European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

This is the second day on which I have sat listening to many good speeches on this topic, but I cannot help but feel that during some of them, irony sits heavily in the air; we have heard about “scrutiny”, “democracy”, “democracy of the people” and “functioning democracy”, but where has democracy been for the past 44 years? Where has it gone over those 44 years? It has gone into the powers of a bunch of unelected Commissioners who tell us what to do.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that none of those who are criticising the points he is making have brought forward, in the years I have been in this House, a reform of the process they now so wish to cling to?

[Richard Drax]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come to that very point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

rose—

[Ian Paisley]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Ghani]

I am so sorry; I have been told that I need to crack on because of the time. I do apologise.

The Bill allows for an orderly exit from the EU. A vote against it is a vote for a chaotic Brexit, and such a vote would be irresponsible and undemocratic. That is not what the country voted for. Our job as parliamentarians is to deliver a smooth exit from the EU. I will be supporting democracy and respecting the will of the British people by supporting the Bill tonight.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), on the common-sense position that Labour has adopted on EU withdrawal and on this democratic travesty of a Bill. We certainly look forward to seeing him in my constituency, where his appearance next month is eagerly awaited.

Following the referendum, it is sadly clear that we will end our formal membership of the European Union. The question is how and what the future holds. As far as our country’s future relationship with our neighbours is concerned, Brexit should never become synonymous with “break it”, which, thankfully, only a minority of people want. There has to be a transitional agreement with the EU, as it will be impossible to reach a comprehensive deal at all levels by the end of March 2019. Common sense says that such an agreement should include our remaining in the single market and the customs union. The Prime Minister’s policy stance means that the Bill is inimical to that common-sense course. That is the effect of clause 9, and that is a good, substantial reason to oppose the Bill.

The Government have not yet allowed a meaningful vote in Parliament on the terms of our withdrawal before the Bill implements those terms. That is another good, substantial reason to oppose the Bill. I voted consistently against triggering article 50 in the absence of assurances about that, about the rights of EU nationals who are already here and of our citizens on the continent, and about much more besides.

Like the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), I did not vote for the referendum legislation in the first place, because I thought it was a thoroughly bad idea, as it is certainly proving. I certainly will not vote to give this dreadful Bill a Second Reading tonight, but I will respect the referendum result by voting for the reasoned amendment. This flawed piece of legislation, with its flawed approach, needs to go back to the drawing board and return in better shape in October.

I will not dwell on clause 7 or any other clauses for too long—they have been well and truly dissected by many good speeches already—but I will show my constituents, to whom I will have to explain my votes, that I have indeed read the Bill by saying that when I got down to clause 7(2)(f)(ii), my jaw, which I had already prised off the ground, bounced off terra firma again. I will explain to my constituents why. To take one example, that clause proposes—in a modern parliamentary democracy, not a feudal, despotic monarchy—that a Minister of the Crown will have the power to issue regulations, which could not be changed, to correct parts of law that he or she does not consider

“it is appropriate to retain”.

And so the Bill goes on. That is not just profoundly undemocratic; as hon. Members have already pointed out, that approach to vesting such sweeping powers and discretion in this particular Executive flies in the face of the message sent by the British people in June.

The Prime Minister called that opportunistic, unnecessary election, confident that it would deliver her an increased majority, a highly personalised vote of confidence and a mandate to do what she pleased. But she was rumbled and found wanting—it did not. The country said, “No way” to “My way or the highway.” Our country would certainly not want us to vest in a minority Government the powers in the Bill, which might affect so many lives with minimal parliamentary oversight. If we do grant them, people will ask us—they are already—what is the purpose of electing MPs in the first place.

Let us take a look at some of the Ministers of the Crown whose sparkling judgment and impeccable intentions we are asked to trust. We are told that they would include in a blizzard of regulations only technical amendments and would not try to slip through anything more fundamental or controversial. As examples, let us take the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and his one-time friend then victim, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). At the very top of the tree, our people gave their verdict in the general election on the Prime Minister’s powers of judgment. Every fortnight, there is a very funny column in Private Eye from the headmistress of “St Theresa’s Independent State Grammar School for Girls (and Boys)” now incorporating the “William III Orange Academy”. Just where are the two right hon. Gentlemen I mentioned who gave such a tour de force of alternative facts with bravado during the referendum? Well, they are back at the heart of the staffroom. What successful school rewards bad behaviour? It would be in special measures. What governing body would put the sort of trust that the Bill asks for in such a headmistress and her senior—I use the term loosely—“leadership team”?

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Gentleman always makes good arguments, but is he actually telling us that we should just continue to accept European directives over which we have absolutely no say whatsoever? At least we can elect and change the Government here.

[Paul Farrelly]

The Bill asks us to transfer to the Executive what the hon. Gentleman considers a flaw without this Parliament having much of a say in what may happen. There are good reasons to oppose the Bill on the basis of clause 9 and the lack of a meaningful vote in Parliament—the Bill would allow the Government to get around that.

To continue the school metaphor, the Bill is not only unsatisfactory and in need of improvement, but wholly inadequate. The Government need to go back to the drawing board and rethink their approach. There is no mandate for a hard, cliff-edge Brexit or for shredding long-won relationships with the other 27 countries of the European Union, nor is there a mandate for a hard transition. There is certainly no mandate to hand the powers in the Bill to a minority Government and a caretaker Prime Minister. I hope that my colleagues and concerned Members on both sides of the House will vote against the Bill. Not to do so would give the Government a strong signal that they can get away with anything they like.

Prisons and Courts Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 20th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that many people in prison suffer from serious issues such as the ones he mentioned. Therefore, we are going to give prison governors co-commissioning powers over health services in their prisons so that they can design them around the needs of those offenders, helping them to get the treatment that they need to live a lawful life once they leave prison.

The Bill will usher in a new era for our courts, modernising a process that remains fundamentally unchanged from the Victoria era. Our reforms, in this Bill and wider, create a system that is fit for the 21st century, providing better protection for vulnerable victims and witnesses, improving access to justice for ordinary working people, who will be able to access the courts in a much simpler and more efficient way, and promoting our reputation for global legal excellence and as the best place to do business.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Elizabeth Truss]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before I talk through the detail of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I welcome the access to justice proposals in the Bill. I urge the Secretary of State to discuss with the devolved Administrations, particularly Northern Ireland—when we hopefully get a Government up and running again there—rolling out the process there so that Northern Ireland can share in the expertise and expense of the system that she has put in place?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I understand that the hon. Gentleman has had a demonstration of our system, and I look forward to discussing with him further how we can share best practice.

Prisons rightly punish those who break the law, but they should be a place of safety and reform where prisoners can turn their lives around to then lead a lawful life outside prison. Sadly, that is not the case at the moment. The levels of violence in our prisons are too high, as last week’s shocking attack on the young officer at Oakhill shows. I am sure that the thoughts of all those in this House are with him and his family at this very difficult time.

We have worrying levels of self-harm and deaths in custody. The “Prison Safety and Reform” White Paper, which I launched in November, set out a clear plan, combining immediate action to increase staffing levels and track drugs, drones and phones with radical reforms to get offenders off drugs, into work and away from crime for good.

Animal Cruelty: Sentencing

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Nine hundred years before Christ, the prophet Solomon wrote the instructive and very apt words:

“A righteous man regards the life of his beast.”

Unfortunately, today we have a situation where we see that regard for a beast has been replaced by brutal and depraved wickedness against animals. Indeed, the startling report that the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) has brought before us by stops us in our tracks, by showing us how wicked some people can be.

In Northern Ireland, since 2012 4,000 cases of animal cruelty have been reported and investigated by the authorities every year. Think of that—since 2012, there have been 16,000 incidences of cruelty against animals in Northern Ireland. However, less than 120 cases are brought before the courts annually. In a week when it is fashionable to criticise the judiciary, and I will criticise the judiciary in this regard, we see that we have a record of lenient sentencing, even in the trailblazing Northern Ireland; I am glad that the hon. Member talked about Northern Ireland in that way.

In fact, between 2012 and 2014, there were 114 convictions for animal cruelty in Northern Ireland, but only 15 of them resulted in custodial sentences. They were for pretty horrible cases. I do not want to go into the details, but in one instance a judge said in his summing up that he had seen

“one of the vilest examples of premeditated abuse”

of animals ever produced in Northern Ireland, when a cat was torn to pieces by fighting dogs. What sentence did that judge decide to hand down in that case in Northern Ireland? Wait for it—it was a sentence of six months, suspended. That was utterly pathetic. In my constituency, a 46-year-old man allowed his dog to starve to death and he received a non-custodial sentence and a stunning fine of £274.

Unfortunately, a message has been sent out by the judiciary that people can get away with perverse wickedness against animals, and that has got to stop. So what have we got to do? I hope that the Minister looks at the example of Northern Ireland and introduces four or five key measures. I agree that a register must be put in place. We have the perverse situation where I could be convicted today of abusing or hurting an animal and so long as it is not widely reported, the very next day I can go to a pet shop or a dog dealer and procure another animal to torture and to be inhumane towards. That is wrong; only a register will start to resolve that particular issue.

Secondly, we need to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. I welcome the fact that in Northern Ireland we have increased the fines and sentences that can be imposed, but those matters have not yet been tested and I wait eagerly for the first test in a court of law.

We have the perverse situation whereby if I am careless with my animal and it fouls on a pavement I can be given an £80 fine, but there are examples of £200 fines for people who have starved their animals to death. That is wrong; it must change, and change dramatically. We need a minimum fines system, whereby any act of animal cruelty will receive a minimum fine of £1,000. That system should be introduced, as well as a register.

We also need the ability to review sentences. The hon. Member for Redcar made it clear that the case she referred to had gone to a magistrates court. If she had wanted that sentence to be reviewed, of course she would have been told by the Director of Public Prosecution and the Attorney General that their hands were tied. We need to have a system whereby such cases can be reviewed. Actually, a call for that system to be introduced in Northern Ireland was made just yesterday. The Agriculture Minister has recommended that that change in the law should be made and I eagerly anticipate its being made; I hope that it is made quickly.

Maximum sentences in England should also be increased, in line with Northern Ireland. It is very unusual for me to say that; it is normally the other way round. It is important that the sentencing issue is addressed.

There are some good examples of work being done, but there are many other openings for people to abuse animals. For example, if someone can go on to Gumtree and buy a pet, that is wrong. That opens the way for cruelty and such gaps in the law must be addressed.

I know that the Minister is eager to do something about this issue; I know that he is willing to do it; and I hope that he will pick up on some of the examples that have been given today. I also hope that we can see a better, fairer place, where we have a righteous regard for our beasts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will come on to the six-month point in a second, but on the five-year point, a maximum five-year sentence would be the equivalent of a sentence for gross bodily harm of a human being. Those are serious offences, and we do not have to stand back. The penalties need to work across the board. In other words, if we increase the penalty to five years in line with GBH, we will have to look at sentencing across the board. That is something the Government need to do to ensure consistency in the criminal law, which is important. As far as Scotland is concerned, again this is a devolved matter.

As is often said, however, prevention is better than cure. To that end, some animal welfare organisations help educate youngsters in animal welfare. I should mention the role of the RSPCA, as other Members have. It does great work in schools. Blue Cross, too, works in schools with children to help them become informed, responsible and active citizens. It is interesting to note from my research for the debate that the RSPCA has been campaigning for and enforcing animal welfare legislation for nearly 200 years. In that time the organisation has built huge expertise in animal welfare. It of course not only prosecutes people, but provides advice to owners about how to look after their animals properly. The Government recognise that tremendous effort, and it is to the credit of the RSPCA that it has improved the lives of many animals.

I am, however, aware of horrible cases, some of which have been mentioned today, specifically the one involving the Frankish brothers and their pet bulldog. I hope that Members appreciate that I am unable to respond specifically on the details of that case, but many people consider the penalty to have been too lenient. On that point, I would pick up on another issue that was raised: how we deal with unduly lenient sentencing. The Attorney General refers some sentences he considers unduly lenient to the Court of Appeal to reconsider. Those are summary-only offences and so animal cruelty is not currently within that scheme. That includes assault on humans and common assault, which are also not within the scheme. The Government are considering the scope of the scheme and how to implement our 2015 Conservative manifesto commitment to expand it.

On sentencing, we should remember that it is a matter for our independent courts. The court is best placed to decide on the appropriate penalty for an offence because it is in possession of the full facts of the case, many of which might not be reported in the newspapers. When deciding what sentence to impose within the maximum limits available, the courts are required to take account of all the circumstances of an offender, as well as mitigating and aggravating factors.

On maximum penalties, it is worth stressing that while sentencing is a matter for the courts, setting the framework that the courts work within is a matter for Parliament, as we all know as legislators. The maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal was set by Parliament to cover the most serious imaginable behaviours for that specific offence. It was only last year that the maximum fine for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal was raised from £20,000 to an unlimited fine, although I note the point made by the hon. Member for Redcar that in imposing that fine, the courts often means-test it to make sure that it is payable. I am aware of that nuance.

[Ian Paisley]

Is the Minister saying that as a rule of thumb a sentence against animal cruelty must be lower than a sentence imposed for human cruelty?

[Mr Gyimah]

Not at all. On the contrary, what I was saying is that any change in sentencing in one part of the law has to be made consistent across the entire criminal justice system. If there were a sentence of five years, we would need to look at other offences of a similar nature that have a five-year sentence to make sure that there is consistency. My point is about consistency in criminal law rather than about distinguishing between one form of cruelty and another.

The Government recognise that maximum penalties should be set to allow the courts to respond appropriately to the full range of cases that they are likely to face—my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton made that point. It is worth looking at some data. In 2015, 614 people were sentenced for the offence of causing, permitting or failing to prevent unnecessary suffering to an animal. The average custodial sentence was nearly three and a half months. If judges are not going up to the maximum six months, there is a question whether the issue is with the maximum sentence length or the courts are finding the current sentencing powers inadequate or restrictive in dealing with those cases. We have to look at that.

The maximum penalty for animal cruelty offences is under review. I assure the hon. Member for Redcar that we are also looking at that very closely in the context of broader criminal law. We do not want to create anomalies with other criminal offences. It is worth bearing in mind that the offence of common assault also has a maximum penalty of six months. In other words, if we were going to make a change here, we would have to look at the area of common assault as well.

It would be contrary to our system of justice simply to impose the maximum penalty, regardless of the circumstances, for any offence. Making all sentences the same would remove the courts’ ability to single out and highlight the more serious cases with more serious sentences. In short, prescribing sentences in that way could lead to injustices that we would want to avoid.

The sentencing guidelines for animal cruelty offences are issued by the independent Sentencing Council, as the House is aware. The council has recently consulted on revised guidelines for sentencing in the magistrates courts, which includes animal cruelty offences. The revised guidelines are designed to highlight the aggravating factors that are particular to those offences. That will assist magistrates in identifying the most serious cases that will in turn deserve longer sentences. Throughout the development of the guidelines, the council worked closely with the RSPCA and is now reviewing consultation responses and developing definitive new guidelines, which it intends to implement in May next year.

A point was made about a register for animal abusers, to prevent them from obtaining animals in the first place. DEFRA has no plans to introduce an animal abusers register. I do not consider it appropriate or necessarily proportionate, because we would then expect pet vendors and animal rehoming centres to check the details of all prospective animal owners. That would be quite an onerous approach.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for securing it and the members of Women Against State Pension Inequality, many of whom are here, for their successful petition.

There is a great deal of heat in this debate; I hope that at the end of it, we will get a bit of light as well. We owe it to the many people who have signed this petition to lift the fog of debate. I say that because many of my constituents have contacted me to ask for clarification of many of the issues raised here. The Minister has an important role to play in ensuring that some of those issues are clarified.

What is clear is that we all agree on equalisation of the state pension age. It is the right thing to do. It is equally right that we are regularly reviewing the age at which we retire. The great news is that we are all living longer, but we cannot possibly expect that not to affect the age at which we can retire. Surely it cannot be sustainable for us to live longer in retirement than in employment. The sums simply do not add up.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Lady have some heart for my constituent Lilian, who this year had the honour of receiving an MBE but was told in the same week that she is not getting her state pension? You could not meet a more loyal person or a more honoured person, nor a more betrayed person.

[Mrs Miller]

The hon. Gentleman makes his own point in his own way, but we are trying to take some of the emotion out of this debate to get to some of the facts, and we owe it to those people who are really heavily engaged in this debate to do that.

We need a fairer pension system and one in which everybody knows what they are going to get out of it at the end, not only from the state pension system but from private pensions as well. It would be very fair of us all here today to be highly critical of the pensions industry for the opaque way in which it operates, which makes it is very difficult for us to know exactly what we will get and when.

I shall refocus on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) made, namely that the petition being debated today creates some of the fog because it appears to call for change that puts all women in their fifties who were born on or after 5 April 1951 and who are affected by the changes to the state pension age to be in exactly the same financial position that they would have been in if they had been born or before 5 April 1950. That appears to be a call for a significant change, which I am not sure has been advocated in the contributions made by hon. Members thus far.

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I believe that Parliament should be in the business of giving people reason to live, not of creating laws that facilitate and accelerate people’s death. I say that with respect to those who have today given their own personal, trying and solemn examples, but I believe that the balance is all wrong in this Bill and that is why I will vote against it.

We all know that it is not necessary to change the law in order to have dignity in death. That has existed from the very beginning of time. Indeed, it is in the natural order of things.

I understand what pastoral care is like. I grew up in a manse. People would come every day to my father’s manse and witness people with illnesses and sicknesses who needed to be comforted.

I also have a more personal story to tell. A year ago to this day, my father passed away, and tomorrow we will celebrate his anniversary. Eighteen months prior to that, he had been in hospital. He had suffered a very serious illness and ended up on a life support machine. On his fifth day on that life support machine, the doctors indicated to us, “Look, your father’s probably going to die in the early hours of the morning. You should prepare yourselves and be ready for the eventuality.” We did. We prepared his funeral. We sat as a family and talked about what we should do over the next few days.

That night, amazingly, my dad sat up in bed and demanded a cup of tea. He went on to enjoy another hearty year, and we went on to enjoy his company and lovely presence for another year. We planned his funeral with him, and it was a very different plan—it was noted publicly for being very different—from ours. Some people may say, “We have a right to do this and to tell people, ‘It’s now time: this person is now a burden on society’,” but that is not what we as legislators and as a Parliament should be doing. We should be taking stock and saying, in his voice, “No.”

Colin Worton

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the case of Colin Worton and compensation following an acquittal.

The case of Colin Worton is an indictment of the justice system and how it operated in Northern Ireland. I ask Members to cast their minds back 32 years, to when Northern Ireland was in the midst of the troubles. At that time, a Roman Catholic workman, Adrian Carroll, was murdered, gunned down in the streets of the city of Armagh. That was an injustice that has not been properly addressed. In fact, 32 years ago, a double injustice was done, when Colin Worton, a serving solider in the Ulster Defence Regiment, was arrested, held, questioned and subsequently charged. He was held behind bars for several years awaiting trial, where the case was thrown out because it was deemed by the judge that the statement he had made had come about under severe duress.

That injustice affected Colin Worton’s entire life and all his family. His father had already lost one son to terrorism, gunned down in the Kingsmill massacre. He then effectively lost his other son, Colin—a man who was serving Queen and country—along with Colin’s good character, through a smear and a charge that he was somehow a terrorist.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Colin Worton served in the Ulster Defence Regiment, as did I. He worked long hours, at unsociable times. Is it not despicably wrong that a man who gave so much for Queen and country and for his neighbours and his friends—indeed, to protect his enemies as well—is still waiting on justice today?

[Ian Paisley]

My hon. Friend’s comments echo and amplify the indictment of a system that has blinded itself. Justice has to be fair, but when it blinds itself so much to an injustice that it cannot find a mechanism or way to clear and compensate a man properly, something is fundamentally wrong with the system.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this debate. As he knows, many of us in this House have been trying to get a debate on the issue for quite some time, so we are glad it is happening. There is something fundamentally wrong, as our hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has said, when someone who has served his country has to fight to bring his case to this House to try to get justice, rather than getting it, as he should, through the normal system.

[Ian Paisley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I commend his actions. He has campaigned for years on this case and has tried to help Colin in the many different forums in which he has been a representative. He has also lobbied constantly and, more important, kept applying for a debate as well. It was really only the luck of the draw, so to speak, that my name came up. I am delighted that he has been so supportive of this case over the years.

As I said, Colin Worton never had his name cleared properly. I welcome the statement of the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, Minister Ford, of a couple of months ago that

“there is no stain on Colin Worton’s character”,

but unfortunately those words are not matched by actions. If there is no stain on the character of a soldier, why for the past 32 years has it been impossible for him to get back his job in the Ulster Defence Regiment? If there is no stain on his character and he can hold his head high, as he has been told by officialdom, why does he not have the simple right to have his job back, to serve his Province and his people?

I will tell the House why: because there is a stain, which has prevented him from going back to his job and from having a proper income-generating life. As a result, he has been forced to do menial jobs around the country, because people whisper behind their hands, “He’s the boy who was part of that murder team that killed an innocent man.” We need to nail that, and nail it loud and clear. We need to point out that if there is no stain on the character of Colin Worton then, given that he has not been able to have his job back for the past 32 years, he must now be properly compensated under existing mechanisms. I will come to those mechanism, because the Minister for Justice in Northern Ireland could use his powers in a discretionary way, and he should be encouraged by this House and this Government to do so. It is no way to treat a citizen of the United Kingdom and former soldier of Her Majesty’s forces. In essence, compensation should be paid to Colin Worton for his loss.

The effect of wrongful arrest and imprisonment—wrongful waste of life—on any person is devastating, and that situation is always wrong. But when a person sees three of his colleagues having their convictions overturned on appeal and being given substantial compensation—rightly so; those three were all also soldiers in Her Majesty’s forces, I should add—he must feel doubly indicted and abused. It seems he is not entitled to the same level of compensation or the same sense that not only has he got overturned something that was wrongly said about him, but the state that did that has been forced to pay for that injustice.

According to the available information, previous Secretaries of State and the Northern Ireland Justice Minister have indicated that, under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, Mr Worton does not qualify for compensation. I believe that they are wrong in their interpretation of that section. I set that against the fact that we live in an era when the Northern Ireland Attorney General feels at liberty to recommend that there should be an amnesty system for terrorists to come forward to give evidence in historical cases without the risk of being prosecuted; it simply beggars belief that a man at the opposite end of the spectrum—a former soldier who has been told there is no stain on his character—is being punished for something he did not do in that same era. He is forced to live a life of little opportunity, with the stigma of a horrific murder latching itself to his hip despite his absolute innocence.

For Colin Worton to be told he falls outside the boundary of entitlement to compensation is wrong. The Northern Ireland Minister and the numerous Secretaries of State who come to Northern Ireland, should be encouraged to themselves encourage the devolution system to demonstrate the flexibility that it should have by addressing this particular injustice.

At Mr Worton’s initial trial, his so-called confession statement was deemed inadmissible as evidence because it had been extracted under extreme duress. Let me put that in the language of the street. Mr Worton had the crap kicked out of him until he said the right things. Once he had said them and had signed the right confession, he was going to be banged up in jail. That is what happened to three of his colleagues. Fifteen years later, those convictions were overturned and they were released. When Mr Worton’s case came to trial in 1986, the judge was so perplexed by what he saw that he immediately deemed that Mr Worton’s statement could not be used as evidence, and on that basis told Worton to leave the court room—he was a free man. That did nothing to compensate for the two and a half years he spent lingering in jail for the trial, and it did nothing to compensate him for the loss of his promising career in the services. It did nothing to compensate him for the now decades of financial loss and it certainly did not clear his name. When he left that courtroom, in the eyes of the general public, he got off. They thought, “He got off—he was lucky.”

That, unfortunately, has been the character of the case. There has been a very deliberate effort by many to continue to perpetuate the myth that these were lucky men. But no; these were innocent men, who were wrongly tried and wrongly convicted, and who eventually—thankfully—had their convictions overturned. There needs to be recognition of the serious nature of the case and of the fact that the overturning of the original trial of what became known as the UDR Four meant that convictions against soldiers in Northern Ireland for crimes halved. So few were ever convicted, and so few were ever involved in anything wrong, that this case was held up as an example of how soldiers had been involved in wrongdoing. When the case was thrown out, it halved the number of cases that could be pointed at to show that soldiers had done something wrong in Northern Ireland. That is why it is such an important example and such an important case, and why it has to be put right.

A false confession made under interrogation, of course, implies improper behaviour by the individuals who extracted it. There was therefore a “serious default”, or rather a lack of those words coming from the judge’s mouth. The judge should have recognised that that “serious default” was in place, and if he had recognised that and said so when he put Worton out of the trial, Worton would have been granted compensation. However, because of the lack of those two words, he did not get compensation under the scheme.

These are the words of the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland in a recent debate:

“The general principle behind any payment of compensation is to make reparation where the normal machinery of justice has demonstrably failed the accused person.”

In that debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly, 54 Assembly Members agreed that Worton should be compensated, whereas 27 Assembly Members did not. On that basis, there is a strong momentum to ensure that Mr Worton is properly compensated for this injustice. If he had been compensated in the 1980s when it happened, the matter would have gone away a long time ago.

It says something of the man himself that he has continued to campaign tirelessly, year in, year out, decade in, decade out, to clear his name, because he is so incensed by what has happened to him. His family are equally incensed, and rightly so. Mr Worton has, in my view, conducted this business well and in a dignified manner. He has never stopped in his mission to have his name properly cleared and to have compensation. This is a man whose brother was murdered by the Provisional IRA, and who served in the Ulster Defence Regiment to help protect the Province and its people he so dearly loved. This is a man who had every reason to hate the Irish Republican Army for what they did, yet he worked on behalf of this Government’s security forces to help bring peace to Northern Ireland.

Mr Worton’s father died having had one son murdered by terrorists and another one labelled a murdering terrorist. That injustice to his entire family must be properly addressed. That is why I am pleased that this matter has got the Floor of this House and pleased that it is recognised nationally that there is an issue which the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland must address expeditiously. It has been long enough in the making. They have time now in which they could address this case.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene, as I know he is winding up. I congratulate him on securing the debate, on the eloquence and force with which he is putting the case, and on the work that he and others have done to get justice, not just for Colin Worton, but for the other members of the UDR Four. Does he agree that although the Minister may say, “This is a devolved matter; it is for the Minister of Justice, the Assembly and so on,” this case is to do with the past in Northern Ireland, which is the responsibility of the Government here, and they have a major role to play? It is not a question of saying, “It is a matter for Northern Ireland Ministers.” This is a matter that involves the legacy of the past, and therefore it falls to people here to address it as well.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. He really gets to the crux of the matter: how we find the mechanics to solve this issue? How do we ultimately address it?

I hope that the Whips Office carries back to the Northern Ireland Office a very strong message. Heads have to be put together between the Northern Ireland Office and the Justice Ministry to find a way of resolving this legacy case once and for all. Resources are found for all sorts of things in Northern Ireland, and indeed, for all sorts of things across the United Kingdom. It would be very easy to solve this matter, and I hope that that message is carried back. My right hon. Friend has probably predicted the entirety of the speech of the Minister today. I understand why Ministers could be tied to such a degree, but there has to be some recognition that the devolved Administration have flexibility. They have the ability to find a mechanism—a special measure— through which they could address this case. I hope that they do. I hope that they are given the encouragement, and, if you like, the cover to allow them to act in this way, sure that what they are doing is right and what they are doing is proper.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I am not sure whether you would agree, Mr Speaker. I take the hon. Lady’s point, but I do not think that she follows it through logically. It comes back to this: the basic tests of Wednesbury reasonableness remain. The opportunity for judicial review remains and putting some balance or check in the process to say, “Before you intervene, you have to consider the costs” is not unreasonable.

Any decision maker can, of course, get things wrong, which is why we have judicial review. That remains. But equally, it is not unreasonable to say that when a challenge is brought, those who litigate ought to bear in mind the costs of their doing so. I understand the hon. Lady’s points, which she made eloquently in Committee. I have some sympathy with her, but the Bill does not do what she believes it does. I do not believe it undermines the scope for meritorious judicial review. It is not in the interests of anyone that the courts be clogged up with unmeritorious judicial review cases. There is no doubt that there have been a number of those.

On local government, let me suggest two instances of such cases. It is suggested that those who bring judicial review are often the aggrieved small people. That is not always so. When I was a Minister at the Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I suffered at the hands of CALA Homes in a very famous judicial review decision when we were attempting to carry out the will of the House and, clearly, of the electorate and remove the regional spatial strategies, which were discredited. A judicial review was brought against the Secretary of State and against the democratically elected planning authority, Winchester city council, which had gone through the process of standing up for its residents who did not wish to have a particular piece of land developed. What happened was that judicial review was used by, in effect, a predatory developer. There are many cases around the country where it is the big battalions who will use judicial review against elected local authorities. Redressing the balance is fair in that instance, too.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s giving way on this point. In Northern Ireland, we have the ludicrous situation whereby one Minister, namely the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, will take on other Departments to prevent them from implementing decisions that have been taken democratically. Does he agree that we are now in a terrible situation, whereby before a Department takes a decision, it seems to need to have lined up behind it the right person to fight the judicial review, which will inevitably come in any case once the decision is taken?

Police

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz]

It was not. A very large cheque was given but nothing was received in return by way of reform.

The creation of the NCA and the College of Policing and the abolition of the National Policing Improvement Agency, which I do not think functioned particularly well, and of the Serious Organised Crime Agency are examples of where the Government have got it absolutely right. We have a new landscape of policing, but I wonder whether this is the time to go ahead with such widespread cuts while knowing that to get the new structure up and running successfully it must be well resourced. The worst possible thing is to have new structures without providing the money that is necessary for them to do their job. I hope that if those organisations require additional resources they will be given them.

I bumped into Keith Bristow recently as he was coming out of the Home Secretary’s office and I reminded him that he had not appeared before the Committee for a while. He told me of all the NCA’s successes. He is very much a hands-on person and will go on operations, and he invited the Select Committee to join him on an NCA operation. The problem with SOCA was that we never knew what it was doing as well as we know what Keith Bristow and the NCA are doing. Why? Members of the NCA tell the press that they are going to raid someone and everyone turns up and we all know the good work that the agency is doing.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on the critical subject of the NCA, and I welcome the information it provides. In Northern Ireland, we are significantly handicapped by the fact that the necessary measures have not been implemented to allow the agency to operate in Northern Ireland. The border stops at Stranraer and Liverpool for us because the Northern Ireland Assembly has failed to agree a way forward for the agency’s operation. Does he agree that this House must get to grips with that and protect all its citizens all the time?

[Keith Vaz]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I went to Belfast on his invitation, where I met Matt Baggott, to whom I pay tribute as I understand that he has just announced that he will leave the police after many years of service. It is right that the NCA should cover the whole of the United Kingdom and we should not have a situation in which a separate deal must be made with the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the Chairman of the Committee for Justice in his Assembly will persist in their efforts to ensure that the NCA covers the whole of Northern Ireland.

I say to the Minister—I know that he is deep in conversation with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose)—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I apologise for arriving late to the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am sure you will forgive me because I was at a debate in the other place on the future of the currency in Scotland after 2014, and that is an important issue for us all.

I welcome the reality-check speech by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), and it is important that we pause and carry out a reality check regarding policing budgets in our constituencies and how that affects us. Let me say at the outset that I miss the voice of the former Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. It was in debates such as this that he really made his mark because he knew the subject so well. His expertise was honed in Northern Ireland when dealing with policing and police infrastructure there, and we miss his wisdom in these debates.

Northern Ireland’s policing is going through a significant change. Our Chief Constable has announced that he intends to step down in September this year after five years of service, which means that we have to open up a new policing competition. No doubt many current deputy chief constables and police chief constables across England, Scotland and Wales will look at the opportunity offered by the job of Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Our last three Chief Constables were brought in from services on the mainland, and the position offers a significant opportunity that needs to be strongly considered.

I pay tribute to the service of Matt Baggott and what he brought to policing. He was Mr Community Police Chief Constable, and he brought important principles of community policing into our service and on to the books and activities of our police officers, and we should pay tribute to that. I also pay tribute to our Deputy Chief Constable, Judith Gillespie, who has announced her retirement in the spring this year after 32 years of service. She became the highest-ranking female police officer ever to serve in Northern Ireland, which is a huge credit to her and the service she has given. Indeed, she did not take what could have been a lucrative severance package a few years ago, because she wanted to serve her community instead. That in itself should be marked and paid tribute to.

I want to bring key issues of national significance to the attention of the Minister. The National Crime Agency, under the management of Keith Bristow, is a very important development that we support, and I am glad that the House supports it too. What concerns me gravely is that it is being prevented from having operational power in Northern Ireland, because insufficient pressure has been applied by the Minister, or by his team, on the Northern Ireland Executive to sort this matter out. While there is a significant willingness by Unionist parties and the Alliance party to sort it out, they are being checkmated by the nationalist and republican agenda—indeed, it is those people who benefit from the fact that the NCA is not operational in Northern Ireland. They benefit because some of the people they previously ran with—serious and organised criminals—have a free run as the NCA has not been extended to Northern Ireland. Smuggling, prostitution, cross-border crime are not being ignored, but they are not being given the complete, full and proper attention that the NCA could give.

Importantly, our policing budget is being stretched, because our own police officers have to deal with those issues. I, and many politicians across this House, have met Keith Bristow, and I know the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has met him. He has indicated his willingness to be held to account by the current policing infrastructure in Northern Ireland, so that he can give certainty and transparency to the concerns—some legitimate, many fictitious—that some nationalists have raised. It is important that we put that willingness to be held to account on the record. If the NCA continues to be blocked from operating in Northern Ireland, I echo the words of the Northern Ireland First Minister when he spoke to the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs when it met in Northern Ireland. He said that this House should take the matter by the throat and insist that the NCA is put in place, over the head of the Assembly if necessary. Everyone is suffering as a result of what has happened and we should deal with it.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that he and I served on the Committee that introduced the NCA? Is he disappointed, as I am, that the assurances of the Minister have not been fulfilled? The comments that the hon. Gentleman is making now are the same as those he made in that Committee.

[Ian Paisley]

I thank the hon. Lady for saying that. I am delighted that she was listening to me in Committee—I thought we just spoke in this place and that no one actually listened. I am sad that my words were not heeded. We had a commitment from the then Minister with responsibility for policing to get something done and to sort the problem out. Well, it is not sorted out. We have a significant gap in policing national crime. That does not just affect Northern Ireland; it affects what these people do when they export their terrorism here to mainland Britain and on to Europe. We have a national responsibility to sort this matter out, and to sort it out fast.

I was delighted that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, was the first Chair of that Committee to visit Northern Ireland for about 20 years. He paid significant attention to this matter and met the Justice Minister at Stormont and the Chairman of our equivalent Select Committee, Mr Paul Givan. He went through the key issues with him and said that he and his Committee wanted to see the NCA operating properly and effectively in Northern Ireland. I will leave that matter with the Minister and I hope he will pick it up.

We have significant national crime problems in Northern Ireland and that is what I want to focus on in the rest of my remarks.

[Andrew Percy]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion relates to England and Wales and the hon. Gentleman has spoken for a considerable time solely about policing in Northern Ireland. He has just told us that he wishes to go on speaking about Northern Ireland, but the motion in the name of the Secretary of State states:

“That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales)…which was laid before this House…be approved.”

There is no mention of Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I do not believe that I have strayed from the issue. I have been talking about the National Crime Agency, which operates in the whole United Kingdom and whose budget is decided exclusively by this place—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) might have a bit of a giggle at that, but it is an important issue that affects criminality and how criminals operate in this country. He should know better. A so-called friend of Northern Ireland should know better than to try to raise a frivolous matter in this debate. I am surprised, because it is not a joke.

The National Crime Agency is a national issue, and the big issues of criminality that affect Northern Ireland have implications here. Of the drugs that circulate around Manchester and Liverpool, most of the cannabis is grown in Northern Ireland. Last year, 42 cannabis farms were discovered in Northern Ireland. Most of the trade was not in cannabis dealing or for smoking the drug in Northern Ireland: cannabis was brought to Liverpool on ferries and boats to be used in this part of the country. Hon. Members should wake up to that reality. The National Crime Agency is not operating as effectively as it should be operating in my part of the kingdom, so the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will face problems. He should recognise that. I am angry about that point, and it probably shows. It is just as well that I am on this side of the House and that there is a red line in front of me; I can tell the hon. Gentleman that.

Fuel smuggling is another important issue that is cross-border and cross-jurisdictional. Because of fuel smuggling in Northern Ireland, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Exchequer here lose £600 million a year. That is not a paltry sum. It is enough to run most of the hospitals in Northern Ireland. That is another national issue that is dealt with by HMRC and should also be dealt with by the National Crime Agency.

I now focus on how we pay to deal with national crime. There are 43 police services operational in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Only the Police Service of Northern Ireland picks up the tab for national security policing in its jurisdiction. That is wrong. That tab should be picked up nationally, in the same way that it is picked up for Manchester and Liverpool, here in London and in Scotland. The fact that it is not is putting policing in Northern Ireland at a significant disadvantage. This year, we are running a deficit of £30 million in policing, and next year that will increase to £57 million. In the next spending round, the figure will rise to about £200 million.

I urge the Minister, when he goes back and speaks to his Cabinet colleagues—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister—to make the case that this issue should be brought into the centre. Expenditure on dealing with national crime issues and terrorism should be paid for centrally, not locally. If we could get that budget paid for centrally, the current budget for Northern Ireland would allow us to employ the additional police officers that we need.

The Police Federation in Northern Ireland says that we are short of 1,000 officers. The Chief Constable says that he would like to run a competition to get another 300 to 500 officers, so we need to recruit a number of officers that is somewhere in the middle of the two figures. The only way we can achieve that is by addressing the deficit in our budget. None of the other 42 police services operational here is asked to pay for national security. Why are the police in Northern Ireland asked to pay for national security? We are not only dealing with Irish-based terrorism but with national criminality—and with Islamic terrorist activity as well. We pick that tab up too, and that is wrong.

The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee mentioned additional equipment for police officers and the wearing of cameras. They are expensive, but I believe they are useful and should be routinely deployed on police officers, not only to protect them from false allegations, but to ensure that civilians are protected whenever they come across police officers.

I agree thoroughly with the points made by the hon. Member for South Dorset. He made the point clearly that we need more bobbies on the beat. The more bobbies we have on the beat, the more we will see that they disrupt crime and play a very effective role.

I want to focus on an issue that has left a sour taste in everyone’s mouth—plebgate and its impact. Plebgate has left the police in London looking rather poor because of how officers approached a Member of Parliament. It is important that the employment in the Cabinet of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) is remedied soon. This is the appropriate place to make that point.

Leveson Inquiry

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I will make a little more progress.

We have not wasted time since last Thursday. Following the publication of the report, we have acted. Lord Justice Leveson recommended that there should be cost protection in defamation and privacy cases to ensure that ordinary people are not put off using the courts by the fear that they cannot afford it. The Justice Secretary has asked the Civil Justice Council to look at that issue and the Government will implement the changes at the earliest possible opportunity.

Additionally, some of Leveson’s recommendations build on work that has already been done by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers on behalf of the police. The report recognises that, because of that work, the policing landscape is changing.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her generosity in giving way to Opposition Members. I agree with what she has said about the status quo and about how the media should be monitored and regulated. However, the former editor of the Belfast Telegraph has said in today’s paper that the time when the press can mark their own homework is well gone and that the time when the press can determine what punishment they should face when they have breached the law is well gone. Does she agree?

[Maria Miller]

I agree that we need an independent self-regulatory system that can be overseen and is seen to be effective. I urge the hon. Gentleman to ensure that he has gone through the recommendations in detail. It is not the Government who are saying that the system should be put together by the press, but Lord Leveson himself, and he is right to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

The hon. Gentleman and I must be reading two different Acts, because section 44 of that Act contains statutory underpinning. It gives the Dail, the Irish Parliament, more direct power over the Press Council of Ireland than ever is proposed by Lord Justice Leveson for the press board in the United Kingdom.

[Ian Paisley]

In 2007, I was confronted by a journalist whose newspaper is subject to those regulations. I was handed my text messages and told that they were going to be printed. I threatened that Council on that journalist, and those texts never appeared—that Council does have teeth.

[Mr Straw]

It does indeed have teeth. I am afraid that the Secretary of State scored an own goal when she implied that because there had been no references made to the overseeing body it had somehow failed. If she read the Leveson report, she would have seen, on page 1715, that there have been

“between 340-350 complaints per year”

to the Irish press ombudsman, which was set up by this underpinning legislation. However, as people are satisfied with how this independent self-regulation, overseen by statute, works in Ireland, there have been no complaints to the higher body, and neither would there be here.

Extravagant complaints and comments have been made by journalists such as Mr Trevor Kavanagh, who is arguing with a report that does not exist, but quite a number of senior journalists have been altogether more thoughtful. Mr Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail told a seminar preceding the inquiry that

“there’s one area where Parliament can help the press. Some way must be found to compel all newspaper owners to fund and participate in self-regulation.”

Compulsion is the newspapers’ word, not mine, and their system of compulsion is the rolling contract proposal, but Sir Brian Leveson sets out in forensic detail why such a proposal cannot work.

The editors of The Guardian and The Times have both written thoughtful pieces. The editor of The Guardian spoke of the need for an arbitral arm that incentivised the regulated to pursue high standards and penalised anyone who walked away. Mr James Harding, editor of The Times, went further in a lengthy and very considered signed article. He said that the industry must have an “independent, muscular regulator”, and crucially he added that

“the Lord Chief Justice should appoint someone, probably an experienced lawyer, and a panel of two others to oversee this regulator…to prevent backsliding”

and to

“be a guarantor of the regulator’s independence and effectiveness.”

I agree with all of that. The issue for Mr Harding, Mr Rusbridger, Mr Dacre and most other thoughtful editors is how to achieve that end without the underpinning legislation that has been accepted in Ireland. The truth is that they cannot. In legal theory, if the Lord Chief Justice was willing, he could be asked to appoint a couple of retired lord justices of appeal to act as an arbitral body overseeing the regulator, but what would be their terms of reference or the criteria for their appointment? How would they operate? Any sensible Lord Chief Justice would say, “Thank you very much, but I am not getting into that unless I have statutory authority.” That is the fundamental flaw: the idea we can do all that while backing away from doing what was done in Ireland.

I want to make a final point about the internet. The editor of Mail Online, Martin Clarke, was quoted in last Saturday’s Financial Times saying in a rather triumphant tone that the internet had

“destroyed the ability of governments, companies and individuals to control the flow of information to the public”.

This chap, Mr Clarke, is tilting at windmills. It is never our objective or that of anyone else for the state in a free society to control the flow of information to the public. The issue is ensuring that members of the public are not defamed and that their privacy is not unfairly intruded on. It cannot follow that because we cannot do everything we should do nothing.

Seventy years, seven reports. This is where 70 and seven equals nine: the press have had their nine lives. It is time for the Government to recognise that and to agree to implement this magisterial report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The mantra “press freedom” has become quite meaningless, as everyone is for press freedom, just as everyone is for mum and apple pie. All Members on all sides of the Leveson argument say they are for press freedom. Indeed, all of us can rightfully say that, because we are, indeed, all for press freedom. It has become a bit like patriotism, however, in that it is the last refuge of the scoundrel. We have to break the argument down and recognise that the wallpaper of press freedom must be examined.

The Secretary of State rightly said in opening the debate that the status quo is no longer an option. She was echoing the words of the Prime Minister, who said in July:

“I accept we can’t say it is the last chance saloon all over again. We’ve done that.”

We must try to give some life to this process. The press have had their last chance. They have had their drinks at the bar. It is now time to get them to face up to their responsibilities in ensuring we have a truly fair press. We must do that for all our sakes, but, most importantly, for their sake.

The Press Complaints Commission is a dismal failure, which is largely why we are debating this subject tonight. The tragic stories we have all heard—the Milly Dowler story and all the abuse stories—are just the tip of the iceberg, as there were years and years of build-up to Leveson. That was largely because the PCC failed to keep its house in order.

We in this House are really just fighting over the embers. Newspapers are becoming ever less important to this nation. My children will never buy a newspaper. They will get their news on handheld devices, and it will be tailored for them—they might want news about arts or music, and they will determine whether they receive political news. The press have in some sense already had their last chance, as they have lost their future audience because newspapers have, to a large degree, become discredited. Parliament and the nation at large should recognise that we have a duty to help to fix that.

Many Members have wrongly asserted that regulation is about we politicians having a say in the content of news journalism. There is a huge difference between regulation of content and regulation of process and behaviour, however. If we regulate the behaviour of journalists and the process they go through to get their stories, that will lead to better content, which will no longer be of the scurrilous nature of the worst examples we have actually had. Lord Leveson said:

“let me say this very clearly. Not a single witness proposed that either Government or politicians…should be involved in the regulation of the press. Neither would I make any such proposal.”

We should recognise that the regulation issue is not about our having a say on content; I do not mind what the press write about and what they decide they are going to write, but it is up to them to ensure that the content of what they write and how they get that content is proper and informed, and is not about trampling over people’s rights. We have had example after example of how the press have ignored that. We therefore need some sort of system in place that allows for proper regulation of behaviour, not regulation of content. That is a vital and important distinction, and I welcome the fact that talks are taking place between the two Front-Bench teams. I hope that they lead to agreement, because this should not be a party political issue. This should be something that this House can agree on entirely.

There are many areas in the Leveson inquiry with which I am disappointed. I believe that Leveson could have done much more on the daily papers outside London. The Northern Ireland newspaper editors were wheeled in, given a couple of hours in front of him and then wheeled out again. Many of us had written to Leveson prior to that, inquiring about suggestions and allegations about hacking in newsrooms in Belfast, but none of that was investigated. I am disappointed about that, because it should have been part of his investigation. I still await a response from Lord Leveson on the matters about which I wrote to him.

However, we have to take seriously the words of the former editor of the Belfast Telegraph. I am not the paper’s greatest fan and I am not its favourite character, but I believe that Ed Curran hit the nail on the head today when he wrote in a feature column:

“The newspaper industry has really no alternative but to…agreeing a totally independent regulatory body in which editors will have minimal or no say at all. Their role will be downgraded to offering advice, if asked for, in the adjudication of complaints but the days of having a direct say in decision-making”—

and in the punishment—

are gone.”

It is too late: the press can no longer be left alone to mark their own homework or to set their own punishment.

Defamation Bill

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 12th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments, because it is one of the ironies of this Bill starting in the Commons that the member of my ministerial team who has devoted the most time to producing it is unable to introduce it. My ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), will wind up this debate, and both he and I would acknowledge that our noble and right hon. Friend Lord McNally played a leading part in the whole consultation and scrutiny process.

Before I discuss the detail of the Bill, let me say that parliamentary debate always elicits a broad spectrum of opinion, and defamation reform is no exception. At one end of the range of views are still some who would like this country to move towards the United States’ model, with free expression always trumping other considerations and with little or no legal redress for those who have been defamed. I find that idea unattractive and think that the current process of American electioneering shows the dangers. The well-financed production of untrue or dubious personal allegations can be taken to great length if there is no adequate protection. At the other end of the range are a few people who think, particularly in light of recent media excesses, that we should teach newspapers a valuable lesson by encouraging anyone whose feelings have been hurt to sue them. I am not sorry to say that the Bill will disappoint those with either extreme of opinion, which I hope will be echoed very little by hon. Members on any Benches in this House.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I agree that no one wants to see the Americanisation of our libel and slander laws. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to Lord Mawhinney’s report and chairmanship of the Joint Committee. Lord Mawhinney made it very clear that access to justice was critical for the ordinary citizen. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that raising the “substantial harm” test raises the bar so high that the ordinary citizen will never go into the libel courts to defend themselves?

[Mr Clarke]

No; I shall try to address that issue throughout my remarks. The package that we have produced is aimed at reducing costs and producing more effective remedies for a wide range of people, as well as at reducing the burdensome cost for those trying to defend themselves against actions. I shall keep making remarks that address the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, because I am anxious to ensure that we are not making things more expensive or difficult for any litigant.

Our intention is to correct the worst excesses of our current system in which, particularly for the powerful and wealthy, the law makes it rather too easy to menace responsible publishers with libel proceedings. However, we do not want sensible mainstream reform to come at the cost of giving further licence to parts of the media to publish whatever they like without regard for the truth. Equally, we want to ensure—this is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley)—that it is possible for ordinary people to get a remedy, but only where their reputation has been seriously harmed. We do not want to open the floodgates to endless litigation in our courtrooms by people whose feelings have been hurt but who have not suffered any particular damage. Of course, the Bill is only part of the story. No doubt the conclusions of Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry will inform broader reforms to press regulation in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

As I said, we are not intending to fetter, as it were, the discretion of the court in the end to apply reasonable judgment to the particular circumstances of a particular case; this is meant to be illustrative. This is work that we have set out, and we will reflect on my hon. Friend’s point as we continue to scrutinise the legislation as it goes through this House.

Finally in this area of defences, we are extending the circumstances in which absolute and qualified privilege can be asserted. The defence of privilege is based on the principle that there are certain situations in which it is for the public benefit that a person should be able to speak or write freely, and that this should override or qualify the protection normally given by the law to reputation.

Clause 7 extends privilege to summaries of material as well as to reports and copies; broadens the international scope of the circumstances in which privilege applies; and clarifies that qualified privilege extends to reports of scientific and academic conferences and of press conferences. In a further important step forward for the protection of scientists and academics, clause 6 creates a defence of qualified privilege for peer-reviewed material in scientific and academic journals, as recommended by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill. The clause defines key elements of the peer-review process to ensure that publications with appropriate procedures will now be given the protection of this new defence.

All told then, I would argue to the House that the Bill is introducing sensible reform to protect freedom of expression by raising the bar for a claim and bolstering the defences available, with specific benefit for scientists and journalists. But we want to go further in some of the main areas of public concern, in particular by addressing libel tourism, which has sometimes caused damage to this country’s reputation around the world, as we are normally regarded as advocates of freedom of expression, in particular. Relatively few foreign libel cases ultimately end up in a British courtroom, but I am concerned by the use of threatened proceedings by wealthy foreigners and public figures to stifle investigation and reporting. Clause 9 addresses the issue in a measured and proportionate way, although it has had to be drafted to avoid any conflict with European law. It clarifies that a court will not hear a case against someone who is not domiciled in the UK or an EU member state unless satisfied that England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place to bring an action. It should help ensure that powerful interests around the world will not so easily be able to use British justice to gag their critics —a move that I hope will be welcomed across the House.

[Ian Paisley]

I appreciate the Secretary of State’s generosity in giving way on this point. He said that our courts are becoming—or could become—a laughing stock as regards libel tourism. Does he not agree that if someone is libelled or slandered by a British person or a British publication, the victim of that libel or slander has the right to seek remedy in this jurisdiction given that they have been victimised by that publication? Indeed, the accusation of libel tourism amounts only to about a dozen cases over past years and it really is not as big a problem as some people are suggesting.

[Mr Clarke]

I did not say that I thought our courts would be a laughing stock; I think that our libel and defamation laws are rather good and that is no doubt one reason people try to access them. We are trying to improve them. I do not think that our standards of justice are being hurt, but different societies will form slightly different judgments of where the balance lies between freedom of expression and giving a remedy to people who are defamed. I have already said that the United States of America, which resembles this country in some ways, takes a very different view of what is actionable and defamatory if it is produced in that country.

The problem arises when people come to this country because our system is more generous to their point of view to bring cases that have little or nothing to do with the United Kingdom. I give the example of a Saudi business man, say, threatening an American publication with an action because of an article that has had tiny circulation in the United Kingdom. That is a hypothetical case, but the Saudi would be using the nature of British law to threaten a publication in an entirely different jurisdiction. That is the evil we are trying to address. We are not trying to stop British publications being sued by anybody who can come here and show that we are the right jurisdiction.

[Ian Paisley]

I again appreciate the Secretary of State’s generosity. The Saudi gentleman does not exist, as the Minister has said, so let us consider the cases that do exist. A governor of the state of California sued a British newspaper because it carried inaccuracies about him and sued the publisher of a British book that claimed he was a Nazi sympathiser. Other prominent individuals come to this country who have been seriously slandered by publications; surely they have the right to seek a remedy here.

[Mr Clarke]

If anybody is defamed by a publication in this country or wants to act against a defendant who is domiciled in this country, they will be able to bring an action. I do not regard that as libel tourism. The problem arises when two people in the same country start suing each other because half a dozen copies of some foreign language publication have in theory been available on some bookstall in London and this jurisdiction is chosen to try to get a remedy. I hope that what we have done will ensure that people with powerful interests around the world will not so easily be able to use our courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

As my hon. Friend will know, it has always been the case that a dead person’s estate cannot sue for defamation. It is worth the Public Bill Committee considering the issue of deceased people’s reputations and the injury that defamation causes to their family. I am not sure whether the Joint Committee did so. However, there are very good reasons why a deceased person’s estate has never been able to sue for defamation.

[Ian Paisley]

I want to take the point that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) made slightly further. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the amount of intimidation of ordinary people on the internet, particularly schoolchildren. There are tweets that lead young people to feel so devalued that they attempt to take their own lives. I do not want to exaggerate the situation, but that is becoming a more regular occurrence. Something has to be seen to be done so that “trolls”, as Members have described them, are stopped in their tracks from hurting people to such a degree that they attempt to take their own lives.

[Sadiq Khan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that concern. I am afraid that many colleagues will be familiar with the type of bullying, harassment and intimidation that he talks about, which ultimately leads to people considering taking their own lives. When the Government drafted the Bill, they were keen to address a void that has not previously been filled. Clause 5 will allow websites to have action taken against them, but websites will be given greater protection from being sued if they help to identify those posting defamatory messages. It is hoped that that will lead to greater responsibility among both those who operate websites and those who post messages. People will know that they when they put a post on a website, it is possible that their details will be passed on to a potential claimant bringing an action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadiq Khan]

The hon. Gentleman is probably right, but as we have not seen the regulations—they have probably not been drafted—I am not sure. I commend him for his work on this. He has been involved in this issue since he was first elected, as have many colleagues on both sides of the House.

As has been said, many proposals in the Bill, including clause 5, will be introduced by regulations, probably via a negative resolution of the House, meaning, as I have just said, that we are in the dark on exactly how the measure will operate in practice; how a website operator is expected to respond, which was the point raised by the hon. Gentleman; and what protections are given to whistleblowers. For the sake of proper parliamentary scrutiny, it is imperative that the Government publish their regulations before Committee and subject resolutions to the positive procedure. That will allow Parliament properly to consider detailed plans that will have huge impacts on the operation of the Bill and defamation procedures.

Clause 6 creates a new defence of qualified privilege on peer-reviewed material in scientific or academic journals. We welcome the adoption of that recommendation from the Joint Committee.

Clause 8 introduces a single publication rule so that the one-year limitation period in which libel action can be brought will run from the date of the first publication of material, even if the same article is subsequently published on a website on a later date. The reform intends to end the current situation in which material in online archives is regarded as being re-published every time it is downloaded, which, in effect, leaves the archive operator with a limitless risk of being sued.

The Opposition also welcome clause 9, which seeks to deter those eyeing London as a location to pursue libel actions that they would not dream of pursuing in other jurisdictions. In recent years, our courts have clamped down on libel tourism, and I hope the measure, which gives courts more power to decide whether a case can be heard, will help. We need to reduce the potential for trivial claims and address the perception that English courts are an attractive forum for libel claimants with little connection to this country. We welcome steps to tighten the test to be applied by the courts in relation to actions brought against people who are not domiciled in the UK. I am, however, concerned about cases brought by EU citizens or in a state that is, for the time being, a contracting party to the Lugano convention.

[Ian Paisley]

This is a minor point about libel tourism, but if the law does not apply to the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland, those who would be precluded from taking an action and seeking a remedy in England could do so in Northern Ireland. Therefore, there needs to be consultation across the jurisdictions of the UK to get this right and tie it up completely.

[Sadiq Khan]

I am sure that the Justice Secretary has heard the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and will take on board the point he has made.

It is not clear either whether high-profile cases, such as that of Dr Peter Wilmshurst, to which the Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport referred, or that of Rachel Ehrenfeld, would have been prevented if clause 9 had been in place at the time. If the Justice Secretary or the Minister winding up the debate cannot address this issue, it will need to be looked at further in Committee.

Clause 11 removes the presumption in favour of jury trials in defamation cases. Although this reversal will, we hope, help to reduce costs and improve clarity, there is a danger in restricting jury trials, particularly where the key issue is who is telling the truth. However, the Bill still gives the court the discretion to order a jury trial where it considers that to be appropriate, which is an important safeguard. I note the comments made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and we expect that the Committee might want to explore the criteria for the judge to consider when deciding whether a jury trial should be ordered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I must say at the outset that I agree with the Secretary of State’s point that introducing law fit for the 21st century in this subject area is not straightforward. I think we would all say a hearty “Hear, hear” to that. It is not straightforward and it is right that this House should start to tackle it. I also believe that we should ensure that our defamation laws are not subject to abuse by those who bring forward trivial matters to block proper freedom of speech and freedom of expression on very important issues.

Like some Members, however, I am concerned by clause 1, which introduces the serious harm test. We should recognise that no matter how we cut this, a serious harm test will raise the bar for bringing a claim so that any case involving serious harm to the reputation of an individual can be brought only once serious harm is clearly established. That raises the bar for many people.

I asked an eminent lawyer in Belfast about that particular issue. Paul Tweed is the author of a seminal book called “Privacy and Libel Law” and practises in three jurisdictions. I asked him about that specific point and his answer was quite chilling. He said that

“anything short of being called an axe-murderer probably falls short of the requirement”.

We should therefore seriously consider the serious harm test, because it will have significant consequences not for people of reputation but for ordinary people who will have to consider very carefully whether to invoke the law to protect themselves.

Mark Twain wryly observed:

“There are laws to protect the freedom of the press’s speech, but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press.”

We should enact laws that actually protect people, but the press has become so powerful across the United Kingdom that ordinary people feel that they have no protection when they are smeared or slimed by the media, which has all too often been the case. We regularly see the withdrawal of a statement or a front-page story resulting not in a front-page apology but in a postage stamp of an apology beside the advertisements. Many ordinary folk feel that that is grossly unfair.

This law could have the effect of creating even greater freedom for the press. The general public find it more difficult to secure access to justice at present and I am concerned that we should ensure that access to justice is liberated and that people feel that they can use the courts to protect them when they are under attack.

Let me quote again from the letter I received from Paul Tweed, the solicitor in Belfast. He said:

“As a media lawyer of more than thirty years standing, and practising in three jurisdictions from offices in London, Belfast and Dublin, I can testify that it is now becoming almost impossible for a Claimant without substantial financial means to contemplate a libel action. Even before the introduction of any new legislation, the financial odds are stacked heavily against the ordinary man”

and they will not go to court.

Before changing our defamation laws, the Government should consider other matters. They should, for example, consider our privacy laws and try to clarify, consolidate and codify them. The press has the modus operandi that they can publish and be damned, knowing that many individuals are too intimidated to take, or financially deterred from taking, legal action, leaving their reputation sullied and scarred by the further accusation, “Sure, if it’s not true, sue them.” If people cannot afford to take legal action or are too intimidated by the prospect of going to court, the scar is all the deeper.

Not only should we codify our privacy laws, but we should have statutory regulation of the press. That should be considered in tandem with these changes to defamation law. This should be done completely, not piecemeal, as was suggested. The Press Complaints Commission has been a complete failure for individuals, whether people have an inflated reputation or otherwise. Ofcom has demonstrated that it can regulate slightly better than the PCC. The broadcast media generally are more responsible, as a result of the robust stance of Ofcom, not of the media.

Internet service providers operate in jurisdictions where they are immune from prosecution, so many ISPs are moving their activities to the United States of America, where they can publish whatever the heck they want and get away with it in the full knowledge that they will not be sued and that they cannot be touched. That breaches our law and undermines the rule of law in this country. We need some sort of cross-jurisdictional approach that allows us to approach our American neighbours and create a pact that prevents such abuse of our laws.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

When my hon. Friend speaks about the scar that people can endure through defamation, does he realise that that scar can be so deep for some people that they are driven to suicide?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

That point is worth dwelling on. Another speaker today mentioned that they had been trolled by certain individuals and had decided not to pursue them. Another Member of Parliament made clear their view that trolls should be pursued to the nth degree. I agree with the latter view and with my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) was trolled on an internet site. It was said that he should be shot. In Northern Ireland such things carry a certain weight. I am glad that that person was prosecuted by the courts and fined. I do not believe that they received a custodial sentence, but I believe they were seriously fined. There needs to be deterrent activity, because people abuse the internet. When my father was in hospital recently, someone thought it was good fun to take a picture of him while he was on a life support machine and to try to publish that on the internet. That person has lost their job and I hope that they go to jail. I believe that that is a gross infringement of people’s privacy and people’s rights.

Such things have an impact on young people in particular. Young people are driven to suicide because of accusations such as that a girl is too fat, or about how they look in school, the job they do or the way they have combed their hair. That can have a debilitating effect on a person’s life, especially in the light of the all-prevailing and all-invasive presence of the social media. We need to take steps to protect people from that.

Lord Mawhinney offered some commendable suggestions in the other place in relation to the requirement for significant penalties for defamation. The law must provide protection against unwarranted or serious damage—in other words, gossip. Gossip has a very damaging impact on the lives of ordinary people and we have to find a way of protecting individuals from that. We must make access to justice a priority and a possibility, but the costs involved currently prevent that from happening. Apologies must be printed in a way that is a deterrent. As I said, a front-page slander, when it is proved to be so, often results in a postage stamp-size apology. That is wrong. Apologies must be printed in a meaningful size, style and weight. I also believe that there should be prior notification before publication, because damages are largely inadequate as a remedy when a person’s reputation has been damaged.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is right about gossip, defamation and the connection to harm, but does he agree that the Bill quite properly expects there to be a definition of serious harm behind a successful prosecution?

[Ian Paisley]

I would like to see the definition of serious harm and think that we might do so in advance of the details in Committee or on Third Reading.

It was Oscar Wilde who said that the truth is rarely pure and never simple, and I think that is why we need a good, sensible and practical law in this field. It is not just a simple matter of something being a lie and someone therefore being able to sue and get a claim; it is the innuendo that the press often uses, the “nudge nudge, wink wink” interpretation that can ruin a person’s reputation and often does more damage than a blatant lie can do. Blatant lies, because they are normally so blatant, are not always believable, but the “nudge nudge, wink wink” innuendo, which is almost a lie but not quite, does more damage and is more reckless. We need to ensure that these laws properly address that type of abuse. As children we often sang the little chorus, “Be careful little tongue what you say,” but the fact of the matter is that the press are not careful in this regard.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making powerful points, many of which I agree with, but does he also bear it in mind that there are limited forms of redress against “trolls”, as they are now colloquially described, who perhaps have 15 followers? The action taken against them for some scurrilous remarks they might have made could itself bring more attention to those remarks.

[Ian Paisley]

As with all these matters, it is a question of balance. Those 15 followers could be influential individuals who are hiding under their anonymity—perhaps they are journalists—and could use their standing and anonymity in different ways, so that has to be addressed. We must consider the balance of who the 15 individuals in the hon. Gentleman’s example are, because there could be abuse of other individuals through the internet system. Indeed, in the example I cited earlier only nine people saw the photograph, but it was so damaging for the person concerned that, in my view, the person responsible deserves to be severely punished. It is not necessarily the quantity that we need to look at, but the quality.

I want to look at the issue of anonymity in relation to clause 5. Currently, websites operate with impunity. I do not know whether the proposed change will prevent that abuse of the internet. If someone is able to hide away and become anonymous so that the internet operator is unable to find them, I do not believe that the operator should have an excuse. We need to be very careful about making sure that website operators take control of what is said on blogs and the other things that appear on websites. I should declare that I once sued the BBC for a comment that appeared on a blog—successfully, I might add. We need to ensure that someone operating a website recognises that the buck stops with them if they are going to mediate these comments. I am yet to be convinced that clause 5 will have a significant effect on the abuse that can follow.

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that websites can currently act with impunity, but does he recognise that a huge number of sites, whether Mumsnet or almost any other, face a constant deluge of unfounded claims, which they simply do not have the resources to defend, so they are forced to take down things that may not be defamatory in any way, shape or form? Does he think that that is appropriate?

[Ian Paisley]

Again, it is a question of balance, but I would far rather such sites were more defensive of their own reputation and standing than they allowed something to slip through which damaged, lied about or hurt someone in an unfounded or unfair way. I understand that there are huge difficulties, but, if someone is going to set themselves up as a website operator in the 21st century, in the new media, they have to take responsibility for their actions. That is the responsibility that should fall to people and make them consider what they do. Members of my party will support the general thrust of this change to the defamation laws, but we are yet to be convinced on some points, which we look forward to being thrashed out in more detail in another place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Farrelly]

I thank the Minister for his intervention, but it is the cumulative effect of the changes in the Act on people’s access to justice that we really need to look at as this Bill proceeds through Parliament.

The reality is that press self-regulation in this country is broken, and the reforms in the Bill are as yet unproven. A sensible balance that addresses the issue of access to justice needs to be struck. I hope that that can be done in our proceedings on the Bill. If it is not, I think we will lurch back to the bad old days—I am a former journalist—with newspapers simply asking, “How much are they worth? Can they afford to sue?” They might also use the system, the costs and the delays to their advantage, having trashed reputations on the way.

Let me address briefly issues of libel tourism, forum shopping and this city called sue. I welcome clause 9 and, importantly, the guidance notes, which address this area specifically. The terminology regarding consideration of where is

“the most appropriate place in which to bring an action”

leaves great scope for judicial interpretation. The Government promise to ask the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to consider “relevant factors” in more detail in respect of amendments to the civil procedure rules, but as with all these issues court practice is key and the Government have not published, as the Joint Committee on the draft Defamation Bill recommended, the detail and nature of those rule changes. It is incumbent on them to do so in order for us to have greater clarity. I hope that during the Bill’s progression the Government will provide more detail and comfort on this crucial aspect of reform.

In May 2010, in the High Court, Mr Justice Eady threw out a libel suit brought by an Indian so-called holy man against the journalist Hardeep Singh Kohli over an article he had written in The Sikh Times. His holiness—to give him his title—had never set foot in Britain, but this was not the end of the matter; lawyers were given leave to appeal, and it took until February 2011 for the Court of Appeal finally to strike out the case—after his holiness had failed to produce a £250,000 surety for costs. By then, the case had been going on for nearly three years, at a potentially ruinous financial cost to Mr Singh, and had had a terrible impact on his health and family life. Thankfully, Mr Singh has just got married, and I am sure that we all wish him well after what he has been through. As a wedding present, surely we can give him a commitment to early resolution and the strike-out of inappropriate, trivial and vexatious claims. Members will want the Government to give them comfort on this matter during the passage of the Bill.

[Ian Paisley]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s point, but he must also accept that it does not take Johnny Foreigner to abuse the system. There are many cases brought by UK citizens against other UK citizens in which the process of law is used and contorted under extenuating and tortuous circumstances to the point reached in the case he cites.

[Paul Farrelly]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The point about early strike-out and early resolution is a general one, and not simply applicable to libel tourism cases.

I turn now to the public interest, responsible journalism and the chilling effect of our libel laws and their cost. I welcome clause 1 on the test of serious harm and the hurdle that claimants have to clear, although I hear clearly the voices calling for it to be further stiffened and clarified, not least with respect to corporations. Clause 7, which extends qualified privilege, especially to fair and accurate reports of scientific conferences, is especially welcome, as is clause 6, where the Government have listened to the Joint Committee and extended protection to peer-reviewed articles in scientific and academic journals. There is concern about the chilling effects of our libel laws on the medical and scientific community, and Sense About Science should be congratulated on bringing these arguments to the fore after several particularly disturbing cases.

Dr Peter Wilmshurst has been mentioned in passing. He is a respected cardiologist at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital and my own hospital, the university hospital of North Staffordshire. In 2007, he was sued for libel by NMT Medical, a company based in Boston, Massachusetts, over a report carried by a specialist Canadian website about critical remarks he made of one of its medical devices at a US cardiology conference. He was sued here for defamation not once but four times over four years. Dr Wilmshurst, quite responsibly, had been involved in proper trials of the effectiveness of the device. In April 2011, the emperor finally ran out of clothes and NMT went out of business months after failing to post its own surety for costs. The case caused untold stress and worry to Dr Wilmshurst and his family and should never have been allowed to go on for so long. The Bill’s reforms ought to prevent such abuse of process, be it from overseas companies or anybody domiciled in this country.