Live Attorney General Questions House of Commons

all the very best of luck in their competition in Costa Blanca. I wish

them very well and I hope we will get an update from the honourable

lady in due course. I feel sure that we will! Questions to the Attorney

General. Thank you, Mr Speaker, question one.

The Government has committed to the United Kingdom remaining a signatory

to the European Convention on human rights for the duration of the

Parliament. I thank the Attorney General for that answer and

diarrhoea assured, but earlier this week he will know the UN High

Commissioner for human rights described the Prime Minister's

comments after the appalling attack on London Bridge as a gift to every

despot who violates human rights under the pretext of fighting

terrorism. Will the Attorney General recognise the danger of playing

politics with human rights and accept that the Government needs to

desist from doing it? The honourable gentleman won't be surprised to hear

that I don't accept that is what is happening here. What I'm saying is

that I would expect every member of the House to agree with, which is

that human rights is a balance between human rights of all

different people in our society. Everyone has the most important

human rights of all, which is to live their life unabated by those

who wish to do them harm through terrorism, and because of that, what

the Prime Minister was saying, quite rightly in my view and I hope in

his, that we have to make sure that we hope that balance continues to be

struck correctly, and that is what we will do. The court behind this

convention has tens of thousands of outstanding cases, and many of the

so-called judges don't have any legal qualifications at all. Don't

these two stark facts undermine the credibility of this organisation in

holding up human rights at all? I think that my honourable friend and

I would agree that the court in Strasbourg could sensibly reform and

improve, but he will also recognise that we do not rely in this country

solely on the court in Strasbourg to protect our human rights. Our

Government and courts do that, too, and very effectively. The Strasbourg

court has done excellent work over the years in putting forward the

case with human rights in Central and Eastern Europe. The uncertainty

of Britain's position will give succour to regimes like President

Putin in Moscow, the presidents of Belarus etc, not the signal the

British Government should be giving. I applaud all those who were to

promote human rights whether within a court or elsewhere, but I think

that it is important as I say that we understand that the European

Convention on human rights itself permits derogations in certain

circumstances. He I believe was the member of the Government that sought

to do so in the weight of the 9/11 attacks, so it is certainly within

the hierarchy and system of the European Court of Human Rights that

that should be allowed, and we need to make sure that the balance I

described earlier is maintained. The right to peaceful enjoyment of

property is a valuable safeguard in the convention. Does the Attorney

General agree with me that the SFO has a strong and growing reputation

in upholding that right, and can he clarify his plans for the future? I

certainly think that the Serious Fraud Office have an important role

to play in doing what they can to deal with economic crime, as of

course do other agencies, and as for the future, he will understand that

we are looking very carefully at how we can improve performance in

tackling economic crime across the whole range of different

organisations that currently do so. What the Prime Minister said during

the election campaign was that she was going to rip up human rights to

fight terrorism. Can he confirmed that he has advised his Cabinet

colleagues there is nothing in the Human Rights Act or the Convention

on human rights that would prevent the Government taking a robust

approach to terrorism, and therefore this plan to rip up human rights

will be shelved? The Prime Minister said nothing of the kind. Let me

read her exactly what she did say. We should do even more to restrict

the freedom and movements of terrorist suspect when we have

enough evidence to know that they were present a threat but not enough

evidence to prosecute them in court, and if human rights laws get in the

way of doing these things, we will change those laws to make sure we

can do them. That seems to me to be eminently sensible, Mr Speaker. Mr

Speaker, all cases in which offences may have been committed under the

terrorism legislation are considered on their own merits by experienced

specialist prosecutors and the CPS counter-terrorism division.

Prosecution will go ahead when there is a realistic prospect of

conviction and it is in the public interest. There are hundreds of

British citizens or at least 100 including one of my constituents who

has been to Syria and Iraq to fight against -- Daesh with the Peshmerga,

and nobody seems able to work out whether the terrorism act should

apply to them. Will he give greater guidance to the police forces in

question so that no citizen is left in legal limbo? I congratulate my

abnormal friend for the persistence with which he raises this, each case

is different and must be considered on its own merits by the police and

then in due course by the CPS, but in terms of guidance he will

understand that it is difficult for politicians to set out guidance

which will apply to each individual case. What he will also know is that

in relation to cases where the effect of terrorism is felt abroad

rather than in this country, those cases very often require my consent,

and I will think about whether there is specifically guidance I can give

as to what criteria I would take into account when considering

particularly the public interest consideration in those cases. My

constituents will be surprised that anyone who goes to Syria to fight

isn't tracked and indeed isn't tagged when they get back. But is he

aware that there is a real concern about how many people slip in and

out of this country on borrowed or forged passports? I do understand

that, and I think the message we must all try and give is that anyone

attract to the idea of going to fight in Syria or in Iraq must be

dissuaded from doing so. Partly of course because of the personal risk

that he has described, but also because the picture here is

exceptionally complicated, and organisations that may appear to be

on the side of the Angels may not be so, and it is important that

everybody understands the risks they are running, both legal and

physical, by doing that sort of thing. Number three, Mr Speaker. The

United Kingdom has a long-standing tradition of ensuring our rights and

liberties are protected domestically and fulfilling our international

human rights obligations. The decision to leave the European Union

does not change this. The white paper is a vague in the details of

the human rights protections currently afforded to all of us by

EU regulations. Will he give us a full audit of those regulations and

publish the results? Honourable lady will have to wait until the Bill is

published, and she will be able to study it in detail and the House

will be able to discuss it in detail. But she will appreciate the

principle behind the Bill is wherever it is feasible and sensible

to do so, we will transfer European rules and regulations into domestic

law. They will become domestic law at that point and be in force and

upheld by our own courts, and in my view that is a sensible way to do

it. Across Eastleigh on the doorsteps during the election

campaign, she human rights and the scaremongering around it came up

time and again. Does the Minister agree with me that it is simply

scaremongering, and leaving the EU will not change are human rights? I

do agree with my honourable friend, it will not make a difference to the

way in which human rights are defended in this country, and it is

worth remembering and I'm sure she made this point on the doorsteps

that this Government has a very good record in the defence of human

rights, both domestic Lee and abroad. It was this Government that

put forward a modern slavery Bill, the first in Europe, and it was this

party, Conservatives in government that promoted the idea of sexual

violence and conflict being something the world must take

seriously. We are proud of that record and will continue. The

Government's proposals published earlier this week on UK citizens and

non-UK citizens after Brexit suggests that those who are not

British citizens will have to have documentation to have access to

public services, in other words, an ID card for some but not everyone.

How can that possibly be consistent with the European Convention on

human rights? I think we have to work through the practicalities of

this. It will be important to understand how people demonstrate

that they are who they say they are, but I don't accept that what this is

going to lead to is a system of identity cards, and if he will

recall, it was a Conservative government you got rid of the Labour

idea of having identity cards in the first place. Human rights are

defended by the European Union, but they weren't invented by the

European Union, and as my right honourable friend has already said,

this country has a good record in upholding them. Would he be

interested to know that in Europe only nine EU countries, including of

course the UK, still permit gay marriage? My honourable friend is

always interesting, and no less so on this point. He is right and we

should except on both sides of this how has that human rights are

important and must be upheld, but our courts and judges and Government

are perfectly capable of doing the job, as they have done so very well

for a long time. Number four, please, Sir. Terrorism prosecutions

are dealt with by specialist unit within the CPS, and there is close

working between the CPS, the police and the intelligence services from

the launch of an investigation until the conclusion of a trial. The 400

or so radicalised British Muslims still in Syria fighting for Isis, we

know their names, so what steps are now being taken to prepare for

prosecutions? My honourable friend is right, we do have to pay close

attention, in all of those cases it won't necessarily follow that there

will be prosecutions, but the number of prosecutions carried out in

terrorism cases have increased significantly, so last year there

were 79 trials, but compares to 51 trials the year before, and we are

remarkably good at convicting in those trials, the conviction rate is

something like 86%. Since 2010, the CPS has lost 2400 staff, one third

of its workforce, and 400 prosecutors. Is the Minister

confident that he can meet the ever growing complexity of terrorism

cases coming through now? Yes, and so is the Crown Prosecution Service,

and the resource they have available to them to deal with

counter-terrorism is increasing, and as I have indicated, the conviction

rate in terrorism cases is high, and the conviction rate across all

offences has remained remarkably stable over the period he is

describing. Number five, Mr Speaker. With permission I will answer this

question all on-site question eight. It is of paramount importance that

bereaved families and injured people are properly involved and supported

following the disaster. That is why we announced in the Queen's Speech

that we will establish an independent public advocate to

ensure that involvement and provide that support. Will he then tell me

whether the independent advocate would be able to act for those

affected by that contaminated blood scandal, and whether the idea of

assistance and support, what exactly that means, and does it mean a

publicly funded lawyer feature Amelie affected?

I thank the honourable lady for that point, it depends on how quickly we

as a parliament can pass the necessary legislation and it is

certainly the intention of the Government that the independent

advocates gets on with their work as quickly as possible. With regard to

the specific point, each case will depend on its merits. Legal aid is

already available for families with regards to certain procedures but I

think the benefits of having a consolidated advocate would be to

address the very questions she asks and I look forward to these issues

being debated carefully when the legislation is brought forward. Can

the Solicitor General confirmed that if families live in high-rise for

example, but have thankfully not suffered the same disaster of

Grenfell Tower, wished to bring any action on health and safety grounds

they will be entitled to legal aid? I think the honourable lady again

asks a general question about the merits of particular cases. If there

are grounds, a judicial review procedure might be appropriate, then

that application can be made. I think the important point in the

context of this question is whether we can do more for families and

bereaved relatives. I think we can and I think the precedent that is

being set by the horrific events at Grenfell will allow us to learn

important lessons that families have to be put first. Can the Solicitor

General help with practicalities as to what discussions he is having

with the bar Council and Law Society as to how an independent advocate

might be identified, what levels of remuneration will be available so as

to ensure proper equality of arms in representation, and by what means

families will be able to give proper and fully discrete instructions. I

thank my honourable friend for that question. I think it is vital we get

these details right as we develop the policy. It is clear to the

Government that the importance of having an equality advocacy so the

right documents are obtained, so that proper challenges are made

during the process is what we seek to achieve so fulfilling article six

is at the heart of this. What assessment he may have made with

regards to the efficacy of having an independent advocate after a tragedy

such as Grenfell, in trying to get justice and truth for the victims

coupled with the unhelpful remarks of the Shadow Chancellor which seems

to be clouding the whole issue. I think it is vitally important at

solemn and serious times like this that we all exercise our right to

free speech responsibly, being mindful of criminal investigation is

ongoing, and of course the inquest and public inquiry. We have to make

sure we passed but high test and I'm afraid the Shadow Chancellor failed

that in his remarks this week. I'm sure the Solicitor General would

agree with me that it is vital that the independent public advocate has

the powers they need to carry out the role. I pay great tribute to the

work of the Hillsborough families over many years, but the Solicitor

General will be aware that absolutely key to that was the

findings of an independent panel to overturn the first inquest verdict.

Will the Independent public advocate have the powers to appoint an

independent panel if they see fit to do so? The honourable gentleman I

think raises a very germane point and the Hillsborough precedent is

one we need to bear in mind. I am keen to make sure the independent

advocate has as powerful and meaningful role as possible. I think

each case will depend on its merits but I am prepared to look at all

detail including the one he raises. But the Solicitor General also agree

that it is absolutely critical that there is all public confidence in

the role of the independent public advocate? And as such, the role

should be subject to appropriate scrutiny. Could he also promise the

independent public advocate will replace reports before this House on

an annual basis so members can look at the work in careful detail?

Again, I can envisage like many other appointments of this kind the

sort of accountability he talks about, and of course the publication

of annual report is a regular and common occurrence in many other

examples. So it is a particular point we will look at carefully.

Question number six, Mr Speaker. With your permission I will answer

this question alongside 7 and nine. As always the CPS has taken a number

of steps to improve its prosecution of all strands of this kind of

crime, including face-to-face training which is vital. Their hard

work in this area has resulted in significant increases in the use of

sentencing uplift in all strands of hate crime. In 2014 the Law

Commission proposed disability hate crime should be given parity with

other hate crimes in relation to aggravated offences and so-called

stirring up offences. In November 2016 in a debate it was said the

Government was reviewing that report. Can he update the House on

when the Government will make a decision that is of importance to

disabled people. The Government is particularly interested in the

strand of work conducted by the previous home affairs select

committee. We are looking to their success are committed to carry at

work and we want this House to play its part in response of the Law

Commission recommendations, and we very much hope that as soon as

possible we can craft a suitable response to get them right. As has

been stated, the Law Commission have previously called on the Government

to review hate crime legislation so will the Government bring forward

proposals for the review to ensure legislation in this area is

effective and sufficiently broad in scope. The honourable gentleman is

right to press the Government on these issues. My concerns are

twofold, want to get the existing law properly enforced and used, and

secondly to get the response of the Law Commission recommendations

right. I want to make sure this House passes laws that are properly

enforced. Too often in the past we have been too quick to pass laws

that have failed expectations of those who deserve protection. But we

will be looking at it as soon as possible. Reports of hate crime rose

by 57% following Brexit, CPS staffing budgets have more than

halved since 2010, is the Attorney General confident the CPS is

adequately resourced to deal effectively with these reports and

make sure victims of hate crime do get justice? I can reassure the

honourable lady the trend with regard to the prosecution of hate

crime continue to increase and particularly with regard to racial

and religious aggravated hate crimes. There's over 13,000 cases

now being prosecuted and that is reflected across the piece when it

is too -- when it comes to homophobic and disability hate

crime. Can my honourable friend tell the House what action the

is taking to prevent the spread of is taking to prevent the spread of

hate crime via social media? My honourable friend makes an important

point, and come I reiterate again there is no distinction whatsoever

between hate crime committed off-line and online, and just

because somebody hides behind a pseudonym and pursues hate online,

it doesn't mean the police and Crown Prosecution Service will track them

down as we have seen in cases involving several members of this

House who have been victims of appalling hate crime. Unless I

misheard him, the honourable gentleman said Twitter was against

his hair! That constitutes some sort of hate crime. I make that point for

those interested in our proceedings. We are always interested in all

matters pertaining to the Member for Lichfield. I'm not quite sure how to

follow that but can my right honourable friend join me in

recognising the work done by Hope Not Hate? This organisation and

others play an important part to inform the process, and to help

people report crime. Very often people will go to a third party

before coming to the police but that is an absolutely acceptable way to

report the crime because it means more crimes can be prosecuted. We

have run late but I want to accommodate the last question on the

paper, but no other. Mr Lawrence Robinson. Question Number Ten. The

attorney and I referred 11 cases of burglary as unduly lenient. Only the

most serious types of burglary and friends currently fall within the

scheme but we have recommitted in our manifesto to extending the scope

of the unduly lenient scheme and we will be working with the Lord

Chancellor in order to implement that commitment. Given that only 10%

of first time burglars actually receive immediate custodial

sentences, doesn't that give a sort of encouragement to them to carry on

their crimes, because burglary is quite a serious crime, and will he

have a look at that statistic? My honourable friend is right to talk

about burglary being a serious crime, it is a crime against the

person, not just against property, because it affects people's

wellbeing. Since the introduction of the revised sentencing council

guidelines on burglary in 2012, the overall level of sentencing for

burglary in terms of prison and length of sentences has increased

and that should give his constituents some encouragement that

the courts are taking these serious crimes with the appropriate

punishment. Just before we come to business question, it might be

helpful to the House if I announced my selection of amendments to be

potentially voted upon much later today. I have selected the amendment

from the official opposition, if memory serves me correctly,

amendment L. I have a right to select up to a further two

amendments under the terms of our standing orders and I can advise the

House that I have selected amendment D in the name of the Member for

Walthamstow and others,