| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): We have had a tremendous debate over the past four or five hours, certainly the most important in which I have taken part during my time here. I am grateful to Members of all parties for their contributions. I shall make a few preliminary remarks before dealing with as many comments as I can.
First, let me make it clear that, in my view, it is essential to the prevention of terrorism for us to remain above the party political fray. There is no issue more pressing, more salient or more difficult to resolve than the balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of wider society, and where to strike that balance is the very stuff of politics. Today's debate, however, is not theoretical. We have heard a lot of theory today, but the debate is real, it is here and it is now. All the evidence and the experience in Bali, Madrid, Iraq and elsewhere shows that terror cells do exist, they are active and they are plotting new atrocities.
So what should Government do? The theories of rights look pretty feeble in the face of the suicide bomber or the suicide hijacker. Edmund Burke and Tom Paine had no concept of the threat that we face from terrorist foes, so our deliberations must reflect the realities, not the theories. No Government faced with the scale of threat that we currently face could fail to act and still expect the support of the public. We must defend the freedoms of the overwhelming majority, who want to live in peace and security, and tackle the tiny minority who are prepared to kill themselves in order to destroy our way of life. I remain convinced that on this fundamental issue we have struck the right balance.
I will now try to deal with the issues that have been raised. I welcome the willingness of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) at least to engage with the legislation. He said that he does not particularly like the idea of control orders but he is willing to see whether the Bill can be improved. We certainly all share that aim.
The right hon. Gentleman raised specific issues and wanted other measures to be considered. He asked whether other offences such as acts preparatory to the commission of terrorism could be considered. We are actively looking at that. The Home Secretary said that we will look at that and possibly bring forward further legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about intercept evidence. Many hon. Members have mentioned that again—I think that this is the third or fourth occasion in recent weeks that we have talked about it. He said that, since al-Qaeda knows about US intercept, how would our use of it mean that its practices were altered? Although simple forms of intercept such as wire and phone tapping may well be general knowledge, some of our more sophisticated capabilities, using intercept in different ways, are not necessarily known to those terrorists. If those capabilities become widely known, the terrorists will change the way in which they operate and our ability to disrupt them and to thwart their attacks will be severely compromised.
23 Feb 2005 : Column 432
The right hon. Gentleman asked why it is suddenly necessary to impose these control orders. That issue has been raised more generally. It is necessary now not only because we have to respond to the Law Lords' judgment, but because, as we have done more and more operations to disrupt terrorists, we have found that the threat from British citizens has been developing in a way that was not clear to us immediately following 9/11. Therefore, there is a need now to have powers that respond to the threat not just from foreign nationals but from British citizens.
I say a genuine thank you to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) for his constructive approach to the problem. He is right to say that there is common ground between us and he laid that out in a genuine way. We need to have a regime in place by 14 March to protect the public. He does not want the part 4 powers to be renewed. He wants to see whether we can put something in place. I agree entirely that we need to do more on deportation, getting memorandums of understanding with those third countries, provided that they are robust in human rights terms, to see whether we can return people to where they have come from.
The hon. Gentleman said that control orders could be a useful tool in the variety of mechanisms available to us, and he has generously acknowledged the considerable movement we have made in having a high level of judicial scrutiny, involvement and oversight in the process. However, he is also right to say that there is disagreement between us. There remains the issue of the point at which the judiciary get involved. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said that there was perhaps tuppence between us in terms of when the judiciary should get involved. The Home Secretary has said that we will consider the matter further. No doubt we will debate it in detail on Monday in Committee. We are happy to do that but that is an area where there remains disagreement between us.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank the Home Secretary for his commitment to look again at the issue of the primacy of the judiciary in this process. I hope that on Monday we will have a full and successful debate, so a vote for Second Reading will mean a vote for Third Reading. I hope that we do not have to vote against Third Reading because we have not made any progress.
Ms Blears: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we will continue to engage in detail on this issue when we look at the Bill line by line. We certainly will be doing that on Monday.
The hon. Member for Winchester raised issues about the standard of proof, reasonable suspicion and the balance of probabilities. Another issue he raised was about the fact that there are already police powers to hold people in detention for 14 days. He asked why we should not use those police powers, rather than seeking a seven-day period for the control order. I think that he acknowledged that the current police powers relate to an ongoing investigation and therefore may not be appropriate, but I am sure that we can explore that in greater detail next week, too.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who raised the possibility of exploring the idea of an interim application. We went on
23 Feb 2005 : Column 433
to discuss whether such an application would be ex parte in those circumstances. Those are the sort of detailed matters that we can genuinely discuss on Monday.
I was saddened by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). I acknowledge his strength of feeling, but if that was his last speech in the House, it is a shame that he could not have spoken about a more constructive subject and offered something more positive. I really felt that his contribution was very sad indeed—[Interruption.]
I was grateful for the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who adopted a very practical approach to the issues. He said that there was too much theoretical legalistic language in tonight's debate and that we needed to get the balance right. He raised some serious issues about what happens when a control order is decided on. He asked whether a decision is taken then about prosecution and on whose advice. I can tell him that every single time that a control order is considered, advice will be sought from the Crown Prosecution Service, as it is now, about whether a prosecution is possible. Prosecution is always our preferred option.
Several hon. Members asked about sending the papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I can confirm that the CPS is engaged, but we will look to see whether we can do anything further on this matter. I want to tell the House that a decision to make a control order does not mean that investigation stops. Indeed, investigations have continued into some of the current detainees and further charges have been brought. It is not the case that, once an order is made, all the work on investigation and prosecution comes to a full stop.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) questioned the advice of the security services and said that it was the job of Ministers to probe, test and evaluate that advice and reach their own decisions. I can give him the assurance that that is exactly what Ministers do: we receive the advice of the security services, but then test it in order to reach our own viewpoint. He said that we should not pass off responsibility to officials, and we are certainly not doing so. Interestingly, the same argument could be applied to passing off our responsibility to the judiciary. That was one of the matters raised by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), but I can reassure him about that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who unfortunately cannot be with us now, did not accept the need for control orders and argued that it was the job of the Government to test whether such powers were necessary. He served on the Newton committee, for which I am grateful, and he also raised the matter of using intercept evidence. I remind the House again that much of the intercept evidence used in other countries is the product of law enforcement agencies. They do not use intelligence product to anything like the extent that we do in this country. I have a genuine fear that, if intelligence product were used, we would see the sources drying up significantly in the future.
23 Feb 2005 : Column 434
As to the contribution of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), does he accept that there is a serious threat, which I thought was fairly common ground? Does he accept that some people cannot be prosecuted through a conventional legal system? Does he accept that detention in prison under part 4 is not sustainable in the light of the Law Lords' judgment? Frankly, in those circumstances, what would he do? We received no answer to that question whatever.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a short and powerful speech in which he said that he would support control orders up to derogation. I hope to persuade him of the need for the extra powers in our later line-by-line examination of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who has a proud record on constitutional issues, asked for further change, but recognised that extraordinary times need extraordinary measures. I was grateful to him for that.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) asked about European issues and invited us to take serious note of the tone of the debate. I can certainly give him the assurance that we will do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) made a powerful and moving speech, in which she recounted her personal experience. She said that she could not support the Government on control orders this evening. I hope that she will remain engaged in the debate over the next few days, as she raised some serious and important points.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and to all those hon. Members who offered support. I end by placing on record my appreciation of the work of the security services. They have helped protect this country over the past three and a half years, but have no forum in which they can explain themselves. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude for keeping us safe.
It being Eight o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 316.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |