European Convention on Human Rights

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that. We had a debate towards the beginning of this parliamentary Session in which the Minister made it clear that the Government intended to bring forward a consultation document on this sooner rather than later. I think he envisaged that that would be before Christmas, but it then became after Christmas and now it is after the referendum. They were talking about a consultation document, so why can we not have even a discussion? I fear that it has been kicked into the long grass on the instructions of No. 10, because it was realised that it would lead to lot of awkward questions. The Government have demonstrated throughout the course of the referendum debate that they are quite happy to ask hypothetical questions and complain when people are unable to answer them, but they are unwilling to respond positively to the questions that people are asking them.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am sorry that I missed the first part of my hon. Friend’s speech; I very much look forward to reading it tomorrow. While the view of the general public is that infringements on the rights of Parliament are the result of the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights, will my hon. Friend confirm that even if we were to leave the European convention on human rights and remain in the EU, we would still be subject to the same kind of interference from the European Court of Justice?

[Mr Chope]

Yes. It would be not only the same type of interference, but graver. That is the conclusion of the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee, the report of which I referred to earlier and came out today. The European Court of Justice has much greater powers and can effectively remove legislation from our statutes. The European Court of Human Rights is much more restricted and can deal only with individual cases, which then can be the subject of negotiation and we can ultimately exercise more discretion or have a greater “margin of appreciation”, to put it in legal language. As Lord Woolf was saying, the European convention on human rights may not be perfect, and we may not like the way in which it has been changed by judge-made law, but most people would agree with its actual wording.

The European charter of fundamental rights is anathema. You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when the charter was first brought forward and the then Labour Government were saying that it would have no application to the United Kingdom, the then Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), memorably said that it would have no more status in UK law than a copy of the Beano. That just illustrates the speed with which change comes about. One moment we think something has been passed which is not going to apply to us and now we find, on the highest authorities in the land, that we are indeed subordinate to the European Court of Justice and that the European fundamental rights agency and charter are supreme. My plea to the Minister is: can we get this sorted out? Will he confirm that the UK would be in an absurd position if it wanted to stay in the EU but denounced the European convention on human rights?

The Shrewsbury 24

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

I want to congratulate my great friend: my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) made a powerful and persuasive speech. I also thank my many Opposition colleagues for being here today and for their show of solidarity with the Shrewsbury 24. Given that it is nearly Christmas, I even thank the Scottish National party for being here to lend support to our campaign. It is good to have it.

The Government deserve credit for the willingness that they have shown in facing up to the historical injustices of Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough and child sexual exploitation. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton has said, something that many people consider an outrageous injustice—a case that goes to the heart of how we were governed and policed in the previous century—is still shrouded in secrecy today. In the previous Parliament, following a debate called by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), the House voted overwhelmingly for the full truth about Shrewsbury finally to be told, but in October the Minister for the Cabinet Office ruled that the Government papers would continue to be withheld.

The purpose of today’s debate is to challenge that decision, and I will do so by revealing a series of documents that shed new light on the whole issue. Before I do that, I want to pay tribute, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton did, to Eileen Turnbull, the researcher to the Shrewsbury 24 campaign, whose diligence and utter dedication to the cause has brought the documents to light. I have her dossier here today, and it reveals three things: first, how the trial was politically driven by the then Home Secretary, from the gathering of evidence to the commencement of proceedings; secondly, how there was an abuse of process by police in the taking of statements; and thirdly, how there was an attempt at the highest levels of Government, supported by the security services, to influence the outcome of the trial.

There is also a crucial piece of context, which other hon. Members have mentioned, and I ask that it be borne in mind at all times. On the day in question, 6 September 1972, no pickets were arrested, nor were any cautions issued. That brings me to the first document, a letter dated 20 September 1972—some two weeks later—from the press officer of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers to regional secretaries. It is headed “Intimidation Dossier” and it says:

“You will be aware that we are compiling a dossier on incidents of intimidation and violence during the recent wage dispute. The intention is to pass this document to the Home Secretary for his consideration with a view to tightening up the law on picketing in industrial disputes.”

It calls for details of any incidents, statements from eyewitnesses and photographs. So at the outset that establishes that there was an evidence-gathering exercise on the strike involving the Home Office at the highest level.

Confirmation of the political interest in legal proceedings comes from the second document that I have: a page from the case file of the Director of Public Prosecutions on the Shrewsbury pickets. An entry on 29 December 1972 reads as follows:

“The Home Secretary is interested in this case. 2 counsel to be nominated.”

That, by the way, was no passing interest from the Home Secretary, as the third document will show. I have here a letter dated 25 January 1973 about the Shrewsbury case from the then Attorney General Peter Rawlinson to the then Home Secretary Robert Carr. Its contents are extraordinary. It begins:

“The building worker’s strike last summer produced instances of intimidation of varying degrees of seriousness...A number of instances consisted of threatening words and in which there was no evidence against any particular person of violence or damage to property. In these circumstances Treasury Counsel, took the view that the prospects”—

of a conviction—

“were very uncertain, and in the result I agreed with him and the Director that proceedings should not be instituted.”

That letter is talking about proceedings against the Shrewsbury pickets. It goes on to warn of the risks of jury trial, saying that

“juries tend to treat mere words more leniently than actual violence”.

There it is—an admission that they were talking about “mere words”. Two conclusions can be drawn. First, the Home Secretary of the day was advised by the Attorney General and the DPP that no proceedings should be brought against the Shrewsbury pickets. Secondly, it is made clear and explicit that there was no evidence of violence or damage to property. “Mere words” were the only things that were thrown.

We do not have documents revealing the subsequent decision-making process within Government, but we do have the first page of a confidential memo sent by the Home Secretary to the Prime Minister the week after the letter was sent. It reads:

“Thank you for your minute of 29 January about picketing. I have taken a close personal interest in this problem since I came to the Home Office and I have myself discussed it with the chief officers of those police forces which have had to deal with the most serious picketing. I believe that chief constables are now fully aware of the importance we attach to the matter”.

From that there is no doubt at all that the Home Secretary was heavily interfering in operational police matters, and just over a week after his memo was sent to the Prime Minister the Shrewsbury pickets were picked up by police and charged—a full five months after the strike had ended. That series of documents puts beyond any reasonable doubt the fact that the Shrewsbury trial was politically driven by the Home Secretary of the day.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am sorry I have not been able to attend the debate so far, but I was attending to my staff in the run-up to the Christmas period. The shadow Home Secretary makes a big play of the fact that the Home Secretary was involved. The right hon. Gentleman was not around at the time, and I was. I recall the case and, indeed, had a letter about it published in The Times. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Home Secretary should not have been concerned about the case, I think he is making a mistake. The Home Secretary should have been concerned.

At that time, the nation was bedevilled by strikes. We had not had the legislation that Margaret Thatcher introduced. If the case that the right hon. Gentleman is making is that the Home Secretary should not have been involved, that is a fundamental misreading of the situation that applied at the time. The Home Secretary was right to be concerned because the British people were concerned at the way trade unions were running rampant across the country.

[Andy Burnham]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have been here at the start of the debate to hear the whole case. He has just revealed that it was a political campaign against the trade unions. That is what he just said, and that is the point. He has revealed his hand to this entire gathering. It was a political campaign that Mrs Thatcher sorted out. That is the point here. There was a campaign driven from the top of Government, as I have revealed. We do not live in a country where politicians can put people on trial. I do not want to live in a country like that. These should be independent matters for the police and the legal authorities. The hon. Gentleman has heard evidence today of politicians putting people on trial; if he is not concerned about that, well, I am, and that is why we are holding this debate.

The next document that I have shows that due process was not followed in the aftermath of the political pressure. On 17 September 1973, a conference between police investigating the case and the chief Crown prosecutor, Mr Drake, was held at Mr Drake’s home. I have here a note of that conference. Let me quote the key passage in paragraph 16, which records an explanation from police officers about the gathering of statements:

“So that Counsel would be aware it was mentioned that not all original hand-written statements were still in existence, some having been destroyed after a fresh statement had been obtained. In most cases the first statement was taken before photographs were available for witnesses and before the Officers taking the statements knew what we were trying to prove.”

Let me read that again for the benefit of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), so that he can hear it without any confusion. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram]

I first need to thank all hon. and right hon. Members who spoke in what I believe to be a particularly powerful debate. Most reasonable people watching today’s proceedings will come to the conclusion that the case has been overwhelmingly made for the release of the documents. It is for the campaigners to decide what documents they believe to be relevant and for the Government to release them to be lodged at Kew. Those documents should then be referred to the CCRC. That would be a just and equitable outcome from this afternoon.

I have to say that I hope that the real face of the Tories is the Minister who wound up and responded to the points that we raised and not the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), who, despite the rhetoric of compassionate Conservatism, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the nasty party is alive and kicking.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I understand the passions that are aroused, but this country was seriously under threat at the time from trade unions that did not have the level of constraint that applies today. In 1979, 30 million days were lost to strike action—[Interruption.] It is no good shouting me down; this is the House of Commons. Last year, the number of days lost was 788,000. Industrial relations have been transformed since those unhappy days of which the hon. Gentleman speaks.

[Steve Rotheram]

I am just trying to get my head around what the hon. Gentleman just said. He believes that because there was industrial action that lost the country days, it was okay for the state to stitch up 24 people and imprison them. Is that the point that he was making? I think people will come to their own conclusions.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

rose—

[Steve Rotheram]

The hon. Gentleman has had two goes and I think he is digging himself a deeper and deeper hole.

The Minister, who is an honourable man, tried to defend his position, but I think he tried to defend the indefensible on this occasion. He tried to muddy the waters around the release of the documents, but this is about a miscarriage of justice. That is what is central to today’s debate: a miscarriage of justice. The current Government have the opportunity—it is in their gift—to put right a wrong of 43 years. That is all that the campaigners have asked for over the decades. I hope that the Minister will listen to their concerns and to the arguments of Opposition Members. I hope that he will act with honesty and integrity and meet the campaigners and then go back and fight their cause to get the documents released.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the House has considered the Home Office and the case of the Shrewsbury 24.

[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair]

Points of Order

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I need your urgent advice on an important constituency case. As the local MP, I have been representing a family in a contested adoption case, including the birth mother, Miss P. In order to represent the family properly, I needed to see the final statements and assessments by relevant social workers. Norfolk county council then e-mailed my constituent, stating:

“I would be grateful if you could confirm whether or not your client has disclosed a copy of the assessments to Henry Bellingham. This would clearly be in breach of the family procedure rules and a contempt of Court.”

I then wrote to the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), and the president of the family division, Sir James Munby. Both the Minister and Sir James replied that since the case of Re N in 2009, the family procedure rules had been updated specifically to include MPs as interested parties who can receive all relevant statements and assessments. In other words, the county council was completely wrong.

Norfolk county council was either ignorant of that change in the law, which I find pretty staggering given that every family practitioner in the land will surely have known about the consequences of Re N, or it deliberately misled a vulnerable young mother about the law and conspired to stop MPs going about their duty. I take the matter very seriously, because I have been prevented from getting full and considered advice to Miss P. What protection can you give MPs, Mr Speaker? Is there a possible contempt of Parliament, and could Norfolk county council be referred to the Committee of Privileges?

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman springs to his feet with great alacrity, and we will hear from him in a moment.

I say to the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) that if he has a complaint on grounds of privilege, it will be necessary for him to write to me on that score. More widely, I thank him for his courtesy in giving me advance notice yesterday evening of his intention to raise the point of order. I am concerned as to his ability to act effectively in this matter, and I am sympathetic with the broad thrust of what he has said to me and the House. My clear understanding is that the relevant Minister is interested in coming in on the matter, and he should have the opportunity to do so. We will then hear from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth).

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No, the hon. Gentleman thinks that his concern is so immediate that it must be taken now. I am happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, so we will hear from the Minister in a moment.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am most grateful, Mr Speaker.

Further to that point of order, may I put it on record that I have suffered precisely the same threat from Surrey county council about a potential adoption case in my constituency? May I suggest that it is a matter of relevance to you, Mr Speaker, because it strikes at the heart of the issue of privilege? It is extremely important that the evidence that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) has just given you about the ruling by the president of the family division is widely disseminated to county councils throughout the country.

[Mr Speaker]

Look, I make one light-hearted point to the hon. Gentleman and one more serious one. The light-hearted one is that I cannot imagine that any attempt to threaten him could be successful. I have known him for 25 years, and he is not the sort of person to be threatened effectively, let me put it that way.

On the more substantial and substantive front, I am afraid that I must repeat to the hon. Gentleman that a complaint on grounds of privilege has to be put to me in writing. He knows very well that I am extremely concerned about the protection of parliamentary privilege and the need to guard against any threat to it, as manifested in the recent case involving the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). I believe that the hon. Gentleman is well familiar with the exchanges relating to that case. I am sensitive to his concerns, but let us now hear—preferably with brevity—from the Minister. [Laughter]

Shrewsbury 24 (Release of Papers)

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

It is very interesting to see no fewer than 34 Labour Members present.

[Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)]

And trade unionists.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

And trade unionists; I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. It is quite clear that old Labour is still alive and well and, in some respects, seeking both to justify and to romanticise mob rule and violence and intimidation.

[Mr Campbell]

You have not been listening.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Not only have I been listening, but I was party to the public debate at the time, for I had a letter published in The Times on 14 January 1975, when I was director of Freedom Under Law, calling on the then Home Secretary to allow the law to be upheld and for the jail sentences of Tomlinson and Warren to be maintained, so I have an interest in the matter.

It is important for Labour Members to realise that if they wish to secure the support of the British people at the next election, they need to make it clear that they renounce the kind of practices that prevailed in the 1970s and 1980s.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

No, I am not going to give way at the moment. It is very important that people should understand the conditions that applied at the time. People who were going about their ordinary activities were subjected to intimidation. I became the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood in 1983 and I saw constituents of mine who were trying to go to work in Littleton colliery having bags of urine thrown at them by striking miners from south Wales.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

No, I will not give way. This was in the day of the flying pickets. These people would go around the country supporting trade unions that were engaged in that kind of intimidation, even though they themselves had absolutely nothing to do with the strike or industry in question.

The statistics make interesting reading, because it was at this time after the second world war that Britain was going substantially down the tubes. Successive Conservative Governments had failed not only to turn back but to arrest the ratchet of socialism that had driven through this country in the immediate post-war years. [Interruption.] I see that that has huge support on the Opposition Benches.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman is a Labour Member for whom I have an immense amount of time. He was a very good Transport Minister and it would give me enormous pleasure to give way to him.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will forgive me if I disagree with pretty much everything he has said so far, even though we do agree on certain aspects of life in politics. The motion calls for the publication of papers. It does not call for anybody to make judgments for and against; it asks for the papers to be published so that the public can make a judgment call. Some of us believe that those papers will show certain things and, obviously, Conservative colleagues think they might show something else, but surely we can agree on transparency in politics and the publication of documents.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I am slightly relieved to hear that he does not agree with what I have said, because that makes my life easier and it probably makes his life easier as well. I will not resile from my personal affection for the hon. Gentleman and I will address his point.

The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) was on his feet for about half an hour, during which he talked about the circumstances that prevailed at the time. We heard about the way in which the workers were being ground down by the employers and, of course, every possible opportunity was taken to associate those employers not only with the Conservative party, but with its fundraising efforts. It is important that there is a public understanding of the conditions that prevailed at the time and how it came about that these men were jailed.

I want to draw attention to the record of days lost to industrial action at the time. In 1970, when Ted Heath became Prime Minister, nearly 11 million days were lost. In 1971, the number of days lost was 13.5 million; in 1972—the year in question—it was nearly 24 million; in 1973 it was 7 million; and in 1974 it was 14.75 million. That illustrates just what was going on in the country at the time. [Interruption.] There was indeed a Tory Government. There was also a concerted effort by the trade union leaders, whom Margaret Thatcher described in her book as being first, second and third socialist politicians. They were not trade union leaders and they were not looking after the interests of their members. They were in pursuit of a political objective, which was to support the socialist party under the guise of the Labour party at the time. That is what they were trying to do. The Conservative Government at the time did not have a majority and, I submit, probably did not have the conviction to roll back socialism and tackle the trade union reform that was necessary, which was of course addressed by Margaret Thatcher and the 1979 Government.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I invite the hon. Gentleman to respond to the question put to him about the motion. I do not want to hear a re-enactment of the events of 40 years ago. The general public are entitled to see the papers relating to what happened then. Does he agree that the papers should be published so that both sides can see exactly what happened 40 years ago?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I told the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is a friend, that I would address that point, and that I would do so in my own time, not in his. The Liberals, typically, are sitting on the fence. I forgive my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell). It is absolutely right and proper, and important—[Interruption.] I know that we are in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, but there we go.

Britain was the sick man of Europe in the 1970s. One reason for that was the kind of trade union activities that were going on. The hon. Member for Blaydon has given his romanticised version of what went on, and I am absolutely determined to put an alternative case, and I hope that I am in order to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. That alternative case will not be uttered by any Opposition Members. I suspect that the only other person to do so will be my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), who of course has a vested interest in his constituency. [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon, and I will indeed continue.

I have set out the pattern of industrial action that was destroying Britain, and of which the country was absolutely fed up. An opinion poll in The Times in January 1980 said that 71% of the people surveyed about the kind of measures that the Thatcher Government were introducing —to restrain secondary picketing and intimidation—wanted those measures to be taken, as, interestingly, did 62% of trade unionists. One of the successes of the Thatcher period was to restore trade unions back to their members, taking them out of the hands of their politically motivated leaders. We were acting very much in line with the spirit of the British people.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

This history lesson is very interesting from the hon. Gentleman’s point of view, but for the third time, will he give us a straightforward answer: does he believe that the papers should be published—yes or no?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman, who is also a friend, will have to be patient. I will deal with that point in my own time. [Hon. Members: “When?”] In my own time.

Secondary picketing was eventually outlawed in 1984, during the Parliament in which I first served in this House. Much has been said about the cases of Warren and Tomlinson, but it is very important to put some of the facts on the record. To quote from my letter in The Times of 14 January 1975:

“It is worth reminding them”—

those who took the same line as the hon. Member for Blaydon—

“of the words of Mr Justice Mais, the trial judge, in passing sentence on December 20, 1973. Of one of those jailed, he said: ‘You took part in violence and encouraged violence… You are prepared to impose your views on others by violence if need be.’”—

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On three occasions, the hon. Gentleman has been asked to clarify his position and to address the motion. He is not in any way discussing the motion. Will you perhaps advise me? Time is moving on and many hon. Members wish to speak, but he is clearly filibustering to waste time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it is not possible for a Member of the House to filibuster while I am listening carefully to what is said and making sure that it is relevant to the matter before us. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) has explained that he is coming to the main point of his argument. I have allowed him to develop his argument, as is perfectly in order, but he is an experienced parliamentarian and will know that he must come to the very point of the matter. I will be very strict this afternoon in making sure that all speeches are within the scope of the matter before us and are properly in order.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members should accept that the question whether the remaining papers that have not been released to the National Archives should be revealed is a pertinent one. In debating, as we are, the issues surrounding the cases, particularly two of the cases, it is highly relevant to question whether the papers should be revealed.

Before I was interrupted, I was quoting Mr Justice Mais, the trial judge. He went on to tell the six people before him:

“Some of you were clearly determined to strike terror in the hearts of those who continued to work.”

That was a very serious crime indeed. Furthermore, the case went to appeal and, to quote The Times editorial of 20 December 1974, the Court of Appeal judge said:

“There was at each site a terrifying display by pickets of force and violence actually committed or threatened against buildings, plant and equipment; at some sites, if not at others, acts of personal violence and threats of violence to the person were committed and made. Persons working on the sites and residents near by were put in fear.”

That should not be tolerated in our country, and it should not be supported by Opposition Members.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman has quoted the Court of Appeal judge. He was the same judge on whose verdict the hon. Gentleman relied for many years in resisting the case for a new inquiry into Bloody Sunday and so on. Is he confident that his reliance on Widgery today—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. In interventions as well as speeches, hon. Members will stick to the matter before us. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman may make his point, but he must refer to the matter before us, from which he was straying very considerably.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I also want to refer to people who have spoken more recently about the issue. An article from Wales on Sunday of 27 January 2013 in the debate pack provided to Members—so it must be relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker—states that

“Peter Starbuck, who says he was Oswestry’s largest contractor at the time, claims violence and intimidation were a routine part of the strikers’ tactics and the convictions are sound. And bricklayer’s labourer Clifford Growcott has described how he was ‘punched and kicked like a football’ during the strike.”

I am astonished that Opposition Members want to side with people convicted of using that sort of violence against their fellow human beings.

[Mr Anderson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman who proposed the motion.

[Mr Anderson]

I take from what the hon. Gentleman has said that the Court of Appeal judge was Lord Widgery. On the point about the litany of activities that are supposed to have happened—if it is correct that those events happened, they are very serious—why was not one person arrested on the day that they happened or are alleged to have happened? Lots of policemen were there, so why did they not pick those people up and arrest them? Why did that happen five months down the line, when they were effectively stitched up by the case against them?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman obviously knows the answer to that question. I have no idea. I was not involved in the trial and I was not at the trial, but I was involved in the public debate at the time.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I will give way to the hon. Lady in a minute.

I remind Opposition Members that in Margaret Thatcher’s excellent book, “The Downing Street Years”, she wrote about the Government’s attempts to deal with trade union legislation. At one point she says that

“when a dispute did occur the trade union was able to exercise what amounted to intimidation over its members—‘lawful intimidation’ in the unhappy phrase coined by Labour’s former Attorney-General, Sam Silkin.”

At the highest levels of the Labour party at that time, such practices were basically endorsed. I say to right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches that the country has moved on. If the Labour party wishes to occupy the Government Benches once again—I very much hope that it will not—its Members must understand that the public out there do not want to see any return to such behaviour or to hear any sympathy expressed for it.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) has been extremely persistent and I am delighted to give way to her.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is talking about the dispute. The motion is about the request for papers. The Government cite national security as a reason for not disclosing those papers. What does national security have to do with an industrial dispute?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I will address that point in one moment. I only wish to make two further points and one of them will address the hon. Lady’s question.

Robert Carr, who became a peer in the other place—I will continue to refer to it as the other place, Madam Deputy Speaker—was accused of conniving with the police and the security forces at the behest of the construction industry. That is a conspiracy theory. Those of us who knew Robert Carr cannot imagine that he was anything other than a charming, polite and reasonable Home Secretary. I do not think that he was in the business of conniving.

Let me conclude by coming to the point that has been raised a number of times.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I say to the House and to the hon. Gentleman that if he concludes his speech in the next two to three minutes, he will have taken the same amount of time as the proposer of the motion. That would be reasonable.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that guidance. I will fully comply with the implicit request.

I put it to Opposition Members that it is not only the current Lord Chancellor who has reviewed these matters. I have not spoken to him about the matter, but I understand that he has done so recently. He has considered that there is no reason to change the decision of previous Lord Chancellors. Lord Irvine was Lord Chancellor in 2002 when the 30-year rule would have applied. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) later became Lord Chancellor. Labour’s Lord Chancellors all concluded that it was not appropriate for certain of the papers to be revealed. [Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] Labour Members must address that question to the right hon. Member for Blackburn. I have no responsibility for bringing him to the Chamber to provide answers on these matters. He is a Member of the Labour party, not of my party.

It is important that we put it on the record that successive Lord Chancellors have looked at this issue and deemed it appropriate that certain papers, supplied or otherwise relating to the intelligence services, should not be released to the National Archives. I am not privy to what those papers are. I dare say that I would like to look at them. However, I repose my trust in Lord Chancellors, whether Conservative or Labour. They should be responsible for determining whether our national security would be imperilled.

To conclude, in the 1970s, when the nation was being held to ransom by strikes all over the country, people like me and my new wife were stocking up with provisions in case there was a shutdown, and Ross McWhirter of the “Guinness Book of Records” and I were looking at how we might produce a newspaper to get information out to the public when the newspapers were being closed down by trade union militants. That was the mood of the nation at the time. It is important that the country understands that. This case arose out of that mood.

Thank goodness for this country that we had a Conservative Government, led by a real Conservative in Margaret Thatcher, who restored the power in trade unions to their members. Today, we have the evidence. The number of working days lost to strikes in 2012 was not 10 million, let alone 30 million. It was not even 1 million. It was 250,000. That is testimony to the fundamental reform of trade union relations that was carried out in this country. The United Kingdom has prospered ever since.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) on securing this important debate about working conditions in the 1970s. It is about a time when, in that three-year period, 571 people were killed and 224,000 were injured on building sites. It is about an industrial campaign to ensure that those working conditions changed. It is about a trial that led to the results that my hon. Friend outlined. It is about a campaign, to which I pay tribute, that has lasted now for 40 years to get documents into the public domain to ensure that people have the full facts on why action was taken and why the judgment was made.

The motion states simply that the Government should release the papers referring to all aspects of the trial and the case. The motion is a fair one. I say to both the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) that the judgment of this House can be made, as can the judgment of the public, on the information contained in that simple motion, which calls on the Government to reverse their position as a matter of urgency and to release the papers.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hanson]

I will not give way. A lot of Members want to speak and time is pressing.

This is a simple motion, but for my constituents it is not a simple matter, nor has it been for the past 40 years. For my constituent Arthur Murray it meant six months in prison and a lifetime of concern about the impact of that sentence. For my constituent John McKinsie Jones it meant nine months in prison and concern about his employability, his future and his peace of mind. For my constituent Terry Renshaw it meant a four-month suspended sentence for two years, which has had an impact on his life. They are currently bringing a case for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to consider their convictions to see if they were sound. The material that is not in the public domain could well be relevant to the case, and that is why they want it to be released.

I have written to the Secretary of State for Justice on several occasions. When I was a Minister in the Justice Department, I pressed, as a constituency MP, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), to release the information. The judgment was made, under the Labour Government, to release the information in 2012. Being the kind, open soul that I am, I wrote to the then Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), in 2010 to ask whether he could confirm that it would be released in 2012. He wrote back to me on 8 November 2010, saying that the “blanket” covering was still in place until 2012. I wrote to him again on 23 March 2011, and he said he was reviewing the matter and would make a decision. I wrote again on 20 November 2012, and was told by the now Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling):

“On 19 December 2011 Kenneth Clarke signed a new instrument which records that he has given his approval for the retention of the records”.

The retained records include:

“a paragraph from a memorandum from Sir Michael Hanley, Director General of the Security Service to Sir John at the Cabinet Office…a copy of the report which was enclosed with the…memorandum…a paragraph from…Sir John Hunt to a Mr Armstrong dated 13 January”

and

“a paragraph from a memorandum to Sir John Hunt relating to this report”.

It is important that this information be in the public domain. The Government are currently reviewing the 30-year rule and reducing it to 20 years, yet in this case, when there is 40 years of information, they are seeking to extend the period, and so withhold the information, until 2022. That seems unfair.

My colleague Terry Renshaw has been a councillor for years, he has served on the police authority, he is a lecturer, he has been mayor of the town I live in, he is a respected citizen, yet even today they will not let him into the United States of America because of that conviction. My constituent Arthur Murray, a decent man, served six months in prison, and made the point to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) made about John Platt-Mills, who said:

“The trial of the Shrewsbury Pickets is the only case I know where the government has ordered a prosecution in defiance of the advice of senior police and prosecution authorities.”

My constituent John McKinsie Jones said only last year:

“I have lived for almost 40 years with the stigma of being arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned for conspiracy. My family were devastated… Like a lot of the other pickets I had never been in trouble in my life. We were completely innocent of these charges. We were branded as criminals by the media. We were blacklisted”.

This debate is about the lives of people in my constituency; it is about the lives of people who dedicated their lives to the trade union movement and who were only doing their jobs. I want these papers released. I might have to leave before the end of the debate, because of a long-standing constituency engagement this evening, but this debate has my support, and my constituents have my support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) on securing this debate. I must say from the beginning that I am not a man of violence, but the contribution from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) certainly stretched my tolerance level. He reminded us exactly what the Tories are about and what they think the workers should be—seen and not heard, shall we say.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Sheridan]

No. The hon. Gentleman has had enough time.

I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the outside world if I sound somewhat repetitive, but I genuinely believe that the more people that say this and listen to it, the more likely we are eventually to get somewhere on the issue of transparency. If we look at the Press Gallery, we see that there is very little interest in this issue from the press—apart from, of course, the regular and reliable Morning Star. For some reason, other newspapers, apart from some in the Trinity Mirror group, are not covering it.

In a week when we have discussed the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, we can see how difficult it is, when it comes to what happened 40 years ago, to get transparency from this coalition Government. It is somewhat ironic that we are still discussing this issue in 2014.

To reflect on the Shrewsbury 24 issue, the conditions that existed in the building industry in the 1970s were a blight on our society. Sites with hundreds of thousands of men were given two rat-infested, filthy toilets. There was nowhere to change, so if workers got soaked in the rain, they would either have to go home and lose their pay, or continue to work—sodden and freezing. The health and safety conditions were appalling. In 1973 alone, there were 231 fatal accidents in construction. When talking about this issue, I am reminded of why these people were victimised—it was because they were raising serious health and safety concerns to ensure that workers were safe in the workplace. That is why the then employers turned against the trade unions—to make sure that health and safety issues were not raised at the appropriate time. The employers’ agenda was not about looking after their workers.

We look on some of the working conditions in some countries with disgust, and we call on UK-based companies working in those other countries to look at their supply chains and improve their human rights records. The Shrewsbury 24 were picketing in conditions that we would be horrified at today, so the calm and dignified protest they led is to be commended. It was a difficult task—something that has not been repeated—trying to organise building workers who often moved to new temporary sites and it was a struggle to organise them on account of that. The Shrewsbury 24 wanted to highlight the issues caused by colleagues “on the lump”, but they did not get violent and did nothing illegal. At this stage, I am reminded of what the Scottish Affairs Select Committee is doing on the issue of blacklisting. Only yesterday I listened to some of the evidence that the trade unions gave to that Select Committee. Even today, trade union organisers are refused access to building sites, simply because they want to raise health and safety issues that the employer does not want to listen to. Ordinary trade unions are still struggling to get recognition.

The Shrewsbury 24 hired six coaches and picketed large sites around Shrewsbury, which were chosen because they were not as well organised as some places in the bigger cities. It was peaceful—there were no cautions and no arrests. They had the permission of site owners. Chief Superintendent Meredith even shook the hand of Des Warren and thanked him for the co-operation of the UCATT and the then Transport and General Workers Union.

For that reason, when 24 men were arrested on conspiracy charges months later, they were shocked and confused. Six were sent to jail, and over four decades later, the pickets still deny that they were guilty of any of the charges levelled against them. The sentences had a devastating impact on these men. While in prison, Des Warren was regularly forced to drink “liquid cosh”, which has been blamed for his death from Parkinson’s disease in 2004. These men struggled to get work afterwards.

Let me finish by saying that if there were any sort of national security issue, it would never be viewed as acceptable in this day and age that information for which people are looking should be denied to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), on his new position. It has been a long time coming. I hope we can have a constructive working relationship, and I look forward to hearing his views on a number of issues, not least the damaging effects of the Government’s complete dismantling of legal aid. I know he was highly critical of that himself until very recently.

This has been a powerful and emotional, but reasoned, debate that does credit to everyone who has spoken from these Benches and to the House. For 40 years, the treatment of the Shrewsbury 24 has raised questions that successive Governments have not been prepared to answer, and those who were convicted and their families, friends and supporters have campaigned for justice, transparency and fairness. It is right that this issue should be debated fully here and that the House should place demands on the current Government—or, failing that, the next Labour Government—to disclose the remaining documents relating to the case. I hope that there will be some movement on that from the Minister this afternoon, rather than just a repeat of the recital of the Secretary of State’s view that the Government wish to park the issue until 2022.

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and the Backbench Business Committee for securing the debate. I also want to thank those Opposition Members who have spoken today, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who spoke on behalf of his constituents, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has tabled an early-day motion on this subject that has so far attracted 62 signatures, mainly of Labour MPs but also of six Members from other parties.

Most of all, I would like to acknowledge the tireless work over those 40 years of the campaigners. They include the late Dessie Warren and Ricky Tomlinson, who has proved such an effective figurehead and given the campaign some of its best soundbites, including

“a threat to social security perhaps, national security never”.

They include Eileen Turnbull, whose six years of painstaking research has already uncovered many troubling facts in the case, Unite the union, which has offered much in the way of practical and moral support, Thompsons solicitors and Len McCluskey, who has taken a close personal interest in achieving justice for the 24. They also include the tens of thousands of trade unionists who have marched, protested, and signed the petition that led to today’s debate.

This shows the trade union movement at its democratic and campaigning best. In that sense, history is repeating itself, because it was the successful national building workers’ strike of 1972 against the appalling health and safety record of the industry and the exploitation of lump labour that led to the arrest and prosecution of the Shrewsbury 24. In an era before the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, 200 building workers were being killed on sites every year.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Slaughter]

Given the time, I am reluctant to give way.

Summary dismissal and blacklisting were commonplace for anyone who complained about poor pay and working conditions. After years of refusal to act by Government and employers, trade unions across the sector organised the biggest national strike since 1926. They were calling for fair terms and conditions, fair pay and safe and secure working practices. I do not intend to repeat the story of the strike, the arrests, the trials and the subsequent attempts to find justice, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and others have already described. What I would like to do is explain why this issue from 40 years ago still matters not just to those directly affected, but to all of us in this House and in the country.

The picketing that led to the charges was peaceful and heavily policed, and it passed without incident or comment. The arrests months later, the conduct of the trials, the use of conspiracy charges, the sentences handed down, the involvement of the Government and the close relations between senior figures in the Government and the building employers all raise suspicions that these were not normal proceedings. The use of section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act to withhold selective documents, the continuing refusal of the present Government to engage with the campaigners, and the postponement of consideration for another 10 years also suggest that there is a desire to sweep this issue under the carpet. Whether that suggestion is right or wrong could be determined by releasing the papers. That would also provide closure for those convicted, of whom all those who are still alive are of pension age.

I would like to ask the Minister these questions. If he is not prepared to agree to the motion today, will he explain more fully why? Will he tell us how many documents are being withheld, what issues they deal with and why—specifically, rather than using civil service catch-all jargon—they are deemed not to be publishable? I get the impression that this is an embarrassment, an irrelevance or an inconvenience to the Secretary of State. To the 24, it is a matter that has dominated their lives and that continues to do so.

This is not an issue only of historical importance; it continues to affect those convicted today. It affects them in practical ways, such as through the travel restrictions we have heard about. It affects them emotionally, and it also affects them because they are men who have an ingrained sense of justice who in many cases have devoted their lives to the service of their communities. It matters to them, and to Labour Members. It should also matter to the Minister and to his party, which, whatever its historic antipathy to the trade unions, has often claimed the moral high ground on civil liberties and transparency issues.

Sadly, the Minister is now part of a Government with a terrible record on such matters. Under the coalition we have seen: an expansion of the use of secret courts across the civil justice system; attacks on the Human Rights Act and the European convention; the use of judicial review being severely curtailed; unprecedented cuts in legal aid and advice; and restriction on access to justice for everyone from unfairly dismissed employees to mesothelioma victims. And yesterday, we had the absolute disgrace of the gagging Bill, which threatens to shackle and silence the voluntary sector and the trade union movement under the guise of tackling lobbyists. We have seen blacklisting continue as it did in 1970s. We have also seen a Government more closely aligned with special interests and corporate greed, and less on the side of employees or consumers, than the Heath or even the Thatcher Governments.

In trade union history, the case of the Shrewsbury 24 stands alongside the miners’ strike, the Taff Vale case and Tolpuddle as examples of how the state, and the Conservative party and its allies and funders in the corporate sector, use the law and officers of the law to restrict and subdue organised labour. This is a struggle that has gone on for hundreds of years, and it will continue far into the future.

In his autobiography, Ricky Tomlinson asks:

“Will the day come when it will be a crime in itself to be a member of a trade union?”

Certainly there has not been such a sustained attack on trade union rights by the governing party and its allies in the media for 30 years. If the Minister wishes to deny that, or if he wishes not to judge the events that led to the conviction of the Shrewsbury 24 but to give others the ability to do so, he should agree to this motion, release the withheld documents and show that his Government have nothing to hide. Ricky Tomlinson also said recently that it felt as though the Tories were waiting for the 24 to die before they would reveal the truth. The Minister might not be responsible for the Tory party, but he is responsible for freedom of information and for upholding transparency in government. He and his colleagues should support the motion today.

Leveson Inquiry

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I can be crystal clear, as indeed was the Prime Minister last week: yes, we will take action along the lines set out in the Leveson report if action is not taken to put together a self-regulatory approach, and that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, would include legislation.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has said that the Government accept Leveson’s proposals and that, in the event that there is not a satisfactory regime, the suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) would be taken up. However, I remind her that Leveson states in paragraph 76 of the executive summary that he also wants to see a “statutory verification process”. It would be a statutory verification process, not a shackling of the press. Is that part of the Government’s current proposals, because we know that self-regulation has been an abject failure for 70 years?

[Maria Miller]

I will answer that point very briefly, although I am sure that it will be subject to much debate later, but then I really must make some progress. There are two aspects of statutory regulation within Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals: one is verification and the other is how we can put in place incentives for membership. I say simply to my hon. Friend—I know that he understands my point because we have had conversations about this before—that we take a very principled approach to this and have grave concern about the use of statutory legislation to underpin the recommendations. We do not believe that it is necessary. We believe that we should be looking at potential alternatives. Indeed, that is what we are discussing in cross-party talks today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Garnier]

I think I might be permitted to know a little more about that case than my hon. Friend does. As it happens, I have over the past 35 years or so—[Interruption.] Would she stop mumbling?

Over the past 35 years or so, I have acted for and advised both claimants and defendants in more or less equal measure. Unsurprisingly, many of the defendants were newspaper publishers, editors and journalists and their broadcast media equivalents.

The House and the public as a whole owe a huge debt of gratitude to Lord Justice Leveson. His report is long but comprehensive. It is thorough and analytical. It contains opinion and recommendations, but they are based on fact, founded on the evidence he heard and read. Neither he nor his report can be described as “bonkers” and the report does not resort to hyperbole, make hysterical criticisms of the media or demand state control of the press. It is, in my view, a fair and balanced report that has exposed and tackled some difficult, if not entirely novel, questions.

I say that the questions were not entirely novel, because in this House in January 1960, a Mr Leslie Hale, who was then the Member for Oldham West, moved to repeal the Justices of the Peace Act 1361, among whose provisions was one to outlaw eavesdropping. A predecessor of mine as Solicitor-General, Mr Peter Rawlinson, then the Member for Epsom, said:

“Translated into ordinary terms, the Bill which the hon. Member seeks to introduce, dressed up like a radical bird of paradise, is nothing less than a modest charter for peeping Toms and eavesdroppers…It is also a charter for other strange people who pester law-abiding citizens and persons of that kind.”

He went on to say:

“The modern use of the Bill is mainly to prevent the ordinary citizen from being pestered by those unbalanced eccentrics who, with an imagined grudge, patrol the outskirts of houses, terrifying families by constant use of the telephone, or by those people who are unbalanced and usually malevolent but who do not break the law by means of assault or trespass. Therefore, there is no weapon which the law-abiding citizen has against them except the use of these powers which may be the only effective one which rests in the hands of such citizens.”—[Official Report, 26 January 1960; Vol. 616, c. 54.]

So over a period of about 600 years the issue of intrusion into the private lives of others by use of illegal listening devices, be it the human ear or electric surveillance machinery, has been current. This is one of the reasons why the inquiry by Lord Justice Leveson was initiated.

At heart, it seems to me that we are discussing the age-old problem now described as the tension between articles 8 and 10 of the European convention on human rights. Very often, people seem to remember the rights, but they do not seem to remember the exceptions to those rights. Article 8 says:

“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”,

but it goes on to say:

“There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”,

so it is very much a qualified right, as is article 10, which provides the right to freedom of expression. It states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.”

But paragraph 2 says:

“The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

There are the tensions between articles 8 and 10, and there also are the exceptions to those two great rights which nobody in the House or elsewhere would find in the least bit controversial.

The issue that we are confronting—my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the Chairman of the Select Committee, drew this out, as have other Members this afternoon—is not whether we should have state regulation of the press. We are not talking about state regulation of the press in the sense that Mugabe, Putin or the Chinese politburo control the press. What we are talking about is whether the press needs to have a self-regulated body which is recognised by the state as being a competent authority to regulate the press’s activities.

The distinction is important. Much of the argument that one has seen in the press and elsewhere, and to some extent in discussions in and around the House, has been utterly off the point. It is to traduce the work of Lord Justice Leveson to suggest that he wants state control of the press. He has said on any number of occasions—I shall quote one or two examples—that the ideal that he is looking for is that

“the industry should come together to create, and adequately fund, an independent regulatory body, headed by an independent Board, that would: set standards, both by way of a code and covering governance and compliance; hear individual complaints against its members about breach of its standards and order appropriate redress; take an active role in promoting high standards, including having the power to investigate serious or systemic breaches and impose appropriate sanctions; and provide a fair, quick and inexpensive arbitration service to deal with any civil complaints about its members’ publications.”

As a member of the Bar, I would of course like people to litigate—that is how I pay my mortgage—but the short point is that if a system can be devised that has the approval of Parliament and which carries with it public approval and confidence, it seems to me that that mechanism, just as the Financial Services Authority is a body given permission by statute, could allow the press to inhabit a world of free expression, subject to articles 8 and 10, that would not interfere with its rights but would also adequately protect, by self-regulation, the rights of the victims of press intrusion and other forms of activity that are subject to the criminal or civil law. Of course many of the activities that led the Government to set up the Leveson inquiry were already against the criminal law, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) correctly spotted. It is illegal to hack, blag and interfere with other people’s telecommunications under various statutes going right back to the 1361 Act that outlawed eavesdropping.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Did not Lord Justice Leveson say that criminality on an industrial scale was itself part of a persistent culture of abusing private individuals, in particular, who have no recourse unless through my hon. and learned Friend, notwithstanding his modest costs? We in this House at least have a forum, but they have none at all, and that is why the report is so important. It revealed that there was a culture, and the press must deal with that, not just the criminality.

[Sir Edward Garnier]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Two questions must be asked of any and every proposal for legislation. The first is what problems it will solve and the second is what problems it will create.

First, the problems that gave rise to the Leveson inquiry were phone hacking, bribing and outrageous criminal libel. Those are already against the law or legal redress exists for them. The problem was a failure to enforce the law. Leveson boldly dismisses those issues in asserting, without adducing any evidence, that

“More rigorous application of the criminal law…does not and will not provide the solution.”

Of course it will. It is now, belatedly, doing so. Scores of people have been arrested and face serious charges. That is a powerful deterrent against any repetition.

The apparatus of independent regulation backed by statute, which Leveson proposes, would have no powers to address the very problems that he was supposed to be dealing with. Indeed, it could not do so, because they are matters for the police and the judiciary. His solution would not have prevented or provided punishment for the hacking of Milly Dowler’s phone, the payments to police by the News of the World or the vile libel by the Sunday Express of the McCanns. Indeed, Leveson states in his recommendations that

“The Board should not have the power to prevent publication of any material, by anyone, at any time”.

The board could not, therefore, have stopped that libel.

If Leveson had acknowledged that, it would have truncated his report, so he went ahead and proposed a regulatory structure that, amazingly, does not specify the problems with which it is supposed to deal. It is a solution looking for a problem. That, in my experience, is a dangerous thing to create. It would have powers to draw up a code of practice, but Leveson does not spell out what the contents of the code should be. The independent regulator, with the approval of its statutory minder, but not of this House, would be able to select the problems that it tackled.

The second question is what problems the proposal might create. Leveson was goaded into making complex proposals by the two most dangerous phrases in the political lexicon: “Something must be done” and “The status quo is not an option.” That is the mantra of those in the commentariat who have no idea what should be done, but who want to sound positive. I have little sympathy for the newspapers that invariably demand unspecified Government interference to solve any problem and now find themselves hoist by their own petard. The status quo, however unsatisfactory, is sometimes less bad than all the alternatives. Churchill said that democracy is the worst kind of government except for all the alternatives, and I believe that a free and unregulated press, with all its failings, is the worst kind of media except for all the alternatives, which, by necessity, involve state regulation.

I do not have a rosy view of the press and I suffered from them repeatedly over 20 years. I remember the “back to basics” initiative, when John Major’s use of that phrase was taken by the media as advocating family values, even though he made no reference to that. The press claimed it was their duty to investigate the private life of every Cabinet Minister. They called on all my neighbours, offering them money if they had “any filth about Lilley.” They offered rewards in the local pub opposite my house for people who knew anything about me or could see any “goings on” in our bedroom. Worst of all, the Daily Mirror made its front-page splash a story about me visiting my nephew who was dying of AIDS. It was intended to smear me in some vile way, but it simply caused immense distress to my sister. It was a vile time so I know how horrible a free press can be.

Had the strong, independent regulator underpinned by statute that we are considering existed, would—and should—it have called off the press hounds during “back to basics”? There were no calls from the Opposition Benches for the then regulator to do so. I do not believe that a regulator should have the power to do so, but if it did have such a power, the decision would be intensely political. We would be handing over to the regulatory body a political power of which we need to be aware.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Those of us who have sympathy with Leveson’s case are not seeking to hand over powers. We are seeking to establish—I think there is common ground across the House on this—whether the press should set up a robust self-regulatory body. There is nothing from our experience of the past 70 years that offers any confidence that it is capable of doing that, which is why some of us believe—as Lord Justice Leveson said—that there should be some statutory validation of that self-regulatory body.

Voting Eligibility (Prisoners)

Gerald Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is time to call a knight of the realm. I call Sir Gerald Howarth.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

In thanking you, Mr Speaker, and in congratulating my right hon. Friend, may I suggest to him that it is an affront to the British people that judges from such A-list countries as Andorra, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg should be seeking to usurp the judgments of this sovereign Parliament? In so doing, they have, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) implied, discredited themselves. It is not we who are discredited by this judgment; it is they who have discredited the Court.

[Chris Grayling]

I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on these matters. What I would say as Lord Chancellor is that it is important always to remember that judges, whoever they are and in whichever court they are, be it the European Court or a national court, have the right to reach the decisions they reach. We may violently disagree with those decisions, but they have the right to reach them, and it would be a sad day when they no longer had that right. Our job and duty as legislators—the job of national Parliaments such as this—is to exercise sovereignty when we wish to do so. If we do not like the decisions that judges take, we always have at our disposal the ability to change the law. My statement today indicates to Parliament that the legal precedents before it are very clear: it has the right to disagree with the decisions reached in the Court in Strasbourg, but it would be for Parliament to decide whether it wishes to exercise that sovereignty.