Let me begin by addressing the points made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who cut to the heart of a number of arguments surrounding this Bill and the measures that we judge appropriate. We would all like to live in a world where the measures contemplated in the Bill were not needed. The sad reality is that they are, as a continuing threat will be posed to this country and its citizens by people it is not possible to prosecute, deport or take other action against so preventive measures are required. I wish that that were not the case but it is, which is why we are introducing the measures in this Bill. They follow on from the counter-terrorism review and are in recognition of this continuing risk to the citizens of this country. The Bill is certainly not about protecting the security services; it is about protecting the public. That is the driver behind these measures.
Let me deal with the duration of the legislation and the Government's sunset clause. Our starting point was that this legislation was not being considered in a fevered state but in a measured way so, like other legislation, it did not require a sunset clause. However, we listened carefully, we reflected on the Bill's measures and the impact they could have on individuals, and we judged it appropriate that each Parliament should be able to review the measures in the context of the security situation at the time and consider whether their continuation was appropriate. That is why we have introduced the five-year sunset clause in the way that we have.
It has been interesting to hear this evening's debate about annual renewal. The hon. Member for Islington North has been a consistent participant in these debates—I respect the contributions that he has made year on year—and he implied that some of them have been ““perfunctory””. That is not what we would wish in relation to legislation such as this, which is why the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) about the need for a serious and considered review of legislation was well made and strongly put. We took that approach when we sought to conduct a counter-terrorism review in preparation for this Bill.
I understand the point that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) makes. In some ways, she sympathises with the line of argument taken by the hon. Member for Islington North. She makes a point about Executive action, but I repeat that circumstances and situations continue to arise that mean, sadly, that legislation of this type is necessary and continues to be required. She made a point about secret evidence, and the Government will shortly be introducing a Green Paper to consider further its use in court and to consider this matter in further detail, given a number of associated issues that have been raised.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
Proceeding contribution from
James Brokenshire
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 5 September 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
532 c82-3 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:14:56 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766141
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766141
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_766141