| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.23 pm
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): My interest arises because one of my constituents, Mr. Raghbir Singh, who had lived lawfully in the United Kingdom for 12 years, was detained and put in prison with no charges made against him; he was married to a British citizen, but had he been a United Kingdom national himself, he could not have been treated in that way.
Mr. Singh was detained as a threat to national security. He strenuously denied involvement in terrorism of any kind, but there was no way that that could be tested, as would normally be the case, in a court of law. I was, and remain, in no position to say whether he was telling the truth. How on earth could I, as his Member of Parliament, know? There was no question about his active political concern with events in India and he has frankly admitted, as the editor of a Sikh newspaper, that he wants a separate Sikh state there; but he insists that he never wanted to use terrorism to achieve that.
It is interesting to note the way in which the Sikh community at large took up Mr. Raghbir Singh's case. For all I know there may be some exceptions, but I believe that the large majority of Sikhs in this country who are actively involved in such matters have no desire to see the use of terrorism. Together with the National Union of Journalists, of which Mr. Raghbir Singh was a member, the Sikh community made its views known to many Members of Parliament of all parties, and Amnesty took up the case and made him a prisoner of conscience, which is rather unusual in the United Kingdom.
The previous Home Secretary challenged me about it, but I have never denied that the Home Secretary of the day should have powers to deal with national security, regardless of what happened to my constituent. Terrorism, as I and other hon. Members have said time and again, is one of the great curses of the modern world. The notorious suicide bombers in the middle east take the lives of men, women and children, and even babes in arms; there is no mercy when the terrorist killers strike.
Thousands of civilians have been murdered by terrorists in Algeria and Sri Lanka, not to mention the atrocities committed by the IRA and the loyalist gunmen. Only today in The Guardian, there is a story of a former head teacher who was one of the victims of the Enniskillen bombing and has been in a coma for 10 years. He had heart bypass surgery about three years before the bombing, and when he went on the Remembrance day parade 10 years ago he was not murdered, but he has now lain in a coma all this time under the tender care of his wife. That is an illustration of what terrorism means in human terms. We must never forget that for one moment.
How, in a democratic society, are we to deal with those who are considered a threat to national security, when no charges are made against them? That is entirely different from the matters involving IRA terrorism to which I have just referred. In the case of Chahal, the European Court of Human Rights, by a majority decision, found that by
detaining Mr. Chahal for six years--my constituent was in prison for a little over a year, and that was bad enough--the United Kingdom was in violation of four articles of the human rights convention.
As the Minister said, article 13 is especially important. It says:
If my constituent was involved in terrorism, he deserved anything that happened to him. The Home Secretary told a deputation of Members that it was not alleged that my constituent was involved with terrorism in the United Kingdom, but I accept that if he was using the United Kingdom as a base for terrorism against a friendly country, national security considerations are involved. If we say that we are against terrorism, we mean that we are against it--it is not just empty rhetoric.
Like all occupants who hold the office, the Home Secretary was acting on advice. If that advice was wrong, not necessarily maliciously, and Raghbir Singh was, as he has always claimed, innocent, imagine what it meant to be taken away. It so happened that it was at 6 am when the knock on the door came and he was put in prison, his family left behind, and no charges made. In such cases, the person would be left in prison until the asylum application was decided and the case on security grounds would have been dealt with under the previous panel arrangement. I ask hon. Members to bear it in mind how serious such matters are when they concern people who are not involved in the terrorism that has been alleged against them.
The only remedy available, apart of course from the European Court of Human Rights, was the review of the Home Secretary's decision by a non-statutory panel. Its decision was in no way binding on the Home Secretary. I am glad that the Bill clearly sets out that the decision of the special commission will be binding on the Home Secretary, although I note the proposed amendment mentioned by the Minister, which I shall study carefully when it comes before us in Committee because it has certain aspects about which I am not altogether happy.
The special immigration appeals commission is undoubtedly an improvement on the previous procedure. It will be more like a court, although clearly very different from an ordinary court, for reasons that we understand. I am pleased that there will be a bail jurisdiction. That is certainly an improvement, but I have several questions.
Will the appellant be informed of all the allegations against him? Clause 6 states:
What about the time between detention and the hearing? How long will it take for cases to come before the commission? It should be done as speedily as possible, although there must be time for appellants to get together the necessary evidence to refute the allegations, if they intend to do so.
If the commission dismisses an appeal, what will happen--it may be rare, but it could well occur--if further evidence comes to light? Will the case go back to the commission or will the Home Secretary have powers to decide that the new evidence is compelling and be able to reverse his original decision? I accept that if an appeal is dismissed, the situation is not likely to occur, but it may.
When the Bill becomes law, will it no longer be possible for such cases to be referred to the European Court of Human Rights? I hope not. I accept that the reason for this measure is so that it will no longer be necessary to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights. In effect, we are putting the judgment of Chahal into United Kingdom legislation. Does the Bill necessarily mean that the road to the European Court of Human Rights is barred? The Minister shakes his head, so I take that as his answer.
I have already explained why I am interested in the matter, and I am sure that my constituent will be interested in it. I would like to pay tribute to two people. First, a former Member of this House, Max Madden, took up the case of Chahal on many occasions. He retired from the House at the general election, but the manner in which he pursued the Chahal case--his persistence and diligence and the time that was involved--is a tribute to the way in which he carried out his duties as a Member of Parliament. I doubt whether many votes were involved, especially as he was not standing again for election--it was a point of principle, and all praise is due to him for carrying out his duties in such a way.
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
The court also found that article 5(4), which is an important safeguard in a democratic community, had been violated. Article 5(4) states:
"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if a detention is not lawful."
The European Court of Human Rights believed that that safeguard had not been observed in the case of Chahal. As I said in my intervention, if the decision had not been taken, I would be speculating not only on how much longer Mr. Chahal would have remained in prison but on how long my constituent would remain in detention. It was more than a year before he was released as a result of the judgment. These are worrying matters.
"The relevant law officer may appoint a person to represent the interests of an appellant in any proceedings"
before the proposed commission. I listened carefully to what the Minister said. In the main, I hope that people with allegations against them will be able to have their own legal representatives; that is important. If that will not be the case in certain circumstances, what arrangements will be made for the person who is appointed by the relevant Law Officer, who will be the Attorney-General in England, to represent the appellant? Will a lawyer who is appointed not by the appellant or his solicitor but by the Attorney-General take instructions from the appellant? Will he largely act as if he were the lawyer appointed by the appellant? If he does act in such a way, what would be difference between an appellant having his own lawyer and the arrangement in the Bill? Perhaps the Minister will explain. If we are to have machinery in which such allegations are made, it is surely important that every legal redress is made available to appellants. One of the most important things in a country based on the rule of law is obviously that a person should have their own lawyer to argue the case.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |