agreed—only today, as a result of all the pressure from colleagues—to discuss such matters with outside groups shows that they acknowledge that there is a problem. All I am asking for is a debate. Why are the Government so concerned about our new clause? What we are proposing is hardly radical. It would not leave the police powerless to prevent public disorder. As the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, says in his legal opinion on new clause 1, there are plenty of other powers in existence to prevent or prosecute behaviour that is abusive or risks a breach of the peace; indeed, we have always had breach of the peace powers. There are numerous other powers that could be used, but section 5 is being used as a kind of catch-all and is chilling debate.
This is an important issue and the arguments are strong. The Government might even make a concession on it in the Lords—they have as good as admitted it today—in which case why could they not make the same concession here, in the home of democracy? Why do they make concessions only in the other Chamber? I feel passionately about new clause 1 because it is what the Bill is all about. This Bill is called the Protection of Freedoms Bill, but we are not being allowed to debate free speech. I thought that the aim of the Bill was to reverse the widespread erosion of civil liberties in recent years. Well, there is no greater civil liberty than freedom of speech. It is the foundation of our civil freedoms and new clause 1, which is supported by people from all parties, is all about freedom of speech.
Oral Answers to Questions
Edward Leigh Excerpts(15 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
6. What further steps she plans to take to control illegal immigration; and if she will make a statement.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
UK Border Agency enforcement officers are continuing to crack down on immigration crime and remove illegal migrants. Our proposals to tackle abuse by foreign nationals using student visas to gain work in the UK, alongside new plans to toughen up marriage and family routes, will further tackle illegal migration into the UK.
Mr Leigh
As Members of Parliament, we are approached all the time by constituents who want to marry somebody from abroad and it is only humane and right that we should try to help them, but our job is made doubly, even trebly, difficult by the existence of sham marriages. What is my hon. Friend doing to tackle the problem without making the system so bureaucratic for everyone else?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend identifies one of the key loopholes that did exist in the immigration system. Last summer, I asked our enforcement teams to focus on sham marriages, and 53 sham marriage operations were undertaken, resulting in 126 arrests. Between November and January, a further 86 operations followed that up, focusing on sham marriages, with an additional 29 arrests. This has been one of the big loopholes in our immigration system, but we are becoming ever more effective in closing it.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Edward Leigh Excerpts(15 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I welcome the Bill. How could one not support clamping down on the wheel clampers? Some of my constituents have had terrible experiences at their hands.
Although I listened carefully to the shadow Home Secretary’s arguments, and although she made some fair points about DNA, one cannot, on civil liberties grounds, oppose removing the DNA of innocent people from the DNA database. It is a fundamental principle of British law that when people are found innocent by the courts, they are innocent.
My speech will be rather like the speeches that we used to have at Conservative party conferences, which said that the motion was fine, but did not go nearly far enough. Much of the Bill is, frankly, pretty unexceptional. Compared with the Deputy Prime Minister’s rhetoric last year about bringing in a Bill to
“protect our hard won liberties”
much of it is a bit tame. What happened, I wonder, to the 14,000 ideas that were suggested by members of the public via the “Your Freedom” consultation? It is like a scene from “Yes Minister”. An enthusiastic new Minister says, “I want to have a Freedom Bill,” and 14,000 replies come in. One can imagine Sir Humphrey, in his most mellifluous tone, advising the Minister that freedom can be a very incendiary device when it comes to Government.
I suggest that the Bill should go further, and I hope that I will get support not only from those on the Government Benches, but from Opposition Members. The Leader of the Opposition has admitted that Labour was
“too draconian on aspects of our civil liberties”.
Where can we go further? I am particularly worried about freedom of speech. I believe that political speech and debate, even in this place, are becoming very bland. There is a chilling effect on free speech, because people are discouraged from expressing unpopular opinions that do not fit with the winds of political fashion. Did not George Orwell once say:
“Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”?
I would add that the right to speak against received wisdom is the only way to make social progress, as I hope many Opposition Members would agree. We have to protect the ability to express widely differing opinions in strong terms in the public square.
One reason why I was worried about the Phil Woolas case, as I said at the time on the Floor of the House, is that if someone has a British National party candidate standing against them, for example, they have to be able to denounce them for what they are without fearing legal sanctions. We have a more and more active and activist judiciary, not just in the Supreme Court and the lower courts but in the European Court of Human Rights. Again, that has a somewhat chilling effect. We should examine some of the debates that there used to be during general elections, certainly 100 years ago but even 50 or 40 years ago. They were a lot more robust than they are now.
With that in mind, and in the spirit of warm and cosy friendship with my Liberal Democrat friends, I wish to try to persuade the Home Secretary to give some thought to adopting a Liberal Democrat proposal for inclusion in the Bill. It was made by Dr Evan Harris, who at the time was the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. May I say how much we all miss him? Although I disagreed with him on virtually everything, he was a kind of foil to some of my arguments. In March 2009, he tabled an interesting proposal to amend the Public Order Act 1986. He wanted to delete the word “insulting” from section 5, because he was concerned that that section was being used to trample on free speech. As I have said, I did not agree with a lot of what he said, but I did agree with that.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend remember the Hayes dictum, named after my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes)? It was that if a Member was in the same Lobby as Dr Evan Harris, they were in the wrong Lobby.
Mr Leigh
That is enough about our friend, I think.
Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws
“threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”
if they are likely to cause “harassment, alarm or distress”. The proposal that I wish to make, which I and the Liberals supported before, is the deletion of the lowest threshold of that offence, which is the word “insulting”. That would still leave the two higher thresholds of “threatening” and “abusive”.
The 1986 Act was brought in to replace the Public Order Act 1936, which had worked very well in dealing with the blackshirts and all that. The 1986 Act does not define the terms “threats” and “abuse”, but we all know them when we see them. The courts have often said that. Threat is obvious, is it not? It is when someone is in your face and there is a fear of violence, and abuse is when someone uses obscene language. Insult, however, is clearly something less serious and more subjective, and that is the problem. I believe that removing the word “insulting” would be enough to stop section 5 being misused and generating a chilling effect on free speech.
Mr Leigh
Good, I am very glad. That just shows that there is support for that from all over the House, and indeed from outside.
Section 5 of the 1986 Act is a classic example of a law that was brought in for a fair reason, to deal with a particular state of affairs long ago, but has been used in practice for something quite different. It was brought in to tackle hooliganism, but it is increasingly used by police to silence peaceful protestors and street preachers.
I shall give a couple of examples of how section 5 has been used, to show what has been going on. It has been used to prosecute a couple of hotel owners, Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, who had a breakfast-table dispute with a Muslim guest. I do not comment one way or the other on their views, but they said that Mohammed was a warlord and that Islamic dress oppressed women. For that breakfast-table dispute, they were prosecuted. True, the judge threw the case out and apparently hinted that the police should have handled it differently, but the point is that for some reason, Merseyside police thought that section 5 applied to theological debates over breakfast. Even though the couple were acquitted, their business went to the wall. It is not enough to say, “Well, we don’t need to worry, because they were not convicted.” We should worry, because people are increasingly worried about expressing strong opinions.
There are other examples. In 2008, a 16-year-old protestor was issued a summons by police under section 5 of the 1986 Act for holding a placard outside a scientology centre that read, “Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult”, which is something that many people agree with. City of London police referred the allegation that the sign was abusive or insulting to the Crown Prosecution Service. I am glad to say that Liberty, which is supporting the campaign for the change, intervened and the case was finally dropped. However, it shows the problem that exists.
Then there were the animal rights protestors in Worcester, who were threatened with arrest and seizure of property under section 5 for protesting against seal culling using toy seals coloured with red dye. Police told them that the toys were deemed distressing by two members of the public and ordered them to move on.
The last and most ridiculous case is that of Kyle Little. After being warned by the police for using bad language, he was arrested and prosecuted under section 5 for a daft little growl and woof aimed towards two Labrador dogs. I have a dog, my own dearly beloved William, and I am sure he has never felt insulted by anything that I have ever said to him. But this poor Kyle Little, for growling at a dog, was detained for five hours, despite the dog owners not wanting any prosecution, at a cost of £8,000 to the taxpayer. Unbelievably, Newcastle Crown court finally had to acquit Little of the charge. We can see what is going on. [Hon. Members: “It’s barking!”] The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and others are right. We need to bring it to an end.
We should all worry about this. There is something wrong with a law when the police think that it requires them to regulate debate. As I have said, the 1986 Act was introduced to replace the 1936 Act during a period of football hooliganism, as people might remember. At the time, a White Paper identified the mischief at which the Act was aimed—hooligans on housing estates throwing things down stairs and banging on doors, and groups of youths persistently shouting abuse and obscenities. Section 5 was a fairly reasonable response to that. The then Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, told the House that it would not undermine civil liberties, but 25 years later, we see a major difference between what was intended and what has happened since. We therefore need to examine the wording. I cannot act very easily, as a Back Bencher, but Ministers can do so very easily.
Liberty has argued that we should use the Bill to repeal section 5 of the 1986 Act in its entirety. That may be going too far for Ministers, and I do not follow Liberty as far as that, but in a classic triangulation exercise, why cannot we just remove the word “insulting” and leave the higher grades? I have support from our own Joint Committee on Human Rights, which heard evidence that section 5 was being used to suppress free speech and made representations to the previous Government, which were resisted. That Government rejected the advice of our own Committee on human rights.
I say to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)—please will he listen for a moment, as the responsible Minister?—that it appears that civil servants at the Home Office are still using, almost verbatim in correspondence signed by him, the arguments used by the last Government against amending section 5. I wonder whether he knows that the letters that he is sending out use exactly the same language as was used by the Labour Government to resist what our own JCHR suggested.
In response to the JCHR recommendations, the previous Government said that they believed that problems with section 5 could be addressed by “guidance”, which is a classic cop-out for civil servants. It is true that the Association of Chief Police Officers recently produced new guidance on breach of the peace, which covers section 5. However, that still encourages police to pursue insulting words or behaviour, because of course, that is what the law tells them to do. If we tell the police that it is wrong for people to use insulting language, they will pursue them. It is up to us to make the law clear so that the police can operate in an entirely sensible fashion. Frankly, it is not good enough for Ministers to say, “We can solve this with guidance,” especially when there is a Protection of Freedoms Bill on the stocks. In any case, an issue as serious and significant as civil liberties should not be left to mere guidance. It is for MPs to make such decisions.
The previous Government used another argument that is still used by Ministers in correspondence. They say that if the word “insulting” is removed from section 5, the police will not have sufficient power to protect the public, but that is not the case. Neil Addison, a barrister who spent 10 years prosecuting cases in Newcastle, has suggested that the “threatening” and “abusive” limbs of section 5 will cover all genuine public order cases. He says:
“Looking back on the large number of s5 cases I have either prosecuted or defended over the years I cannot think of any ‘normal’ public order situation which could not be covered by the words ‘threatening and abusive’. Most cases under s5 involve people (often drunk) yelling aggressively and making frequent use of the ‘F’ word and that is the sort of situation that s5 and indeed the entire Public Order Act was supposed to deal with, it was never supposed to deal with the situation where individuals, whether street preachers or otherwise”,
including demonstrators or people we do not like,
“were expressing their personal opinions.”
We use other laws if we get complaints from distressed individuals. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 criminalises any repeated harassment of an individual, which I support. Therefore, deleting the word “insulting” from the Public Order Act 1986 would not leave police and prosecutors without powers to deal with low-level public disorder.
One of the silliest arguments used to defend that part of section 5 is that removing the word “insulting” would mean that the courts would have to adjudicate on the difference between abuse, which is criminal, and insult, which is not—we see that argument in letters from Ministers both of the previous Government and of the current one. However, courts make such adjudications all the time. We could equally say that under section 5, the courts must adjudicate between insult, which is criminal, and incivility, which is not. Criminal courts decide whether an activity is criminal—it is their raison d’être. All the arguments put up by this and the previous Government on why “insulting” cannot be removed from section 5 fall to pieces.
I am sure we all agree that free speech is a bedrock of true democracy. It encompasses the freedom to disagree and to challenge received opinion. We might not like what someone says and we might take offence, but lively debate and a robust exchange of ideas are integral parts of a true democracy. Lord Justice Sedley, in his landmark ruling in the case of Richmond-Bate in 1999, put it better than anybody. He said:
“Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having.”
In my view, the criminal law does not exist to protect people from feeling insulted. I urge Ministers to think about addressing section 5 of the 1986 Act in the Bill. They and no one else have the power to do so.
The JCHR, Liberty, Justice, the Christian Institute and Dr Evan Harris are calling on us to do something about section 5. I note the Liberal Democrats specifically referred to reforming the 1986 Act on page 93 of their manifesto last year. It is a Lib Dem idea that we would be wise to adopt. I urge such a measure on the House in the name of that most precious commodity—freedom of speech.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh). This is the first time that I have ever heard him endorse anything Liberal Democrat.
I share the hon. Gentleman’s opinion of the Bill, which he described as pretty unimpressive. The content of the Bill does not remotely justify its extraordinary and wholly inaccurate title. We would expect a debate on a Bill to protect our freedoms to include a far more wide-ranging discussion by the Home Secretary of the nature of freedoms in this country and how they should be properly balanced. We would also see a description of such essential freedoms in the Bill. However, the Bill, parts of which are worthy and others downright dangerous, is no more than a standard criminal justice amendment Bill.
Mr Straw
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman endorses that view.
I am sorry that the Home Secretary has left the Chamber, although I understand the pressures on her. She made some extraordinarily hyperbolic remarks, and described the situation under the previous Government as the creeping intrusion of the state and a slow march to authoritarianism. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has accepted, the previous Government got some things wrong, and, in the light of experience, some things turned out not as intended. I will deal with those later, but on our record of balancing necessary security with the expansion of freedoms, I and the Labour party defer to no one.
Labour was the party that introduced the Human Rights Act 1998. I remind the Conservatives that they voted against it on Second Reading. I am glad that, following amendments to the Bill, which I sought to make to build the kind of consensus of which my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary spoke today, the then Conservative Opposition supported it on Third Reading. The then shadow Attorney-General, the late Nicholas Lyell, said from the Opposition Dispatch Box that he wished the Bill well.
I also remind the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that the 1998 Act is about bringing British rights home, so that they can be adjudicated on by British courts. The Act does not create a sovereign Supreme Court. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, under section 4, even if the British Supreme Court declares that legislation made by this House is incompatible with the incorporated European convention on human rights articles—that happens rarely, and not in the cases of DNA or votes for prisoners—the legislation is not unenforceable: it stays in force unless and until this House decides otherwise.
The Labour Government introduced the Human Rights Act 1998, the title of which was never disputed, because it was indeed about human rights—we could have called it the “Human Rights and Freedom Act”. We also introduced the Freedom of Information Act. I am proud that I was the Home Secretary who produced those measures and a number of others. The previous Conservative Government opposed the freedom of information legislation at every stage for 18 years. They wanted only a non-statutory, unenforceable code. That is all they would have introduced.