| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
“scraped through by nine votes. Few could really understand why so much political capital had been expended on a 14-day extension of detention which, by the time concessions had been made, looked unlikely ever to be deployable anyway. The provision seems highly likely to be amended in the Lords, where it has already been condemned by a former Lord Chancellor, a former Attorney General and a former Director of MI5, in addition to the opposition. Then there will be the ‘ping pong’ between the Houses, and the risk of defeat yet again.”
There was no ping-pong of course, as the Government accepted the decision of the other place and as a result the 42-day proposal was defeated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) made an eloquent speech that rightly drew attention to the eighth report by his Joint Committee on Human Rights. He pointed out the Committee’s concerns, which I do not think the Minister addressed so I hope he will do so when he comes to reply. Is the Whip—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie)—nodding and trying to encourage me to get on with my speech? I assure him that there is plenty of time left in the debate, with no more speakers other than the Front-Bench spokesmen, so if he will allow me to develop my arguments, I will be extraordinarily grateful.
When the Minister replies, I hope he will deal with points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. When his Committee considered the matter, it did not see that there was a case for an extension certainly beyond 28 days, or even for keeping it at 28 days. His speech was an “on notice” speech, therefore. Along with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, myself and other Members, he is putting the Government on notice that we would not be prepared to go along with this proposal on a future occasion unless additional information were placed before the House.
Chris Huhne: We have had a number of commitments from Members over the years on issues to do with this matter—I am thinking of control orders in particular. Members have stood up and made a very similar speech to that which the right hon. Gentleman is making, in which they have said, “I’m putting the Government on notice. Next year, we’re not going to do this,” but that has not then transpired. Is the right hon. Gentleman making a firm commitment that if this Government—or perhaps another Government—come forward with this proposal again next year, he will vote against it?
Keith Vaz: I think it is better to give a firm commitment than to be accused of being St. Augustine, which is one of the favourite descriptions of hon. Members in certain other circumstances. Of course we simply cannot go on renewing this order unless we have something more from the Government than, “It is a very complicated process; there are a lot of computer disks to examine; it does take a lot of time to look at these situations,” especially as the head of counter-terrorism, Assistant Commissioner Yates, is already worrying about the possible reduction in his budget that the Government are proposing or agreeing to. So yes, we have to put the Government on notice. We have to ensure that the point of scrutinising the Government in both the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Joint Committee on Human Rights is to hold them to account. They have had us on good faith, but it is time we said to them that there is a point when good faith runs out. Therefore, next time we will expect the Minister to come up with firm evidence in order to convince us that the Government have the right approach.
I am sorry to delay the Whip in his whipping arrangements, but may I raise one further point: the impact on communities? I raised this with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. It really is not good enough for the Government to come before the House every year and say, “Yes, we will have an impact assessment. Yes, we will begin consultations with communities,” and then not to do it. I am always prepared to be convinced by the Minister’s boyish charm. When he appeared before the Select Committee, he told us exactly how many hours he had been in the job, and today he has told us how many weeks and days he has been in the job, so he is obviously counting very carefully indeed. I do not expect him to say today that this is due to start shortly and that by the time we discuss it next year the impact assessment will be ready. I want to know who is conducting the impact assessment, how many people are sitting on the panel, what budget will be available, and which cities will be visited. I want detail when he comes to reply, or else I shall go back to the Library and table a whole series of parliamentary questions—I will
not bother to wait for a letter as that will take too long. Is he giving me his boyish, charming smile? I will expect that kind of detail when he responds.
Ms Dari Taylor: Would it not be appropriate for this risk assessment process to include parliamentarians?
Keith Vaz: Absolutely. The Minister should take a leaf out of the book of the Minister for Borders and Immigration—I am talking about what happened when the Government were defeated on the Gurkha issue—and remember the importance of consulting Parliament. I am sure that the Home Affairs Committee, some of whose distinguished members are in the Chamber today, would want to be consulted, as would the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Minister should let us know precisely what is planned, because we have heard some wonderful statements from the Government about community cohesion—the Prime Minister has announced additional money and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has talked about communities working together—but we need to see detailed plans before we can support them on a future occasion.
My final points relate to intercept evidence. Again, I am sorry to disappoint the Whip, but this debate lasts only an hour and half. I do not know whether anybody has been arrested or detained in Leeds, but this issue affects the whole country and the liberty of the citizen, so I should be grateful if he allowed me, without hurrying me along, to finish this small contribution. I say to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) that my Committee’s report recommended that intercept evidence should be used, because we felt that that was the right approach to take. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South that this has to be done carefully, but it should not be done so carefully that we never get it implemented. At the time, the Prime Minister made a statement to the House in which he said he was in favour of this.
So let us adopt these sensible proposals and try to make progress on this matter. Let us all put the Government on notice that next time we will not nod this through; we will be much more critical if the Minister does not come up with the goods.
2.1 pm
Mr. Hanson: I have to tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) that I was 52 years old on Sunday, so I gratefully accept his compliment about boyish charm.
I note that the tone of the debate has been one of putting the Government on notice. The Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East have all taken that approach, and I hear it in the spirit in which it was given. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) is trying to test the House today, and that is a perfectly legitimate position to take. I suspect, given the soundings that we have taken in this debate, that I know what the result will be, but we will shortly see what happens.
I wish to make my remarks reasonably speedily. Again, the key thing for me is protecting the British public. We talked earlier about the 11 people who have been held
for more than 14 days’ pre-charge detention, six of whom have been held for the maximum 27 to 28 days. As I mentioned, three have been charged and three have been released without charge. I can inform the House that two are facing trial very shortly on serious charges, and one was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment last December. That conviction and sentence may not have happened—the information may not have been brought forward—without the 14 to 28 days’ maximum provision being put in place. That is what I believe this is all about.
I accept again—this has been debated today—that there have not been any incidences in the past two years. This is a temporary power and the measure provides for it to carry on for one further year, if the House supports it today. I hope that we will examine the situation in relation to potential and actual terrorist activities in the next 12 months and, if need be, make the case that I have made today that there are difficult issues that may need further assessment during that 14 to 28-day period.
I wish to touch briefly on a couple of the points that have been made. The issue of intercept evidence was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. As the House will know, the Government remain committed to using the best evidence available to enhance the ability to bring prosecutions. The Privy Council review has taken place under Sir John Chilcot. We will be considering that and I hope that we will make announcements on these issues shortly. A copy of the progress report of the advisory group has been placed in the House Libraries so that Members can look at these serious issues that need to be resolved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon was concerned about judicial oversight, which was mentioned by his Committee. We have always maintained that judicial authority should be in place to determine the application for extended detention and to ensure that, as is the case in Northern Ireland, the original legality of the arrest is examined when it is questioned by the detainee. He will know of the recent case involving Duffy and others in Northern Ireland, which followed the tragic murders earlier this year, in which those issues were addressed as part of the consideration.
Mr. Dismore: My right hon. Friend rightly says that this has always been the Government’s argument and that we have always questioned it. Since last year we have had the decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the Belmarsh cases and the decision of the House of Lords in the control order cases, both of which speak to this very point about what proper judicial scrutiny means in such cases. Both those decisions point to our current arrangements being inadequate.
Mr. Hanson:
The recent House of Lords judgment was mentioned by a number of hon. Members, including not only my hon. Friend but my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. We are at the moment considering the impact of the judgments in the case of AF and others. We do not accept that there is an automatic read-across to all proceedings involving closed material, but we are examining the issue and, again, I very much
hope that we will be able to respond shortly. We have already written to the High Court to explain that we will be responding to the judgment shortly.
Chris Huhne: This is a quick question. Will the Minister set a deadline for the consideration of the admissibility of intercept evidence, bearing in mind the precept that work always expands to fill the time available?
Mr. Hanson: I have given a clear commitment, not only today but in Home Office questions on Monday, that we will respond to this judgment shortly. We are examining the issue in detail and we have written to the High Court to explain that we are examining it. As ever, I have given a commitment to report back to the House.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman used the word “Kafkaesque” when he said that people could be charged without knowing what they were being charged with. I wish to make it clear to the House that that is not the case; suspects are told why they are being detained and what allegations are being investigated, and as much detail is given as is possible within the constraints of an ongoing, fast-moving criminal investigation.
The Government have made the case for this measure, which seeks to provide for a one-year extension, although I appreciate that there is some scepticism.
Keith Vaz: At the risk of incurring the wrath of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East, may I ask whether the Minister will deal with impact assessments and risk assessments?
Keith Vaz: It seems that the Minister is coming to that—excellent.
Mr. Hanson: My right hon. Friend anticipates my peroration on these matters—I hope it will be made with boyish charm.
From my perspective, there are some key issues here. We have made the case for this measure. I accept that there is a need to examine risk assessment issues—we will examine those—and how we provide confidence in the community.
Mr. Hanson: I will give way in a moment, but I am trying to answer the questions my right hon. Friend asked about the assessment that we are making of the impact on the community. They are being discussed in government this very week, and I have examined them. I hope I shall shortly be in a position to make some announcements on those issues. I cannot make such announcements today, but I will do so shortly and I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and his Committee, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East and his Committee.
Mr. Dismore:
Again, my right hon. Friend has referred to assessments of the impact on communities, and I welcome that. However, he has not mentioned the impact on individuals—that is a point that my Committee made this year and last year. Will he confirm whether an assessment will be made of the impact on individuals?
Will he also answer the point about ensuring that trials are not prejudiced by statements made in the media or by Ministers?
Mr. Hanson: Again, it is a self-evident truth that trials should not be prejudiced by statements to the media. I very much hope that everyone involved in these issues will examine them. It is important that, as part of the detention procedure, people do not have their trials compromised by statements made outside the situation.
Mr. Hanson: I would like to finish the point that I am trying to make in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. He has mentioned assessments of the impact on individuals and on communities. This week, I have looked at those issues in government, and I shall be making statements on them shortly. I cannot do that today, but I hope that my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East will accept that these matters are before us.
Chris Huhne: Before the Minister gets to his peroration, I hope that he will deal with the point about the flexibility of the threshold test, especially as he has experience not only of the Home Office but of the Ministry of Justice. He is therefore in a very good position to tell the House how much extra flexibility is now available to prosecutors to bring charges so that these provisions are unnecessary. Will he deal with that issue, because he has not mentioned it?
Mr. Hanson: The House may recall that this point was mentioned during my initial contribution. We have made a judgment that the extension from 14 to 28 days is needed because of the threats to our communities from individuals who try to damage them. We are trying to balance the liberties of individuals with the liberty of society as a whole, and I commend the order to the House.
The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 59.
AYES
Ainger, Nick
Alexander, rh Mr. Douglas
Allen, Mr. Graham
Anderson, Mr. David
Anderson, Janet
Atkins, Charlotte
Austin, Mr. Ian
Austin, John
Bailey, Mr. Adrian
Baird, Vera
Banks, Gordon
Barron, rh Mr. Kevin
Battle, rh John
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Miss Anne
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benton, Mr. Joe
Betts, Mr. Clive
Blackman, Liz
Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta
Borrow, Mr. David S.
Bradshaw, rh Mr. Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr. Nicholas
Brown, Mr. Russell
Browne, rh Des
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burgon, Colin
Butler, Ms Dawn
Byers, rh Mr. Stephen
Byrne, rh Mr. Liam
Caborn, rh Mr. Richard
Cairns, David
Campbell, Mr. Alan
Campbell, Mr. Ronnie
Caton, Mr. Martin
Cawsey, Mr. Ian
Challen, Colin
Chapman, Ben
Clapham, Mr. Michael
Clarke, rh Mr. Tom
Clelland, Mr. David
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Cohen, Harry
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Crausby, Mr. David
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, Mrs. Ann
Cummings, John
Cunningham, Mr. Jim
Cunningham, Tony
David, Mr. Wayne
Davidson, Mr. Ian
Davies, Mr. Quentin
Denham, rh Mr. John
Dismore, Mr. Andrew
Dobbin, Jim
Dobson, rh Frank
Dodds, Mr. Nigel
Donohoe, Mr. Brian H.
Doran, Mr. Frank
Dowd, Jim
Drew, Mr. David
Eagle, Angela
Efford, Clive
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Engel, Natascha
Ennis, Jeff
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr. Frank
Fisher, Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flint, rh Caroline
Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
George, rh Mr. Bruce
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Goodman, Helen
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Nigel
Grogan, Mr. John
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr. Peter
Hall, Mr. Mike
Hall, Patrick
Hanson, rh Mr. David
Harris, Mr. Tom
Healey, rh John
Henderson, Mr. Doug
Hepburn, Mr. Stephen
Heppell, Mr. John
Hesford, Stephen
Heyes, David
Hill, rh Keith
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon
Hope, Phil
Howarth, rh Mr. George
Howells, rh Dr. Kim
Hoyle, Mr. Lindsay
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Hutton, rh Mr. John
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Illsley, Mr. Eric
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
James, Mrs. Siân C.
Jenkins, Mr. Brian
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Jones, Mr. Martyn
Joyce, Mr. Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeble, Ms Sally
Keeley, Barbara
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Khan, rh Mr. Sadiq
Kidney, Mr. David
Kilfoyle, Mr. Peter
Knight, rh Jim
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Lammy, rh Mr. David
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lepper, David
Levitt, Tom
Lewis, Mr. Ivan
Linton, Martin
Lloyd, Tony
MacShane, rh Mr. Denis
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mallaber, Judy
Mann, John
Marris, Rob
Marsden, Mr. Gordon
McAvoy, rh Mr. Thomas
McCabe, Steve
McCarthy, Kerry
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
McDonagh, Siobhain
McFadden, rh Mr. Pat
McFall, rh John
McGuire, rh Mrs. Anne
McIsaac, Shona
McKechin, Ann
McKenna, Rosemary
Merron, Gillian
Miller, Andrew
Moffatt, Laura
Mole, Chris
Moon, Mrs. Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morgan, Julie
Mudie, Mr. George
Mullin, Mr. Chris
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Mr. Paul
Naysmith, Dr. Doug
Norris, Dan
O'Brien, rh Mr. Mike
O'Hara, Mr. Edward
Olner, Mr. Bill
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Pearson, Ian
Pope, Mr. Greg
Pound, Stephen
Prentice, Mr. Gordon
Prosser, Gwyn
Purnell, rh James
Rammell, Bill
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Reed, Mr. Jamie
Reid, rh John
Robertson, John
Rooney, Mr. Terry
Roy, Mr. Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, Joan
Russell, Christine
Sarwar, Mr. Mohammad
Seabeck, Alison
Sharma, Mr. Virendra
Sheridan, Jim
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Singh, Mr. Marsha
Skinner, Mr. Dennis
Slaughter, Mr. Andy
Smith, rh Mr. Andrew
Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Smith, rh Angela E. (Basildon)
Smith, Geraldine
Smith, rh Jacqui
Snelgrove, Anne
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Spellar, rh Mr. John
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Strang, rh Dr. Gavin
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Taylor, Ms Dari
Thomas, Mr. Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Mr. Stephen
Todd, Mr. Mark
Touhig, rh Mr. Don
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Dr. Desmond
Ussher, Kitty
Vaz, rh Keith
Vis, Dr. Rudi
Walley, Joan
Waltho, Lynda
Ward, Claire
Watson, Mr. Tom
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Wicks, rh Malcolm
Williams, Mrs. Betty
Wills, rh Mr. Michael
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr. David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Woolas, Mr. Phil
Wright, Mr. Anthony
Wright, David
Wright, Mr. Iain
Wright, Dr. Tony
Wyatt, Derek
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mark Tami and
Mary Creagh
NOES
Alexander, Danny
Brake, Tom
Breed, Mr. Colin
Brooke, Annette
Cable, Dr. Vincent
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, Mr. Alistair
Corbyn, Jeremy
Davey, Mr. Edward
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Foster, Mr. Don
George, Andrew
Gidley, Sandra
Goldsworthy, Julia
Harris, Dr. Evan
Harvey, Nick
Heath, Mr. David
Hemming, John
Holmes, Paul
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, David
Hughes, Simon
Huhne, Chris
Hunter, Mark
Jones, Lynne
Keetch, Mr. Paul
Kennedy, rh Mr. Charles
Kramer, Susan
Lamb, Norman
Laws, Mr. David
Leech, Mr. John
Llwyd, Mr. Elfyn
Mackinlay, Andrew
Mason, John
McDonnell, John
Moore, Mr. Michael
Mulholland, Greg
Öpik, Lembit
Pugh, Dr. John
Rennie, Willie
Rogerson, Dan
Rowen, Paul
Russell, Bob
Simpson, Alan
Smith, Sir Robert
Stunell, Andrew
Swinson, Jo
Taylor, Dr. Richard
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, John
Webb, Steve
Williams, Mark
Williams, Mr. Roger
Williams, Stephen
Willis, Mr. Phil
Willott, Jenny
Wishart, Pete
Younger-Ross, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr. Adrian Sanders and
Mr. Alan Reid
Question accordingly agreed to.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |