---

Human Rights

I can confirm that and I will go into more detail on that when I address those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised a concern about photography. I know that that is a sensitive area; as a constituency MP, I have had to deal with that issue in relation to a particular constituent. We know that photography can be a valuable intelligence-gathering tool. Of course, it works both ways—there are the photographs taken of protesters by the police and then there is the section 44 issue. However, photographs taken by the police can be a valuable intelligence-gathering tool, which allows officers to build up a clear picture of who is involved in planning and organising any criminal behaviour. It can also provide the police with valuable evidence. The use of photography raises human rights issues. The courts have recently considered whether the taking and retention of photographs is compatible with the right to private life protected by article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The decision to retain images is a matter for individual police forces, informed by the legislative framework set out in the ECHR and the Data Protection Act 1998. The Home Office code of practice on the management of police information sets out the key principles to be followed in the retention of police data. In line with HMIC's recommendation, we intend to clarify that legal framework for the use of overt photography by the police during public order operations. In producing detailed advice on this area, we shall be drawing on the summary of the ECHR implications of the Wood case in HMIC's report, the advice sought by ACPO and the Metropolitan police service's revised standard operating procedure on overt filming. We are holding "train the trainers" events to raise awareness and understanding of human rights issues for those who deliver command training across the police service. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds and for Cambridge mentioned our relations with journalists and the media. We are looking at media best practice with the Society of Editors and the National Union of Journalists; indeed, that best practice has now been finalised. Furthermore, the profile of the UK press card will be raised throughout police forces, and forces are now building the role of journalists into their training scenarios to increase awareness among front-line officers. As a former journalist myself, I am certainly very pleased that we are making it clear to police officers that journalists have a legitimate and proper role to play in covering protests and related issues, and that that role is separate from that of protesters. Crucially, as HMIC recognises, awareness-raising is already being translated into action. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) both raised issues about injunctions against protesters; I think that the hon. Member for Cambridge touched on those issues too. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is no longer in his seat, but he can read my comments in Hansard tomorrow. As we said in our response to the Joint Committee, we consider that the civil procedure rules provide sufficient safeguards to ensure that those who are the subject of injunctions have the opportunity to make representations. We are not convinced of the need to amend the civil procedure rules and we believe that the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, which considers changes, would be unlikely to be convinced about the need for change on the basis of what appears to be an isolated case.