| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Blears:
I have already made it clear—[Interruption.] Yes. The security services have told us that they want control orders. They have not said that they want a sunset clause—[Interruption.] I say to the
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1809
House that the Government are proposing the legislation. We are trying to make sure that it does what the security services want us to do, which is to provide control orders that will protect the national security of this country. That is what the Government are trying to do. We are not saying that every clause we propose is demanded by the security services, but I am saying that the security services want us to have control orders. That is why I was asking the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) whether the Conservatives support control orders.
Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As page 74 of "Erskine May" makes clear,
"it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity".
In the light of what has occurred, when the Prime Minister gave a clear account that the security services had said that it was against the sunset clause, yet we now know from the Minister that that is not the case, clearly the Prime Minister must come here and apologise to the House. He must correct the information—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Chair has no power to command the presence of any particular Minister at any particular time. I suggest to the House that these are matters of judgment, which will continue to be—[Interruption.] Order. They will continue to be at the centre of debate. These are matters for the House to decide.
Mr. Heath: The House can draw a very clear moral from this: never believe a thing that the Prime Minister says he is told by the security services. We have too much experience of this now.
The Government are entitled to have their legislation to fight terrorism, but they must have the right legislation. That is what all of us who are sensibly engaged in this debate are determined to achieve by the end of this evening or tomorrow. I believe that another place will have another go at this. Eventually, the Government will see sense and we will have that sensible legislation.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab/Co-op): I want to make one point. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) seemed deliberately to misunderstand the points made in interventions by my hon. Friends. Earlier, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) spoke about a serious interference in liberty. I went through to hear the debate in the other place and the— [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the House that levity has its place, but probably not at six minutes past 2 in the morning.
Mr. Foulkes:
What we are seeing from Opposition Members is the effect of the grape, rather than anything else. I remind the House—[Interruption.]
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1810
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's remark helped the situation. Let us get back to the central issue of the debate. I say to the House, let every right hon. and hon. Member be heard properly.
Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield spoke about a serious interference in liberty. This is a serious matter. As I said, I went through to hear the Lord Chancellor, and I want to make just one point. The Lord Chancellor pointed out to the other place that it had asked the Government to make five changes in the Bill. The Government had accepted four of those five changes—80 per cent. of what the House of Lords asked us for. The Lord Chancellor went on to say, "Accept the primacy of the House of Commons." For a third time, the House of Lords rejected the primacy of the House of Commons. That is not a serious interference in liberty; it is a serious interference in democracy.
Mr. Gummer: Earlier in our debates, the Home Secretary made a perfectly reasonable plea, which was that in these serious matters of counter-terrorism, the Government have a right to ask for the trust of the House of Commons in trying to come to their conclusions. That is why I say to the Home Secretary that it is with the heart of that trust that we are concerned tonight. The sunset clause is so important because we cannot trust the people who are asking for our trust.
I merely say to the Home Secretary that for him to pray in aid the security services, and for it then to be proved that the security services have not asked for one of the key things that he implied they had asked for, and that the Prime Minister said they had asked for, is to remove the trust of this House.
Mr. Charles Clarke: I have in front of me the Hansard report of the references that are being discussed. The Prime Minister said:
"are not prepared to accept either the amendment on the sunset clause or the other amendment voted for by the House of Lords, and which the Conservatives in the House of Lords backed, to change the burden of proof. That would not be wise; it would be contrary to the strong advice given to us by our security services and our police, and I am simply not prepared to do it."—[Official Report, 9 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1510.]
That is what he said. The security services and the police have advised us categorically and clearly, as they should do, on measures. They have advised us quite explicitly that we should not change the burden of proof for non-derogating control orders. The reason why they have given that advice is very simply because they know, as do we, that there are certain people who are dangerous to the country, but could not be controlled if such a situation existed.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is this morning debating matters of the most fundamental importance to our country. They relate to the protection of our country from the threat of terrorism, and the
10 Mar 2005 : Column 1811
fundamental liberties of the people of this country. It is essential for the future confidence in this House, and the political system as a whole, that these debates take place on the basis of the truth.
On Wednesday, in answer to a question from me, the Prime Minister said that it would not be wise to accept either the amendment on the sunset clause, or the other amendment to which the Home Secretary referred, because that would be
"contrary to the strong advice given to us by our security services and our police".—[Official Report, 9 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1510.]
It is now crystal clear that that is not the case. Is it not essential, in the interests of the body politic of this country, that the Prime Minister now come to the House to withdraw a statement that the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety this morning, and the Lord Chancellor earlier, said was not an accurate statement of the position?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have given the Leader of the Opposition some latitude to put that on the record. However, I must say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Chair has no power to command a Minister to attend the House—[Interruption.] Order. I do not need the advice of hon. Gentlemen. The Chair cannot intervene to cause a Minister to appear. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made his point, but there is nothing that the Chair can do to advance it.
Mr. Charles Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order to ask the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to read out verbatim the statement to which he referred, in every respect, and in particular to ask him to read out the Prime Minister's observation that the suggestion of a change to the burden of proof was not recommended by the security services in such a way? Let the right hon. and learned Gentleman read out the whole Hansard quotation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are now clearly moving from a point of order on to a point of debate, but I am mindful that we are still attempting to listen to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I think that we would do better to return to the mainstream of the debate.
2.15 am
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |