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 that took place earlier this year, in which those issues were addressed as part of the consideration.
Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hanson of Flint
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Thursday, 9 July 2009.
It occurred during Legislative debate on Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
495 c1176-7 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:45:49 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_576445
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_576445
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_576445