---

Guantanamo Bay

18. Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): If the Attorney-General will act for the four UK citizens held in Guantanamo Bay in challenging the legality of their continued detention in the US courts. [187719]

The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): No. Those holding the office of Attorney-General gave up the practice of acting as private counsel in the early 19thcentury. Since then, Law Officers' duties have been exclusively to act as advocates and legal advisers to the Crown, Government and Parliament.

Mr. Prentice : This is very dispiriting indeed. We have four British citizens who have been in legal limbo for years now. Ten months after the Prime Minister said that the matter would be resolved soon, we are no further forward. It is just not satisfactory, and we need to do something about it. May I press my right hon. and learned Friend on this point? The Foreign Secretary has intervened on behalf of Kenny Richie, a British citizen who has been in prison in Ohio for the past 17 years. He is on death row for a crime that he says he did not commit and the British Government are standing behind him. Will the British Government do the same for the four British citizens in Guantanamo Bay?

The Solicitor General: We have strongly stood behind the rights of those detainees either to have a fair trial or be brought home. We have made that position clear. That is why the military commissions that were proposed by the US authorities in respect of those particular UK detainees have been suspended. I ask my hon. Friend to distinguish between whether, as he requests, the Attorney-General should represent those detainees in the habeas corpus applications and whether we are making all efforts to ensure that they either have a fair trial or are brought home. In addition the Foreign Office is considering a request by the detainees'
 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 859
 
representatives to put in an amicus brief at the hearings of the habeas corpus applications, and that is still under consideration.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I am glad it is under consideration, but when the original case was put before the US Supreme Court, it was supported by lawyers, Members of this Parliament and others, and the Government did not lift a finger to help. The fact is that the detainees are seeing a lawyer for the first time in two years. Their lawyer and Government officials are apparently not allowed to tell the detainees' families of the treatment that those detainees have received, which we believe to be similar to that handed out in the prison in Baghdad. The families have been told that the information cannot be divulged because of, variously, consular confidentiality or the Data Protection Act. Is it not the case that American justice is besmirched by this episode, and that there is a real danger that British justice is also besmirched by the fact that the British Government are prepared to allow this to happen to British citizens and will not lift a finger in their support?

The Solicitor General: It is not the case that we have not lifted a finger in support of the detainees; such has been the pressure of our representations that five of them have been returned. We have made clear our concerns about the circumstances in which the detainees have been held, including the question of legal advice and the fact of their detention. Discussions are under way. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he thinks that the detainees should either be brought back to this country or given a fair trial. We have said that a trial before a military commission is not one that we would consider fair. We are therefore pressing forward with arrangements for them to be returned home. I ask the House to understand the important efforts that have been made by the Attorney-General, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister on behalf of those detained.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): If the Solicitor-General will not agree to the proposition that the Attorney-General should represent the four detainees, what about seeking to persuade the American Government to accept an amicus before the military tribunal so as to ensure that the constitutional rights of the detainees are properly respected?

The Solicitor General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests an amicus brief before the military commission. We are not appearing in any form before the military commission, and nor are the detainees who are UK nationals, because we do not believe that the commission guarantees a fair trial. In respect of appearance before the district court in Washington DC, which is set to hear the applications for habeas corpus, an application has been made by the detainees' representatives for the UK to put in an amicus brief. As I have told the House, that is under consideration. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the problem is that I will not agree that we should represent the detainees. I would remind him that not since 1830, when there was a row about the Attorney-General and the Law Officers acting for private clients, have they acted for anyone other than the Crown, Parliament and the Government.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): I wish to return to the important issue of the amicus brief in front
 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 860
 
of the district court. I appreciate that the Government are considering their position, but time is moving on. The question of possible representation on the amicus brief has been around for six or seven weeks, if not longer. When will the Government give us a definite lead on the matter? It is important, and many hon. Members will have been approached individually to lend their names to such a brief. On the basis of what the Government have said about the importance of observing proper constitutional proprieties in the United States, there would seem to be overwhelming reasons why it should be signed.

The Solicitor General: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is important that we give serious consideration to the question whether to proceed with an amicus brief. He is right that time is moving on, and we are acting as expeditiously as we can. Although the request was made some time ago for us to put in the brief, we did not receive the papers until recently. We will inform the House as soon as a decision has been made.

Domestic Violence

19. Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab): What discussions she has held with Cabinet colleagues on improving the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service deals with court cases involving domestic violence. [187720]

The Solicitor General: I am in continuous discussions with ministerial colleagues about improving the way in which the CPS deals with court cases involving domestic violence, principally through the interministerial group on domestic violence chaired by the Home Office Minister, Baroness Scotland.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. It will not surprise her to learn that, at a seminar I chaired for people working to support those facing domestic violence in Plymouth this time last year, one of the key concerns was the delays in bringing cases to court. It is vital to speed things up. Will she continue her drive to join up government to achieve that and will she remind Baroness Scotland, who will visit my constituency next week, of the importance of doing everything we can to do so?

The Solicitor General: I certainly will and I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in her city of Plymouth on the issue of domestic violence, not least conducting a survey that has highlighted existing concerns. It is important that all the agencies work together and that cases are brought to court as swiftly as possible. However, protective orders should be made in the meantime, so that women can know that they and their children are safe before cases come to court.

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): My right hon. and learned Friend will know that on average two women are killed every week in this country by their spouse or partner. Indeed, in the Rhondda in the past two years, we have had five domestic murders. Is it not vital that the CPS acts as sensitively as possible as early as possible in cases of domestic violence, so that they do not lead to domestic murder?

The Solicitor General: It certainly is, and one of the objectives of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims
 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 861
 
Bill, which is going through the House at present, is to enable early intervention. If early intervention does not take place, domestic violence can escalate and end up in homicide. In addition to early intervention, we have set up homicide reviews so that we learn the lessons when agencies have not been able to prevent homicides. The Law Commission has recently reported on homicides in cases of domestic violence, and we are considering what further action to take.

Corruption (Prosecutions)

20. Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): What steps she is taking to ensure consistency of decision making in prosecutions for corruption. [187721]

The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): Consistency of decision making in prosecutions for corruption is ensured by the Crown Prosecution Service following the code for Crown prosecutors, which requires them to consider the sufficiency of evidence and whether a prosecution would be in the public interest,
 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 862
 
and, secondly, by the requirement in all cases of corruption that a Law Officer consent to the prosecution.

Mr. Turner: I understand that the common law offences of corruption and that of abuse of public office are more or less a dead letter and that it is very difficult to secure a successful prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916. Are Ministers looking at how effective that legislation is and at whether it should be more effective?

The Solicitor General: The hon. Gentleman puts his concerns well and we agree with those views. There are great difficulties in prosecuting and that is one of the reasons why the Government have been considering new laws on corruption. There has been pre-legislative scrutiny based on a draft Bill produced by the Law Commission in 1998, and in due course a new Bill will be brought forward to deal with the important issue of tackling corruption that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises.

 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 863
 

---