Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Julian Huppert

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It was dealt with in-house. He was a great man. He argued his case. He came here four times and finally, sensibly, we bowed to modern reality and we let him in.

Before I sit down, I shall give another historical example that shows how generous we have been. Arthur Alfred Lynch was an Irish nationalist MP for Galway city. He was tried and convicted for high treason. He fought on the Boer side during the South African war; he fought against us. He was sentenced to death, but it was commuted to life, and he was pardoned in 1907. As an astounding testament of our legacy of clemency and tolerance in this country, he was readmitted to the House in 1909 when West Clare returned him to Parliament. Indeed, the King even commissioned him a colonel in the Royal Munster Fusiliers during the great war.

I am sorry to give these historical examples, but they just show how extraordinarily generous we have been to people who honestly disagreed with us, and even fought against us in a war, but then were returned by their constituents. We said, “Yes, all right, you have made your point, but you are an honourable man so we’ll let you in.”

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

One last time and then I must sit down to let others in.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to hear the hon. Gentleman praise Charles Bradlaugh, a notable atheist, but he has not quite addressed the point that was made earlier. What would happen with cash for questions, for example, where an essential factor is the question in this House? How would his amendment deal with that?

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (Business of the House)

Debate between Edward Leigh and Julian Huppert

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I would have thought that our fundamental duty was to protect the freedom of the individual. As it happens, I support the Bill. However, if I may say so politely to the Minister, he owes us a bit more of an explanation when he sums up.

It is fair enough if the Liberal party, with its traditions, has objected to many parts of the Bill. There should have been long arguments and objections. Why can we not just be told about them?

[Dr Huppert]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will finish my point.

If it takes three months to agree to something in the coalition, the Government should come back to us honestly and say, “It has taken all this time. We have finally come to an agreement. Here it is.” What is the urgency? It seems extraordinary that, on a matter as fundamental as the freedom of the individual, we are rushing things so much.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Debate between Edward Leigh and Julian Huppert

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I broadly support what the Home Secretary is trying to achieve on TPIMs. As far as the public outside will be concerned, the debate has been rather skewed, because for most of it a Conservative Home Secretary has been attacked by the Labour party on a civil liberties issue. The House should not indulge in party political attacks but should reflect what our constituents want, which is to feel that they are safe. They want our Home Secretary to do whatever is necessary for that.

Before I deal with the issue of whether TPIMs or control orders are right, I point out that as far as most Back Benchers and most members of the public are concerned, TPIMs are simply control orders-lite. There is not a huge difference between them. I will deal with the issue of relocation in a moment, but first I wish to support both the Labour Government and the current Conservative Government in having such orders at all, because they are under attack from the civil liberties lobby. If there is a choice for me, as a father, between my daughters being blown up on a London tube, or our constituents being attacked by people who detest everything we stand for and all our liberal values, and there being some minor infringement of those people’s civil liberties, I know what choice I will make. I suspect that 90% of the population would make the same choice.

It is said that such orders are a gross infringement of civil liberties. I am on record as being an advocate of our jury system, I have never wanted to give the police extra powers and I recognise all the ancient arguments for our civil liberties. However, given the danger that some people pose and the views that they hold, what is the gross infringement on their civil liberties that we are talking about? Overnight residence measures; electronic tagging; restrictions on communication or association; exclusion from particular places; overseas travel bans; restrictions on bank accounts; restrictions on the transfer of property; limitations on the possession and use of electronic communication devices; work or studies measures that require permission to be obtained for specific activities or notice to be given prior to any work or studies being carried out; measures requiring regular reporting to a police station; and measures requiring the individual to allow himself to be photographed. Are those grotesque violations of those people’s civil liberties? No.

[Dr Huppert]

Yes.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Gentleman is living in a dream world. Does he appreciate what these people are trying to do? Does he understand the level of danger they pose?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We know that there is some evidence, such as intercept evidence, that is difficult for the Home Secretary to bring to trial. Surely we must have some faith in our Home Secretary. Surely we respect her and the instruments of justice as having the public interest at heart. They are in no way inclined to restrict anybody’s civil liberties unless there is good reason.

[Dr Huppert]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to explain how his list is not a major problem to somebody like Cerie Bullivant? He was on a control order that was scrapped by the courts because there was simply no evidence, and he was found not guilty when there was a criminal trial. How would the hon. Gentleman explain to him that the two years he spent under that control order was not an infringement of his basic rights?

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Julian Huppert

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leigh]

Some people hold these beliefs passionately, and they should have a right to speak out and not lose their job as a result.

[Dr Huppert]

Is the hon. Gentleman actually saying that if a teacher believes in creationism, they should be allowed to teach it to pupils in their class? That is very different from a privately held belief.

[Mr Leigh]

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is deliberately trying to take me down a track completely out with what I am arguing about. I am not arguing in favour of creationism or against it; I am simply making the point that if someone has a profound religious belief—having read the Koran or the Bible—that marriage is between a man and a woman, and if they state that on Facebook, in the classroom or anywhere else, they should be protected. That is the profound and simple point. Let us not get dragged down various alleyways and byways, because we need to do something.

It is true that people talk about controversial issues in the workplace all the time, but I think that same-sex marriage is different. It seems to many of us that if someone dares to disagree with the new orthodoxy that gay marriage is the best thing since sliced bread, they are somehow breaking a new social taboo and doing something in their workplace, particularly in the public sector, that they should not be doing. Some people say that the new clause is not necessary, but it is, because, as we all know, the tenor of debate on same-sex marriage is often characterised, I am afraid—not here, but in the public marketplace; we have heard of cases in the past —by hectoring, bullying and name calling. Given that, as I have said, most decent people will do anything to avoid a scene or do anything that risks the police getting involved, it would have a chilling effect.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Edward Leigh and Julian Huppert

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Mr Leigh]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.