Formal minutes
Tuesday 20 June 2006
Members present:
Mr John Denham, in the Chair
| Mr Richard Benyon
Mr Jeremy Browne
Mrs Janet Dean
Mr Shahid Malik
Margaret Moran
Gwyn Prosser
| | Bob Russell
Martin Salter
Mr Richard Spring
Mr Gary Streeter
Mr David Winnick
|
[Business transacted at this meeting included the following item:]
Consideration of draft Report
Draft Report (Terrorism Detention Powers),
proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the Chairman's
draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 142 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 143 read, as follows:
None of the evidence we have reviewed of current
and recent investigations would have justified a maximum detention
period longer than 28 days. But the growing number of cases and
the increase in suspects monitored by the police and security
services make it entirely possible, and perhaps increasingly likely,
that there will be cases that do provide that justification. We
believe, therefore, that the 28 day limit may well prove inadequate
in the future.
Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out from
"28 days" to the end of the paragraph and add "It
could be the position that the 28 days limit will prove inadequate
in the future. However, we have already referred in paragraph
38 to the antagonising effect on the Muslim community of a longer
period of detention. Nevertheless, it is always up to the Government
to propose to Parliament a longer period than 28 days, but in
our view there would need to be compelling evidence that this
was necessary.".—(Mr David Winnick.)
Question put, that the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 3
Mr Jeremy Browne
Bob Russell
Mr David Winnick
| | Noes, 7
Mrs Janet Dean
Mr Shahid Malik
Margaret Moran
Gwyn Prosser
Martin Salter
Mr Richard Spring
Mr Gary Streeter
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 144 to 147 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 148 read, as follows:
The process of the Terrorism Bill through Parliament
was divisive and did not increase public trust in the police or
the Government. If 28 days proves inadequate in due course, new
primary legislation to extend the maximum pre-charge detention
period is likely also to be very divisive. But it would be unacceptable
for the Government to use secondary legislation. We suggest that
a committee independent of Government be created to keep the maximum
detention period under annual review and to recommend the introduction
of new legislation as necessary. The committee might follow the
model of the Newton Committee of Privy Counsellors, appointed
in April 2002 to review the operation of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime
and Security Act 2001.
Amendment proposed, in line 2, after "Government."
to insert "The main reason was that the Government was not
able to show convincingly that increasing the maximum period of
detention from 14 to 90 days was needed. The increase from 7 to
14 days had only been law for less than two years at the time
of November debate. There was, moreover, a feeling of distaste
that the police were being encouraged to lobby Members to vote
for the 90 days.".—(Mr David Winnick.)
Question put, that the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
|
Ayes, 5
Mr Jeremy Browne
Bob Russell
Mr Richard Spring
Mr Gary Streeter
Mr David Winnick
| | Noes, 5
Mrs Janet Dean
Mr Shahid Malik
Margaret Moran
Gwyn Prosser
Martin Salter
|
Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the Noes.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out from "legislation"
to the end of the paragraph.—(Mr David Winnick.)
Question put, that the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
|
Ayes, 3
Mr Jeremy Browne
Bob Russell
Mr David Winnick
| | Noes, 7
Mrs Janet Dean
Mr Shahid Malik
Margaret Moran
Gwyn Prosser
Martin Salter
Mr Richard Spring
Mr Gary Streeter
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 149 to 151 agreed to.
Draft Summary, proposed by the Chairman, brought
up and read.
Ordered, That the draft
Summary be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
The first five paragraphs were agreed to.
The sixth paragraph read as follows:
Current and recent investigations have gone sufficiently
close to 14 days to show that an extension of the maximum period
of pre-charge detention, as agreed by Parliament, is justified.
None of the evidence we have reviewed of current and recent investigations
would have justified a maximum detention period longer than 28
days. But the growing number of cases and the increase in suspects
monitored by the police and security services make it entirely
possible, and perhaps increasingly likely, that there will be
cases that do provide that justification. We believe, therefore,
that the 28 day limit may well prove inadequate in the future.
We have seen no evidence that a maximum of 90 days pre-charge
detention is essential, rather than useful.
Amendment proposed, in line 4, to leave out from
"28 days" to the end of the paragraph and add "It
could be that 28 days will prove inadequate in the future, but
we have seen no evidence that a maximum of 90 days pre-charge
detention is essential rather than perhaps useful.".—(Mr
David Winnick.)
Question put, that the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
|
Ayes, 3
Mr Jeremy Browne
Bob Russell
Mr David Winnick
| | Noes, 7
Mrs Janet Dean
Mr Shahid Malik
Margaret Moran
Gwyn Prosser
Martin Salter
Mr Richard Spring
Mr Gary Streeter
|
Paragraph agreed to.
The seventh paragraph agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That the Report be
the Fourth Report of the Committee to the House.
The Committee divided.
|
Ayes, 9
Mr Jeremy Browne
Mrs Janet Dean
Mr Shahid Malik
Margaret Moran
Gwyn Prosser
Bob Russell
Martin Salter
Mr Richard Spring
Mr Gary Streeter
| | Noes, 1
Mr David Winnick
|
Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available
in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134 (Select
committees (reports)).
A Paper was ordered to be appended to the Report.
Ordered, That the Appendices
to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be reported
to the House.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 27 June at Ten o'clock.
| 
