Robert Buckland MP: Leveson - the final countdown

Robert Buckland MP is Joint Secretary of the 1922 Committee and Chairs the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission

After fifteen months of public inquiry and three months of negotiation, the Leveson process is nearing its climax.  A deal on the wording of a Royal Charter and the precise extent of any accompanying legislation is likely to be confirmed. Otherwise MPs will be facing what has been termed “an historic decision” about the future of our free press.  Yes, a legislative version of the Battle of Gettysburg is upon us.  The accidental battleground over which this verbal war is to be waged is the report stage of the Crime and Courts Bill, which is as unlikely a setting for this drama as that small Pennsylvanian village was for the turning point of the American Civil War one hundred and fifty years ago.

After the Prime Minister’s surprise announcement on Thursday morning that he was breaking off negotiations about the implementation of the Leveson proposals, initial concerns  about the suitability of the Bill for provisions relating to press regulation gave way to a free for all which saw both sides dashing about with drafts and re-drafts of their respective amendments.  MPs are now being expected to make decisions on amendments that have only just emerged from the Public Bill Office with the ink still glistening upon them.

Robert Buckland MP: The Justice and Security Bill strikes the correct balance between openness and the need to preserve our national security

Robert Buckland is the Member of Parliament for South Swindon. He is also the Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. Follow Robert on Twitter. 

Although the debate about the Justice and Security Bill has now reached the stage when, to quote Kenneth Clarke "we are dancing on the head of a pin", I thought that Anthony Peto's provocative article deserved a response.

Today, the Government have tabled some further, important, amendments which ensure that both the claimant and the Government have the right to apply to the judge for a Closed Material Procedure (CMP) and that the judge then has full discretion over whether or not to allow it.  There will also be a further test before a CMP can be ordered: the judge must be satisfied that PII has been considered as an alternative.

These are sensible changes which the Joint Committee on Human Rights will welcome, and which should now satisfy all reasonable concerns about this proposal. Continued opposition to the Bill is a vote for silence on serious issues of kidnap and torture, serious further damage to our intelligence sharing relationships, and potential payouts to suspected terrorists.

Robert Buckland MP: Andrew Tyrie’s concerns about the Justice and Security Bill are understandable but wrong

Robert Buckland is the Member of Parliament for South Swindon, Joint Secretary of the 1922 Committee and Chairs the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. He has also recently joined the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Follow Robert on Twitter.

Andrew Tyrie’s concerns about the need for open justice are understandable, but in his criticism of the Justice and Security Bill in yesterday’s Times (£), he underestimates the seriousness of the situation that faces both taxpayers and the Government.

Let’s just remind ourselves of the problem the Bill seeks to fix. The former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf – who only this week displayed his independence when he made trenchant criticism of the Home Secretary – put things very well indeed.  During debate in the House of Lords he explained that the current system for protecting national security evidence from open disclosure in court (known as public interest immunity, or PII) has “the very unfortunate effect that you cannot rely on the material that is in issue, whereas both the claimant and the Government may want to rely on that material.”

What does this mean?  It means that, under PII, national security evidence is excluded entirely from the courtroom.  As a result, some of the actions of our security and intelligence agencies are not being scrutinised in the courts.  It means that former detainees who bring cases against the Government alleging mistreatment are simply not able to access justice properly.  And it means that we cannot get to the bottom of the shocking allegations made about British involvement in kidnap and torture.

Robert Buckland MP: In Europe, Britain is taking its place at the head of the table

Robert Buckland is the Member of Parliament for South Swindon, Joint Secretary of the 1922 Committee and Chairs the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. Follow Robert on Twitter. 

In recent weeks, there has been a lot to quietly celebrate about the positive steps that we have been making in matters EU.  Britain has helped to negotiate the first ever real terms cut in the EU budget; our MEPs have junked the repulsive ‘discards’ practise and restored national control to fisheries management; and, finally, we are leading the charge to reform the EU so that the twin aims of enhancing trade and completing the single market are met.  At home, the announcement by the Prime Minister of a referendum on our future membership of the EU has allowed the debate to move from one of process to one that is concerned with the merits of our continued membership.

In the minds of many critics, it is fair to say that, only a few months ago, all of the above seemed literally fantastic.  The controversial Common Fisheries Policy seemed to be part of the EU furniture, ugly but immovable.  The EU budget had a sense of the inevitable to it, rising every time without regard to the economic reality in member states.  Meaningful talks about streamlining the EU and issues such as free trade with the rest of the world seemed to be very far down the agenda.  The domestic debate about the EU was dominated by those who believe that our membership is a problem.  All of this is changing.

One of the problems that has concerned me about our attitude to the EU is a sense that, at home, there has been a lack of self-belief when it comes to our role and influence in Europe.   For too long, the perception has been that British representatives walk into the institutions of the EU and leave days later, dazed and mugged of their possessions.  In fact, there is nothing to fear about being in the EU.  Time and time again, we have been remarkably successful at securing our national interest within the EU, with recent events serving to reiterate this point.

Robert Buckland MP and David Burrowes MP: Why we need to change the law on child neglect

Robert Buckland is the Member of Parliament for South Swindon. He is also the Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. Follow Robert on Twitter. 

David Burrowes is Conservative MP for Enfield Southgate. Follow David on Twitter.

In 1868, a cult based in South East England shocked the country when it was revealed that members of the group had deliberately withheld medical treatment from gravely ill children in their care. Known as the Peculiar People, they believed that to administer medicine was to demonstrate a lack of faith in God.  In response, legislation was passed to criminalise the offence of child neglect.

During the inter-war years, the Children and Young Persons Act of 1933 tidied up some of the finer points of the legislation, but today our criminal definition of child neglect remains rooted in the laws passed during the reign of Queen Victoria.  An old law doesn’t necessarily mean a bad one, but in this case the legislation is woefully out of date and in need of reform.

In Parliament today, however, an amendment will be debated that could finally change all of this.  It will come before the Bill Committee of the Crime and Courts Bill, and as former legal professionals who are well accustomed to the problems inherent in the current system,  we hope that the amendment will be successful.

The current law on child neglect should be reformed for a number of reasons.

Robert Buckland MP: The Leveson Bill is the bare minimum the public deserve

Robert Buckland is the Member of Parliament for South Swindon. He is also the Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.  Follow Robert on Twitter.

What should be done following Lord Justice Leveson’s report into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press? If the new year sees it allowed to gather dust on a high shelf in the Library of the House, I fear we will missed an historic opportunity to put in place, once and for all, a proper check on the system of newspaper self-regulation which has eluded parliamentarians over the decades.

Like many colleagues, I have had the benefit of listening directly to victims of press harassment, intrusion, phone-hacking and other abuses. Their stories are deeply moving and often shocking.

Ordinary members of the public whose lives were turned upside down by tragedy have then suffered the secondary injury of being defamed in public or threatened in private; sometimes, they have experienced both.  Take a few examples:  the new mother, stalked in the maternity ward by two photographers disguised as doctors; the parents, grieving the loss of their daughter who found themselves slandered as murderers in order to sell papers;  a young woman, appallingly injured and left for dead, whose private medical information was splashed across the pages of a tabloid.  Some of these cases are well known, but the point is this: it could have happened to any one of us.  Whoever we are, we remain vulnerable to a predatory press culture which regards private information from anyone as fair game to publish, even if the way in which it was obtained was patently illegal.

Robert Buckland MP: Human rights must be at the heart of our relationship with Russia

Robert Buckland is the Member of Parliament for Swindon South and Chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.  Follow Robert on Twitter.

Last Thursday, the United States Senate gave the cause of human rights in Russia and around the world a significant boost when it passed the Magnitsky Act. Russian officials involved in gross human rights violations will be held accountable, have their assets frozen and be denied US visas. The Act is named after the Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, arrested and detained without trial as he investigated a $230 million fraud against a British investment fund, in which senior Russian officials were implicated.

Magnitsky was murdered in pre-trial detention, effectively beaten to death, having been previously denied much needed medical attention. Absurdly, proceedings are now underway in Russia, not to investigate Magnitsky’s murder, but to prosecute him posthumously on trumped up charges. The case hit the UK headlines two weeks ago, when Alexander Perepilichny, who had been assisting a Swiss investigation into the same scam, was found dead outside his Surrey home.

Robert Buckland MP: Our approach to tackling serious and complex fraud needs a reassessment

Robert Buckland is the Member of Parliament for South Swindon. He is also the new Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.  Follow Robert on Twitter.

Accountability for the acts and omissions of those who did so much to contribute to our current economic woes is a central issue in today’s political debate. There is real anger amongst the public that no-one has been brought to book for wrongdoing. I believe that part of the problem lies with our poor record in investigating and dealing with corporate fraud. It is not just a question of accountability. Our failure to detect and deal with financial crime inevitably has a negative effect upon business confidence, whether amongst businesses already based in the UK or amongst potential investors into our country.   Our inability to deal with serious corporate fraud is not only an affront to justice, but it is holding us back economically. The notion that the ongoing debate about the way in which we investigate and prosecute corporate and commercial fraud should be a niche issue for the lawyers is one that needs burying, and burying quickly. 

It is estimated that the cost of fraud in the UK is £30bn a year.  The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) is the public body that has the main responsibility for the prosecution of serious fraud.  The average cost of every investigation mounted by the SFO costs £910k, which is an astonishing sum, and only 17 trials were held in 2010/2011 as a result of the SFO’s work.   Recently, the SFO has come under sustained criticism for its conduct in a number of cases, and serious questions have been raised about its ability to conduct proper fraud investigations.  A new Director has been appointed, and the SFO has also enlisted the services of a former Senior Circuit Judge with great experience that no doubt is proving to be of great value.  More, however, needs to be done.  The way that we tackle serious and complex fraud in the UK needs a serious reassessment.   I believe that if the SFO cannot prove its worth soon, then it should be replaced.

Robert Buckland MP: North Korean defector highlights suffering in prison camps to Conservative Party Human Rights Commission

Robert Buckland is the MP for South Swindon. He is also the new Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.

With both hands firmly clasping a cup of water, North Korean defector Shin Dong Hyuk spoke calmly and clearly about his life and experiences at a meeting of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission in Parliament last week. I was deeply moved to hear about the torture and conditions endured by Shin during the first twenty-three years of his life. Born inside one of North Korea’s brutal prison camps he was victim to the system known as “guilt by association”, which meant that he was imprisoned for life with his family as punishment for his parent’s crimes. This barbaric practice continues. Children of prisoners are treated the same as adults, experiencing daily torture and deprivation. Shin was taught from a very early age that teachers were human beings, but that he and his fellow prisoners were animals, who should be grateful to be alive and who should express their gratitude by working hard. From birth to adulthood, this was the only life that Shin knew.

We heard how in 1996 his mother and brother tried to escape. He was fourteen years old at the time, but when the attempted escape was detected by the prison authorities, retaliation was total. Shin was forced to watch their public executions. As if this was not bad enough, he was then subjected to torture, which included being hung upside down and with being burnt by fire. It was an emotional struggle to take in his account and to understand the pain that he endured so early in his life.

Shin managed to escape in January 2005 and was able to see the outside world in North Korea for the first time. Compared to life in the prison camp, even the harsh conditions of the Pyongyang regime seemed like “heaven” to him. He managed to escape to South Korea. Since then, Shin came to the United States and has been able to tell his story to the world.