Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (NO. 2) BILL

House of Commons, 10 July 2007.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.

I want to make two points at the outset. First, Members will know that as a result of our deliberations on the Terrorism Act 2006 a compromise position was reached, whereby section 25 was inserted so that there was something to go back to, given the agreed premise that we annually review the 28-day period, which is rather complicated in terms of the law. Secondly, Members will understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), the then Home Secretary, announced on 7 June that a terrorism Bill would be introduced in the autumn and that we are keen to consult on the 28-day issue. I shall ensure that the consultation paper we want to circulate on that issue is put into the public domain for all interested parties before the summer recess. When we say that we want full consultation, that is absolutely what we mean. I realise the House will say that it is for us to prove that we are serious about consultation and I entirely accept that point—unfair and misguided though it may be—but we are very serious.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The Minister says that he will consult on 28 days. Does he actually mean that he will propose a 90-day detention period and that he wants to consult on that?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

No, with the greatest respect, I do not in the sense that I think it fair and reasonable to start from the premise that we will not suggest going from 28 days back down to 14 days, for reasons that I will come on to. However, the consultation period will include an array of options—the status quo and beyond 28 days—but things are not as simple as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests: simply keeping 28 days, or going back to the debate on 90 days.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Will one of the options that the Minister presents allow the results of interrogation after charge to be admissible evidence in court more regularly?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The strict response to my hon. Friend's question is no in the context of the consultation on 28 days, but he will remember that, when we announced that a subsequent Bill would be introduced in November—I suspect, post-Queen's Speech, but that is a matter for business managers—one of the other elements in that Bill was post-charge questioning. So his point about post-charge questioning will certainly be part of the broader review of and consultation on the Bill.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I will defer to the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman in the first instance, but I will certainly allow other hon. Members to intervene.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, because he will appreciate that these two issues have a very clear linkage. One of the arguments in favour of the extension from 14 to 28 days, which we are renewing today, has been the length of time needed to question. Indeed, if post-charge questioning were introduced, it would clearly be at least an argument to be put in the balance when considering either whether the 28-day provision had to be extended, for which there is no evidence at the moment, or indeed whether the period should be reduced. Of course, the reason we are having this debate is that, subject to the order, the detention period is, in fact, 14 days.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is an entirely fair point, but I would go further and say that I take the legitimacy of the point that how post-charge questioning relates to 28 or 14 days is important, which is why we will go down the suggested route of a Privy Council review of intercept evidence. How pre-charge detention for 28 days or otherwise, intercept evidence and post-charge questioning interplay is, again, a factor that needs to be taken account of in the consultation. Indeed, as we have made clear in the past, the raft of legislation about acts preparatory to terrorism will equally come into play as well. It is incumbent on the whole House to consider how all those elements hang together. So, in the broad sense, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

The Home Affairs Committee unanimously found recently that there was no justification to extend the 28-day provision, but will my hon. Friend also bear very much in mind the fact that in recognition of the acute terrorist threat that we face—no one is likely to dispute that—both Houses agreed to 14 days without any Division whatsoever? Likewise, the increase to 28 days carried in this House was also carried in the Lords—again, without any Division. We have a consensus—28 days—and we should retain it unless there is compelling evidence that there is a justification to go beyond it.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

That is an accurate reflection of what has gone before in respect of the 14 and 28-day provisions and a perfectly fair viewpoint, as I would expect from my hon. Friend, on going beyond 28 days. It is the job of myself and other Ministers to try to persuade people, if we come to this view, that we need to go beyond 28 days. It is certainly incumbent on the House to treat the matter very seriously in all respects, as I know that it will, but I would question in part my hon. Friend's point about substantial evidence. By its very nature, the only evidence that we have is of the rather limited period—the past year or so—when the 28-day provision has been in action and what we learn every time an alleged plot is disrupted. Given the traditional understanding of the word "evidence", I am not sure whether it is useful in that respect.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

Will the Minister confirm that the current 28-day period is likely to be extant until such time as further evidence is adduced? He seems to suggest that we might simply move to 90 days, almost as some sort of safety net. There is no evidence for that. Will he reassure me on that?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I am not suggesting that. On his former point, I do not want to pre-empt what the House does with the order. If the House does not pass the order today, 28 days cannot be extant, because we will be back to 14 days. I apologise if I have not made myself clear. We think that, at the very least, the case has been made. Certainly the alleged plots since that time have substantiated the position on 28 days. We need to take a collective view, hopefully based on consensus, on whether, in utter extremis—I know that we use 28 days in extremis—there should be some way of going beyond 28 days when required.

There are currently six cases that went to full term in relation to the 28-day period. I will come on to discuss that in some detail. In three cases there were subsequent charges; in three there were not. This relates partly to my clumsy point about evidence. The issue is as much about looking at where we are going over the next couple of years, in terms of the threat, as it is about assessing where we have come from. That is why I do not like the use of the word "evidence" in that narrow literal sense. I am not saying—in a hidden way or otherwise—that it is all about 90 days at this stage and the consultation is a big cover for that. We want a serious and sustained consultation on whether 28 days will suffice, whether we need some sort of mechanism portal, or whatever else, to go beyond that in extremis, as I said to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, or whether we need to settle on something beyond 28 days, which may or may not be the 90-day limit that was discussed at the time.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

The difficulty that we face in the House is that, in a free society, if we agree to changes in the law, they must not only be justified—they must be supported by people who are democrats and who want to live in a free society. If we accept restrictions that, in themselves, do the job of the terrorists, we may be playing the wrong game. I hope that the Minister will not get too hung up on the suggestion that there is no evidence. Many of us feel that if we are to combat this terror, we have to look at the situation far more widely and intelligence has to be important. It is not just a question of what we do when we have people in custody.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I absolutely accept my hon. Friend's point and not least her argument that we need to look far beyond this order—whether we have 14 days or 28 days—and consider matters in the widest context, including legislation, intelligence and all other areas, in terms of how we go forwards. I also accept her point that our starting premise must be what we all accept and agree is normality in terms of the rule of law and the statutes that govern this country. We depart from that certainly not in haste, or at leisure, but only in extremis and in very difficult and daunting circumstances.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

On pre-trial detention without charge, my objection has never been to the motives of Ministers, but rather to the draconian measure that I believe they have proposed. I understand why the hon. Gentleman is quizzical about the term "evidence", but he said himself that he would need to persuade the House. I put it to him that he would at least need to show some very clear disbenefit to the country, constituting some sort of threat to our security, in the absence of the extension he favours, if he were to persuade us. One way in which he might proceed would be to agree to provide Privy Council briefings to Privy Councillors—I would not benefit because I am not a Privy Councillor, but many are and would—as an earnest of good intent and of collective approaches by the Government.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am not one either, so that is at least something I share with the hon. Gentleman. He makes a fair point. As I have said, what we want to do, in terms of putting the documents out before the summer, is have the widest possible audience, rather than doing that on Privy Councillor terms. We can get a view that is part evidence-based, part speculation, and partly based on making some assumptions, to the extent that we can, about the nature of the threat that is to come. We cannot be trapped in a dimension that says we are fighting the threat that we knew a year ago, or two or three years ago. The situation is finely balanced. That is why, in part, I hesitate about "evidence" meaning things clearly one way or the other. Invariably, in the course of our discussions, there will at least in part be some speculation when it comes to where, taking into account the services, the police and all other opinions, we think that the likely threat will be. That is my only cavil about evidence; I am not saying, "Sorry, mate, I don't have the evidence, but let's do it anyway."

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

As the Minister knows, for many years I have been strongly in favour of an extension beyond 28 days in the interests of preserving the security of the people. The Government, and certainly the former Home Secretary, understand that the real issue is the interaction with the Human Rights Act 1998, around which the control order legislation works. Does the Minister accept that that is one of the fundamental problems? It has led to a situation in which the Minister and the Government cannot achieve what they want, and in which the subject is deprived of their liberty. Does he not agree that the simplest answer is to ensure that the alleged terrorists receive habeas corpus, have a fair trial and are subject to due process, and to get rid of this absurd legislation, which was passed in the middle of the night, when sunset turned into dark?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I am blessed to have such an ally. The hon. Gentleman's points are well made and consistently made, but they are wrong. At the core of his suggestion is the idea that the police are dilatory in their activities and keep people for 14 or 28 days, or whatever the cut-off point is, simply because it is convenient for them. The police—along with the security services, the Government and all right-thinking people—want to bring those who are detained to court in the swiftest fashion and at the earliest opportunity, and with the strongest possible case. We have had discussions about the interplay with the European convention on human rights, and I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. He swoops on me in corridors when I am trying to go for a quiet cup of tea; he creeps up on me all the time, and we have very interesting discussions. There is an issue with parts of the judiciary and how they interpret the convention, but I do not think that the convention is at fault.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Perhaps we can dispose of one of the arguments that I have heard adduced by people outside the House in support of an extension to the 28 days. It is argued that if a suicide bomber survives an attempted bombing but is injured, and so is not available for questioning, the extension would be necessary. Is it not the case that if we introduced post-charge questioning, those circumstances could not possibly apply, because someone who was injured while planting a bomb clearly has a prima facie charge against them?

Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

They would have to be arrested first.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

My answer to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) would have to be "Maybe." I do not know the specifics, and we could talk about the example that he gave in some detail, but as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg)—another non-Privy Councillor—suggests, the person would have to be arrested first. That is a moot point. Of course, if someone was so badly injured that rational discourse and discussion, and taking part in a police investigation, was beyond them, the issue of the timing of the arrest and the starting of the clock would come into play, as is fair.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome makes a fair point about the interaction between post-charge questioning and the issue of where we go on the question of the 28 days, and I am serious in saying that we want debate on it. I hope that I do not need to rehearse many of the substantial points on why we think that 28 days is necessary as a minimum. Everyone knows the arguments about encrypted messages, the greater internationalisation of threats, and the increasingly complex nature of the terrorist networks. We have to investigate what internationalisation means in terms of cryptography, languages and computers. These things are becoming ever more complex. We think that a period of at least 28 days is sufficient.

I remind the House that we are talking about the annual renewal of the order. The timing has not worked; it would have been preferable by far if we were in a position to move on to the Bill now, but reviews were carried out on the Home Office's functions and on the legislation. No matter what our speed, I do not think that we could have had that dispatched in time; we would still have needed a review.

I repeat that we want a substantive debate. There is no ruse to introduce a Bill on the first possible day after the summer to which everyone had better agree or else. When I was on Harrow council, I used to go on about consensus all the time. A Conservative councillor said, "It's all very well your talking about consensus, but by consensus you mean everyone agreeing with you." That is, of course, not the case, because I am, at root, a consensual politician. It behoves us all to get to a place where we agree on the necessary legislative framework to counter the threat, and the process that we are about to undertake is part of that.

Everything that hon. Members have said about how intercept evidence, post-charge questioning and other elements of the Bill fit with pre-charge detention is entirely fair. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about starting from the premise of our rule of law and departing from that only in extremis given the nature of the threat is fair. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand the seriousness of the terrorist threat and the importance of implementing the right measures to counter it, which includes the international dimension. Government Members and Opposition Members, including all Front Benchers, are clear that we must strike the right balance between protecting the rights of the detainee and ensuring that an investigation proceeds properly and effectively and that the police can deal with the complexities of investigations into modern terrorism.

This debate almost involves sparring before we get to the wider debate about how the order fits with all the other elements of a subsequent terrorism Bill. I am happy to meet Front Benchers and individuals who want to discuss 28-day detention or any other aspect of the Bill during the consultation. We are trying to arrange sessions with the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I repeat that we are serious about that consultation.

I hope that all hon. Members understand why this order is necessary. If it is not passed, we will return to a 14-day limit on 25 July. We can have a substantive debate about what the order does and what a 28-day limit means in the context of the other elements of the proposed terrorism Bill in a proper, reflective and discursive way, as befits this House.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I welcome the way in which the Minister has presented his arguments to the House this afternoon. I tell him now that we will not vote against the renewal motion.

It is important to bear in mind what we are debating. When the Prime Minister made a statement on the matter, there was a telling moment when the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) stood up and described 90-day detention almost in terms of a mantra to which people should sign up in order to show that they are tough on terrorism. We must get away from that sort of attitude. This House must clearly be robust in doing our best to protect the security of people in our country, but we must balance that with winning an argument about values, where our adherence to civil liberties is one of our principal weapons in defeating those who want to harm us. If we start signing up to easy solutions and, worse still, start dividing this House on the basis that if one does not sign up to a particular concept—for example, 90-day pre-charge detention—one is on the other side of the argument or, worse still, on the other side in terms of fighting terrorism, we will get off to a very bad start. I hope that we can avoid that, and the Minister's words this afternoon reassured me that we are moving in the right direction.

It is important to remember what this afternoon's debate is about. We keep on talking about extending 28-day pre-charge detention to, possibly, up to 90 days, but this debate highlights the fact that the current norm—indeed, it is a norm only for terrorist offences—is 14 days, and that the extension to 28 days, on which this House reached a consensus, is already an exceptional power that we need to scrutinise frequently because it is such a dramatic departure from normal practice. We have moved radically away from accepted practices that view 24 or 48 hours at a time as being long periods to detain somebody before charge. We should always bear that in mind, because otherwise we will fail to understand why our forebears thought that short periods of detention pre-charge were all that was acceptable, given that at such time a person is merely under suspicion and charge should usually follow rapidly after the police have had the opportunity to confirm or disprove in their own minds the suspicion that they may have.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Does my hon. Friend accept that at least two former Attorney-Generals and the reviewer, Lord Carlile, had suggested that the 28-day period could be extended? Furthermore, does he accept that, however, much we try, it is impossible to achieve anything without recognising that this provision, which pivots on the human rights legislation, will not be able to achieve its objective unless we deal with the fundamental problem that lies in that human rights legislation?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am afraid that I find myself constrained to disagree with my hon. Friend on both counts. On the first count, various arguments have been advanced as to the need to go beyond 28 days detention, but the previous Attorney-General made it absolutely clear in a number of statements—most recently only a few months ago—that he had seen no evidence to justify doing so. He argued that very strongly at a time, I might add, when the then Home Secretary was making noises to the contrary, as was highlighted in this House. As the then Home Secretary never provided any evidence to back up his assertions, I rather preferred the Attorney-General's view.

As to my hon. Friend's second point, although there are serious issues surrounding the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998—he has highlighted them on many occasions and they are legitimate topics for debate—I am not sure where they would bite in the context of this debate. I acknowledge that if the Government were to move to 90-day detention, that might be challenged under the Human Rights Act, but the Government are currently at 28 days, and there has never been any attempt to challenge that on the basis of its being in breach of the HRA. Indeed, as my hon. Friend will know, under exceptional circumstances of national emergency it is at least technically possible, well within the scope of the HRA and the ECHR, to declare a state of emergency and, if necessary, to bring in detention without trial. I am not recommending that to the Minister, but it has happened in the past. In the case of Northern Ireland, it was a huge mistake. Nevertheless, it is possible to do it without in any way falling foul of the HRA or the ECHR. Although important issues may be debated in this area—my hon. Friend specialises in it and has spoken on it often—it is not really a live issue in the context of this debate.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend has rightly emphasised how unprecedented and extraordinary the 28-day provision is. In order that we might underline the rarity of the circumstances that could justify its use, could he tell the House whether I am right in thinking that the Government have accepted that the number of cases that they have identified to which the 28-day provision could apply could be counted on the fingers of one hand?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

My hon. Friend makes a good point and, indeed, I had a list of questions that I was going to ask the Minister in order to seek clarification, of which his was one. My understanding is that the number of occasions when it has been necessary to go to 28 days, in the context of the total number of people detained, is very few. The Minister will doubtless be able to help us on that in his winding-up speech, and I have a list of questions for him. Anecdotally, it has been suggested to me that, although the police found it useful to go to the 28-day limit, it was not strictly necessary to do so because their investigations and inquiries had been effectively completed within the preceding 24 or 48-hour period. The Minister's information on that will certainly be valuable.

I would like to make one other point. We compare ourselves, rightly, with other common law jurisdictions. In the context of current events, we can read a great deal about what is happening in Australia, which appears to be taking some important steps to apprehend suspected terrorists. I understand that in Australia the outer limit of detention remains at 14 days—the Minister may be able to confirm that—which was achieved only after a rigorous debate in which many people suggested that 14 days was already a long time. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but in the United States, which is seen as a country that is pretty draconian in dealing with terrorism, 10 days is the maximum period for which a person may be detained.

We have to compare such figures because these are common law jurisdictions operating under many of the same handicaps for the state, or at least protection for the detained person, and it is worth bearing in mind that they have felt able to confine themselves to those periods, even though when we first debated this matter the police and the Minister made a persuasive case for going beyond 14 days, however reluctant I was to do so and however much I might wish to return to the 14-day figure if possible in the future.

I turn to the questions that I feel it useful to raise before the order is renewed. First, it would be useful to know how the provision is working in practice—how many times has it had to be used? Linked to that, I would be pleased if the Minister told the House how any detention beyond 14 days has operated in practice. Perhaps I can just flag up some of the areas that are of interest to me, which might be of interest to the House. As a result of what we did, we asked the Government to introduce a completely new set of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 rules. It is pretty obvious that rules designed to cover the detention of a person for what is usually 24 or 48 hours are not suitable when someone is in custody for a 21-day period. Will the Minister help the House on the question of how frequently individuals have been transferred to prison from police cells during the period of detention, and on how the system has operated with regard to bringing them back to police stations for further interview?

I am concerned that code H, which is the new code brought in to cover terrorist cases, still allows—at least in theory—for a person to be questioned for hour after hour over a period that could extend to 28 days. I do not think that that has happened in practice, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that having a code that allows questioning to take place almost incessantly over a 24-hour period, apart from an eight hour break for rest, is not really suitable for someone being detained for a long time. Is there not a danger, which we flagged up previously, that any statement made in that period might be challenged at a subsequent trial because of the degree not of coercion, but of sheer drudgery and the stressful experience of frequent questioning? I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on that if he has any information that he can give the House.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

When a person is held for a long time, he may decline to answer questions through, for example, fatigue. Should we not examine the statutory warning that judges give, to the effect that the jury can draw adverse conclusions? I wonder whether it is appropriate when the questioning has lasted many days.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. Given that the PACE rules are clearly linked to the renewal that we are discussing, I hope that the Minister can respond to it, too. We want it to be clear that, if somebody is detained and interviewed, the interviews can be used. It serves no purpose to end up with a successful challenge to the use of interviews because it is argued that, notwithstanding the PACE rules, the process has become oppressive simply through the sheer repetitive nature of the questioning and the fact that someone is questioned over a long period when the rules were designed to deal with questioning over a short time. If the Minister can help us with that and on the extent of any analysis of the issue, I would be grateful to hear from him because that may provide some reassurance. If he does not have those answers this afternoon, perhaps he could write to me and place the information in the Library. That would helpful.

Another issue troubles me and I approach it with care in relation to recent events. The period between arrest and charge has historically been short—often very short—and that meant little opportunity for media speculation about the nature of the offences for which individuals had been arrested. However, as the period of detention between arrest and charge lengthens and is not subject to the full rules of contempt of court—although it could fall within those rules—there is a plethora of media speculation. I believe that the Attorney-General has expressed her concerns about the matter and that she may have contacted the press collectively to do that. However, we cannot simply ignore the matter.

Recent events suggest that press speculation is unconstrained and, because no charges are brought, there is no mechanism for stopping it. I fear that we will reach a position whereby it can be argued that a fair trial is impossible because of the amount of prejudice that has been occasioned to defendants in the period between arrest and charge. Given that 28 days is a long time—indeed, seven days or two weeks is a long time—I wonder whether we should think again about our approach to the matter. If we cannot impose some form of self-restraint, the time may come when we must consider other means. As the Minister knows, we discussed that in our proceedings on the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The subject was carefully approached and there was a widespread consensus that we did not want to take that road. However, I am increasingly worried about the matter.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Does it not also apply to cases of extradition? Often, the British authorities suggest that they intend to seek extradition and, before they start proceedings, the media speculate at great length. Consequently, other countries decide that there is no possibility of a fair trial in this country. Does not the point also apply to speculation in the House?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. Gentleman may be making a good point about extradition. I have not focused on it especially, but if he can think of examples—

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Russia.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I do not believe that extradition would take place anyway in the case about which he is thinking, so the matter may not arise. However, he makes a fair point.

Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important observation. However, I wonder whether he is being too pessimistic. Is he aware of evidence from academic studies about the problem of the way in which media commentary can influence the decision-making of a jury trial? It shows that members of a jury are more sophisticated than some of the assumptions underlying his remarks suggest. They appear to be able to distinguish between media comment and their role as jury members. If we were confident that that was the case, rather than hoping against hope—and our better judgment—that we could put the genie back into the media bottle, should we not consider revising the rules to allow reality to play itself out?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am a rather firm defender of the jury system, and I happen to believe in the good sense of juries. I certainly agree that juries can apply common sense. I am sure that they are often asked to dismiss media speculation from their minds and that they can successfully do so. However, the hon. Gentleman might share my concern that what is coming out is not just speculation, but a torrent of "facts", many of which might not—I emphasise the words "might not"—ever be allowed to emerge at trial, even if they were indeed factually correct. That raises some quite difficult issues.

I certainly do not want to suggest a prescriptive solution to the problem, but it is worth bearing in mind that the opportunity for such speculation and for the emergence of facts that might be prejudicial to a fair trial is clearly helped by lengthening the period between arrest and charge. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on that, particularly as I understand that the Attorney-General has contacted the press to express her anxieties about it. I should also like to know whether the Government think that further legislation would be required to deal with the issue—not, I should like to emphasise, that that is a route on which I would wish to embark in an ideal world. Having fair trials is rather important, because otherwise we run the risk of allowing people who might have committed serious offences to escape conviction. That ought to be a matter of concern to everybody in the House.

I do not want to take up more of the House's time and I am aware that others wish to speak. I hope that the Minister can provide answers to the queries that I have raised. We shall support the Government in the renewal of the order, even with the hope that it might not have to be renewed in future. On that point, I raise the issue, which has already been mentioned, of post-charge questioning. It is clear that post-charge questioning is intensely relevant to the period of time for which we have to detain people. I hope very much, therefore, that we can introduce it quickly.

Finally, I simply say this to the Minister. At times, the suggestion has been made—not by the Minister, but by others in the Government—that a 28 or 90-day period is necessary not because of the need to question and gather evidence to bring somebody to trial, but almost because it acts as a disruptive mechanism, even though there is really no prospect of the person ever being charged and those arresting them know that.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

That will not do.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

My hon. Friend says it clearly—that will not do, and it will not do under any circumstances whatever. I hope very much, therefore, that the Minister will take this opportunity to reassure us that that is not now, and will not be at any time in the future, the Government's reasoning.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I am obviously in favour of the order and of keeping the period of detention without charge as it is now, namely, 28 days. It would be odd if I were in any way in disagreement with the order.

I said in an intervention, and I repeat now, that a consensus on the issue is desirable. The previous Home Secretary said that he would consult fully, which is a point that the Minister has made again today. We want to avoid a situation such as the one that we faced in November 2005, when there was a great deal of controversy and division. We are united against terrorism, but it would be unfortunate if the Government took the view that a longer period was necessary without providing compelling evidence. If any Government went down that route, whatever the outcome there would be a repeat of what happened before, namely, a great deal of controversy and division. I hope that we can avoid that.

Most people will have seen the advertisement placed by Muslims last week, which emphasised that the overwhelming majority of Muslims who live in this country condemn terrorism. It branded as outright criminals those who want to inflict terror, and pointed out that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people. No one in this House would doubt that the overwhelming majority of Muslims living in our constituencies are totally and utterly opposed to terror. We must also, of course, recognise that Muslims would be among the victims.

The criminals argue that they are protesting against foreign policy. In my time, I have protested against the foreign policies of previous Governments. I did so for many years over apartheid, but it was never suggested by the organisers that, because we could not get our way, we should inflict terror on our fellow citizens.

I welcome the advertisement, but I want to make the point that inside the Muslim community, in the mosques and outside, there needs to be constant and continuous condemnation of terrorism. An advertisement arising from the events of last week is fine, and security is fine—one hopes that further security measures will be taken to protect our country—but in the end we are dealing with criminals who believe, according to their interpretation of their religion, that inflicting terror is right and justified. That must be dealt with in the Muslim community because it cannot be dealt with effectively from outside. The point must be made day in and day out, inside and outside the mosques, that Islam forbids the taking of innocent lives, as the advertisement stated.

As for those who talk about protesting against foreign policy, how does that link up with trying to murder females in night clubs? Are we not dealing with people with particularly sick and evil minds, who can look upon women, young or old—obviously, in night clubs they would be young—as though they had no right to life? What is the word that these people use? Slag—a polite word for prostitute. That can come only from sick and evil minds.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I strongly agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying now, but I think that he and everyone else would accept that that remorseless programme of education and persuasion is necessarily a continuing and probably long-term process. For the short term, and for the avoidance of doubt, will he tell the House whether, if the Government were to argue for an extension to the number of days, providing evidence—the term that he used—would have to mean published cases?

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I would not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. At the end of it all, any extension beyond 28 days must depend on clear, persuasive evidence. I think that that is what he was suggesting. To repeat what I said in an earlier intervention, the Home Affairs Committee looked at all the facts. Like all Select Committees, it has members from all three main parties, and we came to the unanimous view that, at the moment, there is no such evidence.

Having spoken about the sort of evil people who want to inflict terror on our fellow citizens, we have to be careful that we do not play into the hands of such criminals by passing legislation that is clearly counterproductive. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and others. We have to reach the right balance between security and civil liberties. Clearly, the criminals want a backlash and a situation where people, including Muslims, can be locked up.

When the IRA was about, the security people were looking for people of Irish origin, not for Muslims, Sikhs or Buddhists. Likewise, at the moment the suspects come from the Muslim community. We risk a situation in which not only the criminals but the fellow travellers and the apologists can turn around and say, "What is happening is action against the Muslim community" and then try to rally that community against the laws passed in this country to protect our fellow citizens. That is why it is so crucial to learn from the experience of dealing with the IRA, internment and all the rest, and not to play into the hands of the very people who want to inflict terror.

I take the view that, so far at least—whatever may happen in the future—Parliament has found the right balance and learned from some of the mistakes made in dealing with the IRA. That does not mean that more steps cannot be taken. It is very much the topic of the moment and it may well be raised tomorrow in Prime Minister's questions. Further steps can be taken to strengthen the necessary security at ports of entry, for example—again learning from past mistakes, which are much publicised in today's papers.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

Is it not to the credit of the British population that since the recent outrages we have seen such a measured and sensible response? People are aware of the savagery with which they are dealing, but the real tribute should be to the common sense of the population, who have not lost their sense of perspective or scented the ability to create scapegoats, but have rather continued to look for sensible and balanced argument.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

My hon. Friend is right. We avoided a backlash against the Irish during the 30 years of terror in which atrocities were carried out. One of the advantages of age—there are many disadvantages, I am sure—is having a pretty long memory. My hon. Friend may remember that after the war there was Jewish terrorism in Palestine rather than Britain. I shall not go into the rights and wrongs of it, but attempts by fascists to create a backlash against Jews did not succeed. Fortunately, in the main we are sensible people and we do not want to create martyrs. We also recognise that when it comes to the IRA or Islamic terrorism—if we can call it such—we want to locate the guilty and not penalise the innocent in any way. Long may that continue to be so.

I have a couple of points in conclusion. I believe that it is going to be a long haul against terrorism. The IRA's murderous campaign lasted some 30 years, but whether the present terrorism will last 30 years I do not know. It would be optimistic to believe that it was going to go away in the next year or two. I do not believe that, because terrorism has worldwide significance and what happens here is undoubtedly connected with events abroad. Adopting a different view would be optimistic, and I believe that we have to be realistic and have the patience to deal with this latest curse.

Jeremy Browne (Liberal Democrat, Taunton)

Is there not a slight danger of drawing too precise a parallel with the IRA? After all, the IRA had a specific goal and specific intention and purpose behind their terrorism—despicable though it was. It is very hard to discern, however, a specific purpose or goal behind the current terrorism being waged against our and other western countries.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I partly agree, but I believe that the terrorists do have a specific goal and they hardly disguise it. Al-Qaeda barely avoids mentioning the sort of society that it would like—a Taliban type of society. It has no illusions about that, which brings me to my final point.

Terrorists rejoice in mass murder. They glorify what they do and they glorify death, including the taking of their own lives. On the other hand, we rejoice in life itself and in all the liberties that have made Britain one of the most advanced democracies, in which Muslims no less than any other people enjoy full political and religious freedom. We have much to defend in this country. I believe that we will do so and will defend those liberties, the rule of law and everything that we believe to be so vital and crucial in making this country a civilised place in which to live. That is why, at the end of the day, terrorism will be defeated. I look forward to that day, even though it may not be in my lifetime.

Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

We support the disapplication, if that is the word, of section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006 and I can assure the House that we will not seek to divide it on the order. It is a matter of record that notwithstanding our very serious reservations about extending the period during which police can detain suspects without charge from 14 to 28 days, we accepted the case at the time. Recent events—the conviction of the four 21/7 terrorists in court yesterday and what happened in Glasgow and Haymarket last week—have provided a reminder, if any were needed, of why it is necessary that we constantly review the powers on the statute book. I also accept, at least as far as I understand the information that has been provided by the police and others, that the sheer complexity of one case—the alleged Heathrow bomb plot last summer—necessitated using the full 28-day period.

However, as the Minister rightly suggested, and on which others expanded, this debate is as much a mini-dress rehearsal for a debate that we are likely to have in the autumn as anything else. Therefore, I would be remiss in my duties as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on these matters if I did not emphasise that our support for the disapplication of section 25 should not in any way be taken as a signal that we think that the debate should evolve towards a further lengthening of the period during which the police can detain people without charge.

It is worth reminding the House, as others have done, how far and how fast we have travelled. The sheer velocity with which the law has changed within a matter of years is striking. The change from 7 to 14 days took place only in 2003, and the change from 14 to 28 days in 2005. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) rightly suggested, we are now way out of step with practice in almost all other countries in the developed world and certainly other common law countries. A suspect needs to be brought before a judge within 24 hours in Canada and within 14 days in Australia. It is also 24 hours before a suspect needs to go before a magistrate in Italy. In Germany, the period is 48 hours.

I do not make those points to oppose the measure—I support it—but we have travelled very far, very fast in a short time, and it is heavily incumbent on those who want to reopen the debate to prove why that case needs to be remade again.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

Like others, the hon. Gentleman calls for further evidence. The noble Lord Carlile said only a few days ago on the subject of some of those who had escaped these extremely lax control orders that there is "solid evidence" that the trio in question with regard to the Haymarket attempted bombing had wanted to join insurgents abroad and attack British troops serving in Iraq. I assume that he knew what he was talking about.

Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am sorry, but I do not entirely understand the relevance of the noble Lord Carlile's comments on control orders to the matter at hand today, which is the period in which police can detain someone without charge. They are separate legal issues and I do not see the connection. Perhaps I am missing something.

The hon. Gentleman refers to evidence. Given how far and fast we have changed the law in this respect, we believe that it is important that any reopening of the debate needs to be premised on overwhelming evidence. The Minister seemed uncomfortable about—I think he said he cavilled at—the notion that he might need to display evidence. I think he was uncomfortable for the simple reason that, as far as I am aware, there is as yet no overwhelming evidence that a period beyond 28 days is ever deemed necessary.

If I understand the Government's case correctly, it is based on the assumption that although that has not yet happened, it will happen in the future. The alleged Heathrow bomb plot in particular has set alarm bells ringing in Whitehall and elsewhere with the prediction that it will be replicated in future, which would make the task of marshalling evidence and bringing charges in 28 days almost impossible. If my premise is correct, I should like the Minister to explain how the assumption has arisen. Where and in what way has analysis been conducted to suggest that last year's alleged complex Heathrow bomb plot will definitely be followed, as night follows day, by an even more complex plot?

I do not imply that that concern has not been well argued or is not sincerely held, but I suspect that part of it flows from a feeling that the police may not have the resources to deal with the sheer complexity of such a plot and of an evidential trail that would stretch across the globe, as it tends to in such cases—hidden in hard drives and so on. Is it not incumbent on the Government to be more candid about the existence of a resources issue? Should they not state clearly that it may be a question less of simply seeking to extend indefinitely the period of detention without charge than of trying to give the police the resources with which to do the job?

The Minister spoke eloquently, if perhaps a little uncharacteristically, of the need to establish cross-party consensus. That is a welcome development, but may I remind him politely that the clock is ticking? We have talked about cross-party consensus for several weeks, and I hope he will not think it churlish of me now to suggest that talk should be transformed into action. I am as yet unaware of any organised mechanism enabling such a consensus to be identified and established.

The Minister referred to changes that the Liberal Democrats and others have advocated for some time, such as making intercept evidence available in court, allowing post-charge questioning, developing the practice of plea bargaining with the aim of gaining informants from among those who operate on the penumbra or margins of terrorist plots—plea bargaining is already used in serious organised crime cases, and I believe it could be used more in terror cases—and considering the so-called threshold test deployed by the Crown Prosecution Service when it brings charges in such cases. All those possibilities need to be examined.

If the Minister agrees on that menu of possible changes, does he also agree that it is at least sensible to consider them first, for the sake of natural chronology, before once again pitching us all into a febrile debate about the time during which the police can detain people without charge? If we are to take a responsible and measured approach, we should think about those issues before deciding collectively to reopen the Pandora's box of 28 days.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

As chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, let me begin by complimenting my hon. Friend the Minister on his active engagement with us on these issues. While we may not agree with some of what he says, I do not think we can complain that he has been unwilling to talk to us.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made an important point which has been lost in the debate. What we are talking about is an extension of 14 days to 28, not an extension of 28 days to 90 or some other number. We need to focus on what this order is actually about. I do not think we are in a position to contradict either the Government or the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in their view that subsequent events have demonstrated the necessity of extending the maximum period from 14 to 28 days.

The purpose of today's debate is the power of annual renewal in the Terrorism Act 2006, but if such a debate is to be meaningful it must be informed by a thorough, detailed and independent review of how the power has operated in practice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) pointed out, this is not just about Muslim terrorism. We have recently witnessed a good deal of police activity relating to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, for instance, and we need to retain a broad approach to the issues.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) spoke of the speed of change. It is also important that we allow changes that have already taken place, such as those involving new offences, to bed down before we begin to consider wider extensions.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

My hon. Friend says we should bear in mind that we are discussing an extension of 14 days to 28, not an extension to 90 days. I ask him to bear in mind what some of us pointed out to the Minister. The period of 14 days was agreed in both Parliaments with no Division, and similarly no one voted against the extension from 14 days to 28. Consensus was established then, and I believe it should be retained.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

I understand what my hon. Friend says, and I certainly would not vote against the 28-day extension, but I think we need to question the evidence on which it is based.

The problem is that we do not have detailed enough evidence to contradict, or for that matter to confirm, what the Government say. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner gave my Committee some information about the airline bomb plot, following which 24 suspects were arrested in August last year. The information we received was that 17 of them were charged with offences. Of those 17, six were charged only after their detention had been extended beyond 14 days, and two were charged just four hours before the end of the 28-day period. Of the seven who were not charged, four were released without charge within the old 14-day period, but three were released without charge well after that time, including two who were released only at the very end of the 28-day period.

It is clear to me that that bare statistical information is not sufficient to answer the question, "Does the airline bomb plot demonstrate the need for the extension to 28 days?" On the face of it, the fact that six suspects were detained for more than 14 days before being charged would appear to show that the increase was necessary. On the other hand, the fact that three of the five who were authorised to be detained for the full 28 days were released very close to the end of that period could be said to raise concerns about whether the power to detain for up to 28 days was being used to detain those against whom there was the least evidence.

A series of more detailed questions needs to be answered. Let me give some examples. I do not say that this actually happened; we simply do not know.

Was the evidence on which the individuals were charged after 14 days available before the expiry of the 14-day period? How precisely has the 28-day period enabled prosecutions to be brought that might otherwise not have been possible? How did the longer period affect the urgency with which the police pursued the investigation in relation to each of the suspects? How often were the suspects held for the longer period questioned by the police? Did the longer period available to the police have any noticeable effect on the amount of disclosure made by the police to the suspects? Are investigations being pursued in relation to any of the three suspects who were detained for almost the full 28-day period and then released without charge?

The next question has already been raised today. How would the availability of post-charge questioning have affected the way in which the police conducted their investigation? Could some of the suspects have been charged with the same offence earlier than they were in fact charged? Here is an equally important question. What was the psychological impact on those who were detained for nearly four weeks before being released without charge?

What worries me is that the report of the statutory reviewer, Lord Carlile, does not provide the sort of detained scrutiny that would answer questions of that kind. The problem is that the statistics do not settle the issue one way or another unless we dig deep into the information. It has been suggested that there should be a Privy Council inquiry, but I do not think that that is the answer. What we need is for the statutory reviewer to do his job properly, and provide us with answers to the questions that I have posed. That is what is required if we are to make informed decisions on whether to extend the period—initially from 14 days to 28 days, and perhaps subsequently for longer. I have no reason to doubt what the police and the Government have said about the 28-day period, but it must be noted that it is difficult to challenge what they say.

There are also important issues to do with the available judicial safeguards, and in particular the questions that judges are expected to ask in respect of granting a longer period of detention. The first question is whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that further detention is necessary to preserve relevant evidence, and the second is whether the investigation has been conducted diligently and expeditiously. However, neither question addresses the substantive and basic issue of whether there was material in the first place that provided reasonable grounds for believing that the suspect had committed a terrorism-related offence. There is no onus on the police to justify to the court the basic premise for the suspect's detention. Why was the person arrested in the first place? Is the basic test for arrest met, never mind the test for continued detention? We must bear that important point in mind.

I also want to discuss the conditions in which people are held at Paddington Green police station. A while ago, my Committee paid a visit to that station and members were horrified by what we saw. Paddington Green was not, of course, built for its current use. It was initially reinforced to provide additional security when those suspected of IRA terrorism were questioned, but the detention periods were much shorter then. The staff at Paddington Green do a very good job under difficult circumstances. I was impressed by the custody sergeants we met and the other staff, who try to look after people in their charge in a humane way.

There are, however, problems with Paddington Green. There are only 16 cells, but more than 20 people at a time have been arrested during certain investigations and therefore some of them have had to be sent to Belgravia, which is not set up to deal with terrorism suspects. Paddington Green is also an ordinary police station that serves its local neighbourhood, and its normal day-to-day work is severely disrupted by such suspects. There are no dedicated facilities for forensic examination of suspects on arrival, and cells have to be specially prepared for that purpose, which exacerbates the shortage of accommodation. There is no dedicated space for exercise, so part of the car park is used for that—all the vehicles have to be moved around to create an inadequate exercise space. Only one room is provided for suspects to discuss their cases in confidence with their solicitor. There are no facilities on site for forensic examination of equipment such as computer hard drives, and the video conferencing room is too small. That also raises a question about video conferencing being used as a means to extend periods of detention via judicial hearings, which does not allow for a proper examination of suspects.

Suspects held for such long periods are allowed no family contact, except for a monitored telephone call. If people are to be held for lengthy periods, we must consider whether strictly supervised family contact might be appropriate—letters, for example, are not currently allowed, but I do not understand why they should not be if there is also censorship. We need to consider the conditions in which people are held, and the inadequate conditions in which the police have to conduct their inquiries.

We have inevitably come to the conclusion that Paddington Green must be replaced and that a new facility should be established as soon as possible. It should be located in London, and it should strike an appropriate balance between the need for high security and the desirability of it being accessible to the local community. It should be part of a functioning police station, rather than an exclusive terrorist facility, in order to maintain public confidence that people are being dealt with within the ordinary legal system. Proper accommodation for the police must also be close at hand. We heard stories about police officers having to live in hotels while conducting inquiries because of the long hours that they have to work. The facility must also be significantly larger, to cope with the requirements of holding many people and with the need to be adequate for detentions of at least the 28-day period that we are debating. Under the current arrangements people are moved from Paddington Green to Belmarsh after 14 days, and then shipped backwards and forwards to allow interviewing to continue. It is undesirable in principle for suspects to be transferred from police custody to prison custody during the period of pre-charge detention.

We also ought to make it mandatory that police interviews of terrorist suspects are videoed. At present, that is not compulsory, which leads to arguments. Such videos would provide a safeguard both for the police against allegations of ill treatment and for suspects that the interviews are conducted properly.

I will not oppose today's orders. If we are to be asked to consider a renewal next year or a further extension, we should have better evidence and scrutiny than we are currently provided with. However, regardless of whether we are asked to do so, we must ensure that the facilities in which people are held are adequate for the police and suspects.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

In view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that other Members wish to speak, I will be brief.

Allowing the extension from 14 days to 28 days is an important step that raises significant civil rights considerations. I am willing to accept what the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) says about inadequate conditions in the holding police station—I think that he has a point. Holding people for as long as 28 days comes close to holding them in administrative detention, and if questioning takes place during the whole of that period there is a danger that those held will be coerced by circumstance into saying things that are untrue or misleading.

The truth is that no Member present, with the possible exception of the Minister, knows whether the circumstances justify an extension to 28 days. I am prepared, at least for the moment, to accept that they might do so. The number of terrorist cells that need to be investigated might be a justification for that, as might the desirability of examining computer databases. However, the renewal should not be deemed to be automatic. This is a grave matter, and we should not be asked to renew every year without there being compelling supporting evidence.

I also wish to endorse the points about the future raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). I am glad to hear that there will be a consultation paper, and I hope that it will be a genuine one and that there will also be genuine discussions. My hon. Friend is right that the issue of post-charge questioning is key in considering whether there should be an extension. If such questioning is allowed, there is less requirement for an extended holding period. He is also right that we must look at the codes that regulate the treatment of detainees being held for an extended period. It is important that the codes form part of the consultation. I also have concerns about the statutory warnings given by judges to juries if a detainee—or defendant as he has then become—has refused to answer questions during such an extended detention period. After an extended period of detention, it is not unreasonable for defendants to refuse to answer further questions, and I am worried about the adverse inference that juries can currently take from such a refusal. That should feature in the consultation.

The House should not be asked to renew the provisions unless there is compelling evidence of need. I accept that it might be difficult for the House to be given such evidence as much of it will be covert in nature. The Government have suggested that they might be willing to establish a Privy Council Committee to look at intercept evidence. I would like such a Committee to be asked to consider evidence on whether there is a need for an extension to 28 days or more, as it could be told many things that cannot be openly ventilated in the House. The function of that Privy Council Committee would be to receive the evidence, to assess the weight of the evidence and to advise the House. Ultimately it would be for the House to decide whether we wished to accept that advice, but I would be much more comfortable about making a decision to extend the period either to or beyond 28 days if I were in receipt of such advice.

David Winnick (Labour, Walsall North)

I have often noted that those who are in favour of Privy Council discussions are themselves Privy Councillors.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I take it that that is a rebuke of me, but I am not trying to be self-interested. I am trying to say that some things have to be said confidentially, and that is clearly the case with the intercept evidence. After all, the hon. Gentleman's party has decided that the intercept matters should be considered by a Privy Council Committee and I assume that that is because of the covert nature of the information to be disclosed. The same principle applies in this case and it is on that basis that I make my suggestion.

Bill Cash (Conservative, Stone)

We are short of time, so I shall deal briefly with the main points. The Government cannot get away with the argument, sneaky or otherwise, that this matter has adequate consultation to come. The reality is that they have had more than enough time to sort this out. There has been a succession of failures. The Minister himself has had to admit that control orders do not work. He has said so on the record. The bottom line is that the sunset clause was a last resort, which I voted for only after very careful consideration, although it was completely against the rest of the Bill. Control orders do not work because they are constructed on the basis of the human rights legislation and it is impossible to square the circle.

With regard to the question of evidence, I have already mentioned that Lord Carlile has said that there is a certain amount of evidence for the extension of the period of time. That has also been endorsed by at least two former Attorney-Generals. Much of the argument that I have heard does not take account of the fact that under the existing provisions a senior judge is concerned only in applications for extension of detention beyond 14 days. I personally see no reason why a red judge should not be involved at a much earlier stage. I am all in favour of habeas corpus, and Lord Steyn said that it was the most important of all the functions of judges. Therefore, it is essential that judges are brought in at an early stage, but that is not to say that it follows that in certain circumstances, providing that it is properly staged and that there is to be a fair trial and due process, there should not be a period of time in excess of 28 days. I do not suggest that it need be 90 days, but in certain circumstances more than 28 days will be required, and I am certain that the Government know that. I accuse them of playing political games with a very serious subject. They could have dealt with this issue at an earlier stage, but they failed to do so. It is a case of grave negligence against the public interest that the Government have not dealt with it so far.

The consultation period will lead to yet further consultation, which will then lead to a Bill. By then, almost anything could have happened. The Evening Standard leader points out today that

"judicial scrutiny...has been damaged by excessive judicial concern about suspects' rights."

I agree. If one re-reads the House of Lords decisions in the Belmarsh case in December 2004, one finds many reasons for believing that the Law Lords got carried away with themselves. Nine out of 10 did so and that was a great shame. They have an opportunity now to redress the balance.

There are many things that could and should be said this afternoon, but in conclusion I merely say that I believe that there is ample evidence. Nobody has rebutted Mr. Hayman's analysis way back in 2005. Time and again I have heard people say that there is no evidence, but I have not seen a single paper demonstrating that his paper is intrinsically wrong. I shall say no more as I know that others wish to speak, but I hope that the consultation does not fall into the wet social liberal attitudes that I have observed on this question. We should put the public interest first and ensure that we protect the public.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I shall be brief and address myself directly to the public interest to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has just referred. I wish to look at the order through the lens of community cohesion. It is undoubtedly true that in the struggle against al-Qaeda and the sort of atrocious incidents that we saw last weekend in London and Glasgow, the solution cannot be only one of security. The winning of hearts and minds, as both my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and the Prime Minister have put it, is crucial.

I represent the largest number and percentage of Muslims of any official Opposition Member of Parliament. When I meet them, as I regularly do, they make the point that al-Qaeda likes nothing better than to be able to portray events as a plot or conspiracy against Islam. I found that out only last weekend when it was put to me that the knighthood awarded to Salman Rushdie was part of an anti-Islamic plot, organised by the Government. Although I am not, of course, a great defender of the Government, I tried to put that point of view right directly.

Arguably, approving the order and retaining the 28 days will make it more difficult to win Muslim hearts and minds. That cannot, of course, be the final consideration. In the delicate balance of civil liberties and national security, weight must sometimes be placed on national security. That is what happened when the 28-day period was approved without a Division. Since the question of 90 days has been raised this afternoon, I have to say that any move to that period would make it more difficult to win hearts and minds. While that consideration is not in itself conclusive, if a proposal for 90 days were put before the House, I would want to see much more evidence that there was a case for it. Indeed, I would want to see incontrovertible evidence before supporting it.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I commend the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) on the work that he has done in Wycombe since the alleged plot last summer. It is sad that on the two or three occasions I have been there our paths have not crossed—not for any adverse reasons. I agree with what he says about hearts and minds and that this is not just a security problem that requires a security solution.

I thought that I made it clear in my opening remarks six individuals had been held for the full term, three of whom were convicted and three who were not. The actual figure for 14 days-plus was 10, seven of whom were convicted. I take the points made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about PACE. The hope is that the Crown Prosecution Service will put out a paper alongside the consultation papers that we issue, summing up the position in terms of the need for a time between 14 and 28 days. I also accept the point that interviews that cannot be used are of no value to anyone. I agree with his points about the possibility of pushing back the barriers in terms of the recognised normality for the rule of law to no avail, for interviews that are ultimately inadmissible. On his points about welfare, the police have in all circumstances sought to ensure that questioning is not excessive and that those detained are given regular breaks for exercise and so on. If I obtain any further information on that, I will put it in the Library.

It is suggested that the provision is used to get round the broader law—that it is used as a disruptive measure in cases in which there is no possibility of charges being laid—but I can confirm that that is emphatically not the Government's starting point. I accept the point that further discussion is needed of the evidence, the nature of the evidence and people's judgments and speculation about the nature of the future threat. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, however, such consideration is properly for the real play, rather than the dress rehearsal, to use his terms.

As to the hon. Gentleman's comment that there is no evidence of consensus at this stage, we would rather get the papers and the substance out—he has an advantage over much of the House, as he has seen some of the papers during early discussions. He is right that the mechanisms of such consultations should also be discussed. I am not with him on his specific point about chronology: if a Bill is coming, it is right to discuss all the issues together. It would not work to discuss where we are going on pre-charge detention—whether 28 days or otherwise, back to 14 days or beyond—outwith discussion of what else is in the Bill. I do not accept his point about Pandora's box—I was going to make a little joke about Morrison, with Pandora's box opening and all sorts of Trojan horses jumping out, but I shall not bother.

I am grateful for the thrust of much of the discussion. In the last couple of minutes, I want to pursue the issue raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield: the notion that the longer people are detained before charge, the more time there is for speculation among the 24/7—as it is described—media. That is a two-edged point, and he discussed one of the edges. I do not have any instant answers. It grates a little when, for at least a little while during the process, the only "factual" view of the world comes from the putative defence solicitor getting his retaliation in early, which clouds the issues.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the large trials that have come to fruition recently—Rhyme, Crevice and others—have had that merry dance for at least two or three weeks, when the whole discourse has been about whether a fair trial can take place and whether the nature of the media coverage was fair or otherwise. In part, we are stuck with that. If, however, during the course of our deliberations, we can come to some consensus about what we do about that, or how that is managed around the edges, without being draconian, I would be enormously grateful, as long as that included solicitors having a free run for the defendant as well as the media speculating ad nauseam.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

rose—

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I would love to give way, but I think that we have run out of time. We have another dance to come. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.

I am happy both to discuss and take questions on organisations other than the two listed in the order. I would like to deal with those first, and then we can have whatever discourse the House would like on Hizb ut-Tahrir or any other organisation. I think that I was eight lines into my speech the last time that I moved any kind of proscription order before my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked a question about Hizb ut-Tahrir. I am happy to come back to that or any other organisations that should or should not be on the proscribed list once I have dealt with the two organisations under consideration.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am sticking absolutely to the Minister's suggestion. May I put to him the point that I have made previously when we have considered proscribed organisations, which is on a matter of procedure? The list of proscribed organisations is presented as an order, which is unamendable. If the same order lists organisations that are not related to one another, it is not possible for the House to apply discretion as to the merits or otherwise of the bodies listed. I have no reason to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) will not agree to the Minister's suggestions in respect of the two organisations concerned. I put it to him again, however, that it would be much more satisfactory, in procedural terms, if separate orders were provided for each organisation, which could be debated in a single debate, with the agreement of the House. That would allow dissent, if appropriate, to be demonstrated.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Let me explore that issue, because I get the general point. Last time, the issue was even more pronounced, as the four organisations on the list were so discernibly different, some being successor bodies to Al Mujahiroun, and some being related to the PKK and the Turkish situation. As a matter of law, I think that the orders are split up into separate orders after we have passed them. I do not know or understand the procedure that puts the organisations together in one order. I do not doubt that there might come a stage when people are very exercised about one organisation on the list, and may want to press that matter to a Division, while accepting the proscription of the other organisations. I shall look at the procedural elements. The hon. Gentleman should not be suspicious: the way in which the order is presented is not related to anything that I have done. He makes a fair point, which he also raised last time, when it was more appropriate.

After that little preamble, I will deal with the specifics of the two organisations. Proscription is a tough power: it means that the organisation is outlawed in the UK and cannot operate here. Membership of a proscribed organisation is an offence, as is inviting support for it. Proscription also makes it unlawful to raise funds on behalf of the organisation.

Members of the House know, because they have read the order, that the two organisations concerned are to be proscribed under the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2007, rather than the Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2006, the difference between which is clear to everybody.

The two organisations listed in the order are directly concerned in terrorism, not just in propagating, supporting or proselytising on behalf of such groups. They are Jammat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh— JMB from now on—and Tehrik Nefaz-e Shari'at Muhammadi, or TNSM.

TNSM's objective is the militant enforcement of sharia law in Pakistan. There is significant evidence that it regularly attacks coalition soldiers and Afghan Government forces in Afghanistan. It provides direct support to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and is believed to have been behind an attack on a Pakistani military base in November 2006, which killed 42 personnel.

JMB has claimed responsibility for numerous fatal bomb attacks in Bangladesh since first coming to prominence in 2002. In August 2005, some 500 bombs were set off in all but one of Bangladesh's 64 districts in the space of an hour by JMB. The Bangladeshi Government recently announced the execution of six leaders of the JMB, including its chief. However, some sources indicate that the organisation has a significant number of full-time members. There are indications that it is making efforts to re-group to continue its campaign of terror.

The proscription of those two groups will support our international partners in disrupting terrorist activity by making the UK a hostile environment for terrorists and their supporters. It will also send the strong message to terrorists that the UK is not willing to tolerate terrorism either here or anywhere else in the world. There is a substantive case against JMB and TNSM.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

My hon. Friend is setting out a good case in respect of the evil and nefarious activity of those organisations overseas. What is the evidence that they are active in the UK, like organisations such as the LTT, which, as we saw in recent arrests, is active in both Sri Lanka and London?

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

Let me tell my hon. Friend and the House, which I deliberately tried to resist doing, the factors, to which the order refers, that are taken into account in proscribing such organisations. They are: the nature and scale of an organisation's activities; the specific threat that it poses to the UK; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation's presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism. At least two, if not more, of the criteria, apply to the two organisations—certainly, the one regarding the international community. Furthermore, the Pakistan-based group offers a specific threat to British nationals overseas—our servicemen. I do not know offhand why those concerns relate specifically to those organisations in this country, but I shall find out for the House. The criteria I mentioned are among the range that determines whether we should proscribe them.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I accept that the Government are entitled to look at the criteria in the round, but the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) raised an important issue: the extent to which the Government believe that one or other of the organisations is present in the United Kingdom in an organised form. As the Minister will appreciate, proscribing something that does not really exist in this country serves little purpose in reality. It would be helpful if he could amplify his remarks to explain whether the Government believe that one or other of the organisations has a presence in the UK, financially—in terms of raising or placing money—or in terms of recruitment or organisation.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. As I understand the order, the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism and the specific threat the organisation poses to British nationals overseas are the principal criteria. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remark that if groups do not organise in this country, or there is no evidence that they do so, proscribing them is redundant. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), if I can offer the House evidence about the ability thus far of the groups to organise in this country, I shall do so, to the extent that I am able to give such information.

Khalid Mahmood (Labour, Birmingham, Perry Barr)

Does my hon. Friend agree that although organisations may not be present in this country, they invariably use various networks, and occasionally literature and other things, to raise funds to support their activities in the countries where they are based? Proscribing such organisations in the UK is a practical step to stop funding that supports them in other countries.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have already said, to the extent that I can put in the public domain the information that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon requires, I shall do so. He referred earlier to police activity involving the LTTE, another proscribed organisation; his implication was right. Many Members know that the LTTE organises effectively in the UK, especially in terms of fundraising and other support, for its nefarious activities in Sri Lanka. It is not the case that each of the 44 proscribed organisations meets every element of the criteria under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Terrorism Act 2006. We have to make an overall judgment as to the balance of their offences according to the criteria, and it is on that basis that I offer the orders to the House.

I have been waiting anxiously for my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda to intervene, but as he seems to have chosen not to do so and we are not to have a lengthy discussion about Hizb ut-Tahrir, I shall quit while I am ahead and sit down.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I hope that our debate on the order is not as long as our previous debate.

To make my position clear, I must point out that the Minister somewhat traduced my remarks. There may be compelling reasons why we should ban the organisations, even if they have no presence in the UK at all. Indeed, Jammat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh is an active terrorist organisation in that country and there is ample evidence of its activities, so, on the basis of comity between nations that are international partners in the fight against terrorism, that in itself would be a good reason for banning it. However, unless there are compelling security reasons why the Minister cannot amplify his remarks, it would be useful for the House to know whether the Government think that the activities of one or other of the organisations pose a threat within the UK.

The second organisation, Tehrik Nefaz-e Shari'at Muhammadi, appears to be involved in direct violence against British or coalition forces in Afghanistan, although I rather suspect—I may be wrong—that, like many localised groupuscules in that benighted country, its reach does not extend to the UK. That raises an important issue: proscription must be for a purpose—to prevent organisations from operating in this country. I agree entirely with the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood) that the problem with such groups is that unless they have an organised structure in this country that proscription will disrupt, which is all that proscription can do, I am afraid the evidence suggests that there are plenty of means whereby people can raise funds for them in this country or support them in some other way, if they want to do so—for example, by setting up bogus charitable foundations to funnel money. At the end of the debate, it would be useful if the Minister amplified briefly his remarks to tell us how the Government are tackling that phenomenon. From my personal contacts, I know of plenty of examples that give me serious doubts about where so-called charitable fundraising may be going. The debate may provide an opportunity to discuss that. Subject to that proviso, I do not intend to take up the House's time further on the two organisations.

Before I sit down, however, I mention in passing that the Minister is well aware that other organisations have excited the concern of the House—in particular, Hizb ut-Tahrir. I remind him that Hizb ut-Tahrir would not feature so much in the House's discourse were it not for the fact that the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, stated openly—I think in the House—that he considered it a terrorist-supporting organisation that ought to be banned. He thereby raised a hare that a large number of people have pursued ever since. As the then Prime Minister of the UK took the view that Hizb ut-Tahrir is a terrorist organisation, it was rather strange that nothing happened thereafter. Two years later, despite those emphatic statements, Hizb ut-Tahrir has still not been banned, so I hope the Minister will take the opportunity of this debate, when we are looking at other organisations, to explain more fully than in the intervention of the previous Home Secretary at Prime Minister's Question Time why the Government feel that the basis for proscription does not exist.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

What I am about to say is in no sense meant to be in support of Hizb ut-Tahrir, but the organisation has written widely that the Leader of the Opposition wrote to it last year to congratulate it on its comments about the relationships between western Governments and the Muslim world. Would the hon. Gentleman like to put on the record precisely what the Conservative party's position is with regard to Hizb ut-Tahrir?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I have not yet encountered the letter. In the past, I have appeared on television to debate matters with Hizb ut-Tahrir, and when I listen to what its members have to say what springs to my mind is Oliver Cromwell's description of the Fifth Monarchy Men—poor fantasticals. That expression seems the best way of describing Hizb ut-Tahrir and its beliefs. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is considerable evidence to suggest that individuals who have committed terrorist acts have passed through Hizb ut-Tahrir on the way. I seem to remember that there was compelling evidence of an association between Hizb ut-Tahrir and Omar Bakri Mohammad.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

My hon. Friend makes some excellent points on Hizb ut-Tahrir, but is not al-Muhajiroun another conveyor belt to terrorism in this country? Would the same points that he makes about Hizb ut-Tahrir be equally applicable to al-Muhajiroun?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and the House should bear in mind two things. First, a proscription list is a draconian sanction. The fact that people may say things that we regard as unpleasant or unacceptable or that they have a view of the world with which we profoundly disagree does not give us a justification for proscribing them. The Minister and I would be entirely in agreement about that. My hon. Friend may be right about al-Muhajiroun, but what arises with regard to Hizb ut-Tahrir is the remarkable fact that the then Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, considered that it required proscription, yet proscription has never taken place. Quite compelling evidence links that organisation with Omar Bakri Mohammad, who has undoubtedly said and done things that place him well beyond the line of criminal behaviour, and there is clear evidence that people have passed through Hizb ut-Tahrir into terrorism.

As the Minister rather invited hon. Members to raise this issue, it is worth raising. If he could amplify the few things that have been said about that organisation to explain the Government's reasoning in relation to it and, in particular, the Government's change in position from what the previous Prime Minister clearly believed, which was that the organisation ought to be banned, it would be useful to the House. Quite apart from anything else, it would enable us to draw comparisons about why certain organisations are proscribed and others are not.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

I rather sympathise with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes about the organisation, but I want to clear up the fact that Hizb ut-Tahrir says that the Leader of the Opposition wrote to it saying:

"David is most grateful to you for your comments on relationships between western governments and the Muslim world. He fully takes on board the points put across to him... Yours comments are noted and appreciated."

The letter concludes:

"Thank you again for writing; your views have been taken on board."

That seems an extraordinary thing for him to write to such an organisation if he wants it to be proscribed. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to check whether such a letter was written.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am very happy to check. Given the use of the third person in the passage that the hon. Gentleman cited, I detected that it was not a letter signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). How that letter came to be written, if it came to be written, I simply have no idea. I say that honestly; I do not know. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman raise the issue directly with my right hon. Friend and his office, and he might then have an answer.

My right hon. Friend has repeatedly expressed concern rather legitimately about why, in view of the previous Prime Minister's attitude to Hizb ut-Tahrir—he believed that it was fomenting violence—and the fact that it was seen as more than just an unpleasant organisation, the Government have not taken action in respect of it. The Minister may be able to answer our questions.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

I certainly have no objection to the two organisations specified in the draft order being proscribed on the basis of their activities overseas. When I asked my hon. Friend the Minister whether they were active in the UK, I intended not to oppose what he proposes but to try to elicit whether there is evidence to support his argument. It is important that we know what activities proscribed organisations are carrying out in the UK. Of course, when considering Islamic terrorism in particular, we have always had the problem of splinter groups. When a group is proscribed, it suddenly reinvents itself as something else—it changes its name—and that may well have happened with some of these organisations.

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich)

My hon. Friend might be aware that, as soon as students join certain well-known colleges in the university system, their first contact in many instances is with really very extreme groups. Frankly, that is very worrying.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and that brings me to Hizb ut-Tahrir. As the House knows, I first raised the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir many years ago, and I have done so consistently over the years. I have spoken privately to the former Home Secretary and, indeed, successive Home Secretaries about the need for action to be taken.

My concern about Hizb ut-Tahrir is that we hear the weasel words that it does not engage in terrorism, but I certainly think that it creates the climate in which people move on, as has been suggested. Omar Bakri Mohammad came to the UK quite a long time ago—in fact, if we are to get into party political arguments, he was given indefinite leave to remain by the Government of, I think, Mrs. Thatcher—to set up Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK. He was its organiser here. He eventually fell out with it and went on to establish al-Muhajiroun and the various splinter groups that flow from it. I am pleased that he is no longer on our shores, although he seems to be able to communicate pretty effectively through the internet to spread his pretty evil message.

If we are proscribing JMB and TNSM primarily on the basis of their activities overseas, what effort have we made to track down the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir in other countries on the same basis? Although it claims not to be engaged in such activities in the UK, what is happening in other countries? For example, I know that Egypt has been concerned about the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir. I certainly do not hold up Uzbekistan as a example of liberal democracy—far from it; it has a pretty nasty regime—but it believes quite strongly that it faces a serious terrorist threat organised by Hizb ut-Tahrir. I have no way of knowing whether that it right, but it has certainly raised that issue with me.

If we are able to proscribe TNSM because of its activities in Pakistan—of course, Pakistan is not a democracy—and JMB on the basis of what happens in Bangladesh, perhaps we can look at what Hizb ut-Tahrir is up to in other countries as well. I simply put that to my hon. Friend the Minister and hope that he can tell us whether he has received representations from other Governments about the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir abroad. If he has received those representations and their contents can be substantiated, exactly the same test should apply to a ban on Hizb ut-Tahrir as to the two organisations that we are considering.

The other issue that I particularly want to raise, which I have raised tangentially in interventions, relates to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Tamil terrorist organisation that operates both in Sri Lanka and, I am afraid, in the UK—not by carrying out terrorist attacks, but I have little doubt that fundraising and protection rackets are going on here and that active support for the LTTE is being organised within the Tamil community.

This issue seriously splits the Tamil community. There are those who would give support to the LTTE—perhaps moral support, rather than physical support—but others are vehemently opposed to the LTTE. The Home Office has come under some pressure in debates in the House to lift the proscription of the LTTE, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, if he needs urging, not to go down that route. LTTE activity has significantly increased both in Sri Lanka and in London very dramatically in recent months, and it would send totally the wrong message if he were to go down that route.

There have been two significant arrests of LTTE activists, who have been charged with terrorist offences over the past few weeks. Indeed, there was a raid in my constituency in Grahame Park, and I believe that material was seized during that raid and bank accounts have been frozen, so I hope that my hon. Friend—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I remind all hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate that its scope primarily is about the two organisations listed in the order. I do not mind a passing reference to other organisations, but the debate is primarily about those two organisations.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Minister said in introducing the debate that he would be happy to deal with other organisations as well. I am not sure whether you were in the Chair at that time, but I take on board your constrictions.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I was here when the Minister made that remark. Nevertheless, although he has considerable authority and power, when it comes to the Chamber and debates, they lie with the occupant of the Chair.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could not possibly question your remarks. In fact, I have made my point about the LTTE, which is the last issue that I wish to raise, so I shall draw my remarks to a close.

Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I obviously fully endorse what the Minister said and have no reason to question in any way the decision to proscribe the two organisations, which I too will refer to acronymically—if that is the right of way of putting it—as TNSM and JMB. I have one simple question, which has not yet been asked: if JMB was responsible for the detonation of, I think, 300 bombs in 50 Bangladeshi cities in just one hour on 17 August 2005 and if it is so widely accepted and well documented that TNSM has been actively involved in launching attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan, why is the move to proscribe those two organisations only taking place now? All those events were well known months and years ago and are explicit, overt acts of horrific terrorism. I simply do not understand why there appears to have been such a time lag between those well-documented events and the move to proscribe the organisations. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that.

With your admonitions in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will refer only briefly to Hizb ut-Tahrir, but it does seem to have emerged as quite a prevalent theme in the debate today. I am perplexed by the position of the Conservatives on the issue. It was raised by the Leader of the Opposition, but there is only one Member—a Whip—on the Conservative Benches at the moment. That is a most peculiar way of underlining a point made in such strident terms by the leader of the Conservative party. Given that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) quite rightly underlined in the previous debate—about periods of detention without charge—the necessity of having concrete evidence when taking steps in this area, I am still at a loss to know where the evidence is and how it has been marshalled to sustain the claim that Hizb ut-Tahrir should join TNSM and JMB on the list of proscribed organisations.

It is not often—in fact, it is exceptionally rare—that I find myself in agreement with the words of the previous, and no doubt widely lamented, Home Secretary, but when he spoke out on the subject in Prime Minister's questions recently, and pleaded for an evidence-based approach, I thought that he was completely correct. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) referred to activities in Uzbekistan and elsewhere. As he knows very well, it is extremely difficult to get authoritative and objectively verified facts from countries such as Uzbekistan as far as the activities of this and other organisations are concerned. I am familiar with that myself, having in a previous incarnation worked in central Asia and in Uzbekistan.

The issue of principle is this: if there are organisations such as Hizb ut-Tahrir that are, if not explicitly, certainly implicitly, anti-Semitic, and which seem to me to stand for a theocratic philosophy that I, as a Liberal Democrat, find abhorrent but which do not explicitly espouse the use of terrorist violence to prosecute their aims, surely the only thing to do is to take on those organisations on their own terms, defeat their ideas, and defeat and expose their ideology for the mishmash of prejudice and misplaced grievances that it clearly is. If the Conservative party is to claim that it is a liberal Conservative party, I wonder why in this case it does not seem to have more self-confidence in the liberal arguments that need to be deployed when confronted by the abhorrent views of Hizb ut-Tahrir, rather than immediately seeking to score what appear to be political points and reaching for the statute book, when the evidence simply does not suggest that that is merited.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned, when the issue of new proscriptions comes up, we are often presented with organisations that are not necessarily coherent as a set. That presents us with a problem, not least because the list of 44 proscribed organisations includes organisations as diverse as Abu Nidal, November 17, and Euskadi ta Askatasuna—ETA—in Spain. The variety with which we might have to deal in one debate, without an opportunity to amend the legislation, is quite extraordinary. On a point of order for the future, I wonder whether Ministers would consider presenting the whole list again each year, so that we could refer regularly to all the organisations that are proscribed, rather than simply to any new organisations as they are being proscribed. Of course, I support the Government's proposals on the two organisations, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) mentioned, the rationale behind their proscription could properly be used for the proscription of other organisations.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that theoretically the process is reversible and that Ministers could put before us orders to de-proscribe organisations. It is incumbent on the Government to review periodically all the organisations on the list to which he refers to see whether the conditions still apply.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I merely make the point that it would be helpful and right for Parliament regularly to assist the Government in that process of review, because there are important issues that we are in effect deciding on behalf of the nation when it comes to how we address terrorism. Once an organisation is proscribed, in theory its status might never be reviewed again, which would be inappropriate.

I want to refer to some comments that have been made by other organisations and which should make the Government think twice about whether to proscribe them. For instance, in Australia last year, at an Eid carnival in Melbourne, leaflets were distributed that said that Muslims

"enormously rejected their evil and corrupt rulers that the West have appointed over them, and they are looking forward to consigning them to the dustbins of history".

I suppose we might all say that we have referred to our own political opponents and said that we would quite like to consign them to the dustbins of history. However, the leaflets went on to point out that Muslims had scored victories over the west through some of their terrorist activities around the world and had

"inflicted the most humiliating lesson on supposed superpowers".

They called on all Muslims to

"Ally yourselves with those who work day and night to confront this war against Islam."

One ought to consider whether an organisation such as that is seeking to promote and glorify terrorism.

In Copenhagen, in October 2002, Fadi Abdullatif was given a suspended sentence because he maintained in a square in Copenhagen that

"The Jews are a people of slander...a treacherous people...they fabricate lies and twist words from their right context."

I am sure that all hon. Members would agree with the sentence that the court handed down. The leaflet went on to quote words that were quoted in this Chamber only last week. The leaflet urged Muslims to kill Jews

"wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out".

I understand that some organisations debate whether that is a proper quotation from the Koran and whether it is anti-Semitic, because the translation does not normally refer to Jews; it refers to invading forces. None the less, most of us would accept that that is certainly glorifying terrorism.

In Bangladesh, on 10 February this year, leaflets were given out and people chanted slogans and carried banners that said: "Death to those who degrade our beloved prophet!" and "Hang culprits". Other banners said: "Free speech symbolizes War on Islam" and "Free speech—Crusade against Islam".

All those things have been organised under the name of Hizb ut-Tahrir. That is why I ask the Minister very clearly to consider the importance of keeping under constant review the issue of whether Hizb ut-Tahrir should be on the list of proscribed organisations. It is proscribed in most of the Muslim nations of central Asia: in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Tatarstan and—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman of my ruling? He has made his point.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the liberty that I have taken. I would merely urge the Minister to look at whether the reasons behind the proscriptions that he has proposed today are not also reasons why we might consider proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. I cannot give the House a running commentary on any discussions that we might have with Governments, the Security Service or the police about organisations that we may proscribe in future, but the last time we introduced a proscription order, I said at the Dispatch Box that we would keep Hizb ut-Tahrir under serious review. I got a very nice letter from that group as a result, and I do not doubt that I will get another one today. We keep it under review, not least for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave, and that is as it should be. That applies to a whole range of other groups, too.

The roving Whip, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark), mentioned al-Muhajiroun. It had disbanded by the time we got round to considering proscription orders, but the first proscription order that I introduced banned al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect, two of its successor bodies. There was clear, substantive and sustainable evidence for doing so.

As I say, we keep Hizb ut-Tahrir under review, but it seems that the issue, which is one of 12 that the previous Prime Minister mentioned on 5 August 2005, is now used as a stick with which to beat the Government. It is used to challenge the legitimacy of all that we are trying to do to counter terrorism, and that is a little churlish, if not schoolboyish. I am certainly not casting aspersions on the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who treats such issues seriously, but the Leader of the Opposition prances around—with or without the letter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) referred—treating the issue as some kind of badge of honour, and questioning whether the Government are deadly serious about what we are doing. Frankly, that is schoolboy politics, and he should know far better. The last time we discussed these matters, I said very seriously that we keep Hizb ut-Tahrir under review, and that is certainly the case.

Inspiration has come to me since I last sat down, so I can tell hon. Members that neither of the organisations mentioned in the order is based in the UK; and, clearly, as they are to be proscribed, that is unlikely to change. However, I take the point that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield made about charities. We are holding a review of the safeguards that are in place for charities, not least in the context of terrorist finance. A consultation on that issue is under way as we speak, and it closes on 2 August. I have engaged fully with the Treasury on the issue of terrorist finance and the nexus with charities, charitable law and the work of the Charity Commission. That work is ongoing, because we know—sometimes through anecdote, and sometimes via more substantive routes and evidence—that not every penny given to nominally bona fide, utterly legitimate charities will get to where it is supposed to go.

There are those, terrorists among them, who crawl on the back of human disasters—often very serious ones—such as earthquakes, and the money directly funds terrorism, so I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. I am not saying that what we have done thus far with the Treasury and the Charity Commission is sufficient, but it does take us some way. If he has not seen the documents to which I refer, I will make sure that he receives them.

I point out to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that it is not incumbent on the Government to de-proscribe or review. Organisations can apply to the Home Secretary for de-proscription, and if the Home Secretary says no, there is an appeal process. It is incumbent on the organisation, in the first instance, to ask, "Can we be de-proscribed now?" It is not for us to review the decision. If the Home Secretary refuses, the issue comes before the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, or POAC. I have just noticed that that is an anagram of ACPO, but there is no reason why anyone else should worry about that. POAC is a special tribunal of three members, including a senior member of the judiciary, that determines whether the Secretary of State's decision to refuse to de-proscribe is flawed, when considered in the light of the principles applicable to judicial review applications. That is the process; there is no duty on the Government to be proactive in considering such cases.

I take to heart the points that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made about procedures and paperwork. He asked whether there were ways in which we could consider the issues under separate orders and so have a wider review, which would almost span the globe: the organisations include the Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan, Euskadi ta Askatasuna and the Baluchistan Liberation Army, and groups in other places, too. That is a fair point that we should perhaps take up through the usual channels.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I just want to emphasise—for the benefit of the business managers, really—that there is no reason why having separate orders should extend the time needed for debate, because the orders could be taken together and discussed in parallel.

Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)

I take that point, and the point that the hon. Gentleman made about the possibility of there being real contention about just one of four or five groups on a list, and that is entirely fair.

On why it supposedly took so long to proscribe Jammat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh and Tehrik Nefaz-e Shari'at Muhammadi, we take such decisions seriously, and there is due process. To describe a period of a little under two years for each group as anything other than the result of our being rigorous and doing things in an appropriate time frame is a bit unfair. Although one of the groups did come to our notice some five years before then, it was its key activities in 2005 that prompted concerns.

With all those caveats, and bearing in mind the point about keeping Hizb ut-Tahrir under review, and the point about giving further consideration to the process of the House—I think that that is the issue, rather than the legal process—I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.

Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [Lords]

Bridget Prentice (Labour, Lewisham East)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

May I begin by commending the work done in the other place by Lord Lester, who introduced the Bill? I pay tribute to him for his initial work on the Bill, and thank him for his support for the Government's amendments and redrafting. The Bill was the subject of much debate in the other place, and it comes to us changed for the better. I hope it will gain similar support in this House as it is much needed if we are to help the young women and, indeed, some men who find themselves in extremely threatening circumstances.

Above all, the Bill's aim is to offer protection to those faced with forced marriage, whether they are children, teenagers or adults, regardless of background, race or religion. It also offers protection to people who have already been forced into a marriage. As many Members will be aware, the forced marriage unit, which is jointly sponsored by the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, does tremendous work in developing Government policy on the subject. It co-ordinates outreach projects and it provides support and information to individuals who are at risk. It receives about 5,000 calls for general advice and it handles about 300 cases a year.

Last year, the Metropolitan police recorded 518 incidents related to forced marriage, so the numbers involved may not be great, but they are significant, and it is likely that many more victims suffer in silence. As well as offering protection to people who are in danger of being forced into marriage, we hope that the Bill will act as a deterrent, sending out a clear message that forced marriage will not be tolerated in our democracy.

The Bill offers civil remedies to those seeking protection from forced marriage. We consulted in 2005 on whether to introduce a criminal offence for forced marriage, but the response from stakeholders and voluntary groups with great experience of such issues was that criminalising it might be seen to target and stigmatise certain ethnic and religious communities, and that criminalisation would simply drive the practice underground, making the situation even worse for victims.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

Everybody in the House will support measures to tackle forced marriage, which is appalling, and I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who has done an awful lot in the House to highlight the issue. Will the Minister explain which stakeholders she has spoken to, because people are concerned that the Bill will not make forced marriage a criminal offence?

Bridget Prentice (Labour, Lewisham East)

We spoke to a variety of organisations that work with women, a number of faith groups and a series of organisations that have an interest, so the consultation was comprehensive. The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), which I intend to do later in my contribution.

It is important that victims get help to rebuild their lives and, where possible, to ensure that they have an ongoing relationship with their family. One of the reasons many voluntary organisations were concerned about criminalisation was that it might build a wall between the victim and their family that would be impossible to breach. This Bill is part of much wider programme that involves raising awareness of the problem of forced marriage and protecting women's rights in that area.

The forced marriage unit has produced a handbook that provides practical support to survivors. It is also part-funding a pilot survivors network to provide emotional support to those who survive forced marriage. We are undertaking a great deal of publicity, outreach and awareness-raising work in key communities, which involves speaking at around 75 events every year. There has been a national publicity campaign involving radio, TV and the national and local press.

Like the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, who secured an Adjournment debate on the subject back in 1999. Since then, she has worked tirelessly to bring about changes in the legislation to offer protection to victims. I hope that this Bill and the package of work undertaken by the forced marriage unit will stop the wicked practice of forced marriage.

The Bill gives the courts a wide discretion to deal flexibly and sensitively with the circumstances of each individual case, employing civil remedies that will offer protection to victims without criminalising members of their family. The new provisions take the form of a new part 4A of the Family Law Act 1996, placing them firmly in the wider context of domestic violence and family proceedings generally. That was the wish of Lord Lester, who wanted the provisions to be part of the family law package.

The type of orders that we envisage being made under the Bill are ones prohibiting violence or requiring certain steps, such as requiring a person to surrender a passport, for as long as such measures are appropriate to protect the victim. The Bill does not define what actions would constitute force in those circumstances, but it provides that that includes coercion by threats or the use of psychological pressure. The force may not even be directed against the victim, because it can be indirectly aimed at a third party or directed against the perpetrator themselves. For example, a person attempting to force a marriage may threaten to harm a member of the victim's family or even himself or herself should the victim not agree to go ahead with the marriage. That avoids narrow definitions of behaviour, which might be too restrictive, and gives the courts powers to offer protection to victims in a wide range of circumstances. Victims may have been subject to a variety of pressures aimed at forcing them into marrying without their free and full consent.

An important aspect of the Bill is that it enables third parties to apply for orders on behalf of victims. Many people have asked me about the point that many victims are afraid to come forward. The Bill recognises that and includes an essential provision that offers protection to women who fear making an application because of intimidation, or even because they have been imprisoned against their will. The Bill allows a "relevant third party" to apply for a protection order on behalf of a victim. A "relevant third party" is an individual or organisation that has been designated as such by the Lord Chancellor. Other third parties—individuals or groups that are not so designated—would need to obtain leave from the court before their application could be made. That provision is designed to minimise the risk of a third party abusing the process. The wishes and feelings of the victim will be a vital consideration for the courts in dealing with third-party applications.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Although the Minister is right that we do not want to see an abuse of the process, the measure that she has just outlined is important, because it allows a near relative to make an application if they are secure in the knowledge that somebody is being forced into a marriage.

Bridget Prentice (Labour, Lewisham East)

The hon. Gentleman is right. Working together has produced a Bill that includes that third pillar of protection for the victim.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is enormously to the credit of the Government and the Conservative Opposition that they have been prepared to take forward the Bill introduced by my noble Friend Lord Lester. We are grateful for the interest that has been shown—it has been a shared endeavour across the House.

Bridget Prentice (Labour, Lewisham East)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those kind and positive words. I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will work together to ensure that the Bill has a safe and smooth passage. We have always been concerned about the issue. Some time ago, we considered whether criminalisation would be appropriate. However, when Lord Lester introduced his private Member's Bill, it seemed appropriate to join together.

The Bill provides that the court must attach a power of arrest to an order, if it considers that the respondent has used or threatened violence against the victim, a third party or the respondent themselves. The ability for the court to attach a power of arrest to injunctions will provide a further important protection for women in those circumstances and it will act as a strong deterrent to further action for those covered by the order. Powers of arrest may also be attached to orders addressed not only to named respondents, but to third parties. That means that all orders will be capable of being effectively enforced by a power of arrest, if appropriate.

The Bill provides parallel provisions for Northern Ireland. Although incidents of forced marriage are not common in Northern Ireland, I hope that hon. Members agree that extending these important provisions to Northern Ireland sends out an important signal about the seriousness with which we take the problem.

Before concluding, I want to say a few words about the Bill's implementation. As with any legislation, implementation will require a significant programme of work. The first task will be to develop the necessary court rules, which will implement the procedure for dealing with those cases. The Department will take forward drafting of the rules and necessary court forms in conjunction with the family procedure rule committee.

The cost of court proceedings under part 4A in the form of court fees must also be set. I know that court fees are always a matter of concern in this House and the other place, and I want to reassure hon. Members that the Government are committed to ensuring that vulnerable people who need protection from the courts, but who do not have the means to pay, have access to justice. The intention is that the court fees and eligibility for legal aid will follow the models that are in place in relation to applications for non-molestation and occupation orders under part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996. That means that those on low incomes will be exempt from paying a court fee on the issuing of their applications.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

Will the Minister confirm that legal aid will be available not only to an applicant, but to a respondent?

Bridget Prentice (Labour, Lewisham East)

A respondent will, of course, be eligible for legal aid in the usual way.

The need for proper training and guidance on the issue of forced marriage and on the particular provisions included in this legislation has been rightly identified as key to ensuring that the Bill is implemented successfully and to tackling the problem of forced marriage. In the past year, the forced marriage unit—we are the only country in the world that has a forced marriage unit, so it is unique—has issued guidance to health professionals and undertaken an awareness-raising campaign for registrars. Guidance was issued to social workers in 2004, followed by guidance for the police and for teachers in 2005. We expect that revised guidance will go out for social workers before the end of this year.

The Bill provides a power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the Bill and on the issue of forced marriage generally. That will enable us to republish the existing guidance in order to put it on a statutory footing. It is anticipated that future guidance issued by the FMU will usually be published under the new power.

It is anticipated that the Judicial Studies Board, which is responsible for judicial training, will undertake the necessary training for judges in these courts. We will discuss with the JSB the cost of training and how to incorporate the training that it considers necessary within the existing provisions. Training for court staff will be a matter for my Department and for Her Majesty's Courts Service as standard practice for the implementation of any new legislation affecting the courts. We will also consider with HMCS the provision of interpreters for women in forced marriages as part of the implementation programme.

It is clear that the House is already very supportive of the Bill. I hope that I have given hon. Members a sense of the plans that are in place to ensure that this extremely important piece of legislation is implemented as speedily as possible so that we can take another important step forward in tackling the harmful practice of forced marriage and protecting the rights of women, in particular, but of all individuals to choose whom and when to marry. I commend the Bill to the House.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I welcome the Minister's remarks and her presentation of the Bill. As she will be aware, the Bill commands universal support across the House. It started in another place when it was introduced by Lord Lester as a private Member's Bill. As the chances of a private Member's Bill from the other place getting through this House are not usually very good—not because of any obstruction but simply because they tend to come at the very bottom of the Order Paper in private Members' business—we felt it incumbent on ourselves, as we took the matter so seriously, to ask for time for it to be dealt with, even at the cost of Opposition debating time. We are absolutely delighted to have been able to do that. We are also delighted that the Government responded positively to our proposal and that we have been able to co-operate with the Liberal Democrats on this matter.

Article 16(2) of the universal declaration of human rights says:

"Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."

That is an aspiration that most people in this country might well assume to be commonplace, but the unfortunate reality is that there is ample evidence that it is not. The Minister referred to the number of calls received by the forced marriage unit—about 5,000 a year—and the identification of some 300 cases that appeared to be ascertained and 518 matters that had been brought to the attention of the Metropolitan police. Of course, in so many of these matters it is very difficult to know exactly what the scale of the problem may be. Speaking on the basis of my constituency experience in an area that might not necessarily be associated with the demographic profile that might lend itself to this, I think that there is ample evidence that people are contracting marriages, especially abroad, where a degree of coercion appears to be involved in the transaction, if I may call it that.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

My hon. Friend highlights one of the main problems. Does he agree that it might help to reduce instances of forced marriage if the age at which people were allowed to be brought into this country on a marriage visa was increased from 18 to 21?

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

My hon. Friend raises a perfectly sensible point, which might also go to the question of what the general age of consent for entering into marriage should be. He is fully entitled to want to have those matters considered, although they are rather wider than those that we are considering. Historically in this country, at least until the 19th century, marriages were contracted at younger ages than today. Some argue that 16 is too young, while others say that it is right, particularly given the earlier maturity of young people. It is not an issue on which I would wish to pronounce, but it is a legitimate one.

Coerced marriage involves grey areas. Some people marry under emotional pressure—that may happen frequently in this country, let alone abroad—and may come to regret it afterwards. We must be reasonably pragmatic in our approach. Nevertheless, it is clear that there are some stunning and horrifying cases of individuals who are coerced into marriage. We cannot escape the fact that different cultures have different approaches to marriage. Therefore, as our country has become more multicultural, different examples of coerced marriage have entered into our society—although it would be wrong to suggest that it has not been present here, too, throughout our history.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) inadvertently focused on the role of entry clearance officers and entry clearance managers. Clearly, legislation is very important and we support the Bill. However, should we not also consider an administrative way of dealing with the issue? ECOs and ECMs abroad should be wary when an application is made and the applicant is too afraid to say that it is a forced marriage, because if she does it then appears in the explanatory statement when it is sent to London and everyone knows that she has scuppered her own application.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point that I was going to deal with a little later. It is one area that I think we might like to consider a bit further in Committee, if possible. I shall explain in a moment what I had in mind; other hon. Members might have different ideas.

I do not wish to take up the House's time on an issue on which there is so much consensus, but I should like to say a couple of things about the Bill. As originally introduced by Lord Lester, it was a new piece of legislation. Since the Government's helpful intervention, it has, in essence, been turned into an amendment of the Family Law Act 1996. There was great merit in that approach. Lord Lester had the ideas and set them out on paper, but translating them into detailed court powers is a rather more complicated process—I see the Minister smiling in agreement—and the 1996 Act provided the necessary mechanisms. Under the powers set out in new sections 63F, 63G, 63H, 63I and so on, we now have a panoply of court powers that were not originally provided for in Lord Lester's Bill, and which will be very useful.

That brings me to what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said about whether criminal sanctions are required. That is an important issue. If somebody is forced into marriage, and it can be shown to the criminal standard of proof that that is what has happened, there is no doubt that a great range of criminal offences may have been committed, depending on the circumstances, such as blackmail, threats to kill, assault, false imprisonment, child abduction, kidnapping or sexual offences. However, the problem is that it is questionable whether putting in a criminal standard of proof will get a better result, particularly where somebody is extremely unwilling to come forward. The merit of the way in which this has been approached is that, first, it will encourage people who have been forced into marriages to come forward, and secondly, it allows the courts much greater flexibility to look in the round at what is going on—for example, to listen to a relative or friend who comes forward and says, "I think this is a forced marriage, as the person is clearly not happy about it", and then do something practical about it. If it becomes clear, in the course of all that, that a criminal offence has been committed, I have no doubt that the opportunity for prosecution may still ensue. My hon. Friend needs to bear in mind the question of whether having a criminal offence of forced marriage would leave us with some serious definitional problems and then the problem of proving to the requisite standard that that is what happened.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case and, as he knows, I respect his opinion hugely. Does he agree, however, that a stated and clear criminal offence in this area may well deter people so that such things do not happen in the first place? A criminal offence would send a powerful and important message to people that such activity is not tolerated in this country.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Criminalisation sends out a powerful message, but the question is whether a criminal offence would be workable. If in many cases where an attempt is made to prosecute the criminal offence becomes impossible to prove, people will start to disregard it or treat it with contempt. The merit of Lord Lester's approach—derived from a lot of consultation and adopted by the Government—is that it maximises the possibility of people coming forward. After all, it is currently true that individuals can come forward. Somebody who has been coerced into a marriage in India, for example, and comes to this country would probably be able to secure a decree of nullity if they so wanted, as it exists today. The difficulty is that that is not happening.

We cannot achieve perfection in such matters, but in so far as we can see a way forward, what is proposed in the Bill maximises the chances of a forced marriage coming to the attention of the courts and of something being done about it. I am sure that many will still slip through the net, but some will end up in prosecution. If someone is prepared to come forward and say that they were, effectively, kidnapped before the marriage, that may provide a powerful ability to do something about it.

The other problem my hon. Friend must bear in mind is that some such marriages may have been contracted abroad. In this country, there is a wide degree of recognition of foreign marriages on the whole, even if they do not necessarily comply with our regulations. That raises a number of problems that the legislation has probably successfully addressed, as far as I can see—we shall look at the matter more closely in Committee.

I do not want to take up the House's time; there is no point in repeating what the Minister said when I agree with every word she has spoken. To return to the important point of the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), I will simply say that we know that the majority—not necessarily all—of these marriages often take place abroad. One reason for that is that any marriage in this country has to undergo the scrutiny of the registrar of marriage, or a person who has been licensed as such, who must see both parties and ascertain consent.

We shall try to return to this matter in Committee—the Bill largely amends the Family Law Act 1996, so that may cause problems—but I wonder whether there should be a system of compulsory re-registration of foreign marriages when someone comes from abroad, so that the facts of the marriage and the consent of the parties can be ascertained. That would go a little further, but it might deal with some of the problems raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East about executive officers in consulates who give out visas and often find it difficult to be satisfied that consent has been given.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is a simple way round this problem. Such officers could accept a confidential statement made by the applicant because they would interview the applicant separately, even though the spouse might be sitting outside, having flown from the United Kingdom, and that would not be disclosable—if there were an appeal, it is disclosable only to the judge. That is one way round the problem. There is an administrative way to help the situation that would prevent the spouse having to enter the country against their will in the first place.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I do not know whether he will have the opportunity to serve on the Committee dealing with the Bill.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

indicated dissent.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

Notwithstanding that, I hope that we will consider those issues; it is the one area that I would like to look at in Committee. Given that I am standing at the Dispatch Box, the right hon. Gentleman can infer that it is likely to fall to me to do the job.

With those thoughts in mind, I would like to thank the Government for their approach to the matter. I say again how pleased and privileged we are to help to ensure that the Bill passes through the House. I look forward to Committee, where we can see whether there are any—probably minor—improvements that can be made to it.

Chris McCafferty (Labour, Calder Valley)

The word "delighted" would be inappropriate, but I am certainly pleased to speak about the Bill because forced and child marriages constitute serious and recurrent violations of human rights, and the rights of the child. In Britain, the root causes of this practice lie mainly in the tendency for traditions to become fossilised in migrant communities that are often more conservative than those remaining in home countries. Let us face it, the practice occurs predominantly in Muslim communities, but also in others.

It is almost entirely women and girls who are subjected to this infringement of their personal liberty, but men may also be forced to marry—for example, when young men display gay tendencies, which is not acceptable in their community. It is quite outrageous that under the cloak of "respect" for the culture and traditions of certain communities, some authorities tolerate forced marriages, even though such marriages violate the fundamental rights of each and every victim. It is a case not of stigmatising Islam, but of saying that tolerance or feeling for culture cannot serve as an excuse for condoning such marriages, or for hiding behind moral blindness.

Keith Vaz (Labour, Leicester East)

I welcome the way in which my hon. Friend has put her arguments, and she is at the forefront of campaigns to bring religions together. Does she agree, however, that when the Bill becomes an Act, it will be important for us to raise awareness in the community to make people aware of its provisions and effects?

Chris McCafferty (Labour, Calder Valley)

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend, who makes a very valid, and crucial, point. Legislation is only a part of the whole. Education and consultation of the communities involved is important; they must be brought on board. That is of paramount importance.

Forced marriage is defined as the union of two persons, at least one of whom has not given their free and full consent to the marriage. Arranged marriage, by contrast, is typified by the intervention of someone outside the future couple—usually the parents of the future spouses or a broker. However, the ultimate choice of accepting the arrangement rests with each of the future spouses. It can, of course, be difficult to ascertain how far it is possible for them to choose and make up their minds in a properly informed manner because the family environment can be so powerful that choice is induced by upbringing or deference to custom.

Forced marriage is chiefly characterised by the absence of consent. In other words, one future spouse, or both, does not have the choice of opting out because the family resorts to coercive methods, such as emotional blackmail, physical duress, violence or even abduction, confinement and confiscation of official papers, such as passports. For practical purposes, the future spouses have no possibility of choosing whether or not to marry.

Forced marriage, when consummated—as it is in the vast majority of cases—is primarily an act of rape. The young bride does not have the freedom to accept or refuse sexual relations or to exercise her reproductive rights. She must submit. Indeed, a catalogue of elementary and fundamental rights are simply trampled underfoot. Deprivation of happiness and infliction of violence upon them are often the victims' daily lot. Forced marriage is a modern-day form of slavery. From "rape" to "wrongful seclusion", no terms are strong enough to condemn those repeated violations of human rights.

The issue of forced marriage hinges on the delicate balance between respect for cultural diversity and respect for human rights. The Government now have an active duty to enforce human rights in this country. Appropriate legislation is necessary but, unfortunately, it is not sufficient to end those undesirable situations. We must also make significant other efforts to guard against such marriages.

In that context—for once, I find myself in slight agreement with Conservative Members—I ask the Government to consider seriously raising the age at which a young person can sponsor a potential spouse to come and live in Britain not to 21 but to 23. That would allow vulnerable youngsters time to receive a full education and mature into young adults. It would make it easier for forced marriages to be prevented, detected and annulled.

The Bill's central purpose is to provide protection to those at risk of forced marriage and recourse for those who have already been forced into such a marriage. I hope that it will help facilitate the annulment of forced marriages, and perhaps lead even to their automatic annulment. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can tell us whether there will be a time scale for courts to investigate and rule on an application for annulment of a forced marriage.

Naturally, the Bill does not prohibit arranged marriages, when genuine consent exists on both sides. Will the Government therefore expand age-appropriate prevention campaigns, perhaps building on the wonderful MissDorothy.co.uk website, to ensure that young people know the difference between forced and arranged marriages? Such campaigns could inform them of their rights, especially the right to make up one's own mind about marriage and the right to choose one's future partner. It could also inform persons under threat of forced marriage of the practical steps that can be taken to forestall such a marriage, such as placing one's passport in safe keeping or lodging a complaint, for example, of theft of papers, in the event of confiscation.

I would have preferred forced marriage to be made a criminal offence because that would enable the police and social services to intervene more readily in forced marriage and its connection to honour-based violence, which is an increasing menace in this country. However, I am delighted that the Government are supporting the Bill, which will provide some protection to those at risk of forced marriage and recourse for those who have already been forced into such a marriage.

The Bill will change the law to enable courts to order injunctions to prevent forced marriages and, in some cases, to attach powers of arrest if those orders are breached. If used properly, it will become a powerful and useful new tool for those who try to protect the victims of forced marriage.

Forced marriage is an abuse of fundamental human rights. The Bill sends out a clear message that it involves serious wrongdoing and that we will not tolerate it. The Bill creates a civil wrong of forced marriage. I accept that it is a serious attempt to provide suitable remedies for victims and I respect the conclusion of the recent Government consultation that a new criminal offence would not be helpful.

The Bill is in keeping with international human rights standards, including: the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women—CEDAW; the UN convention on consent to marriage; the minimum age for marriage; the registration of marriages, and many other treaties to which the UK is a party.

I believe that primary legislation using civil remedies will contribute towards changing public opinion, perception and practice, and will have a strong deterrent effect. It will help victims defend themselves against forced marriage. It will empower young people with more tools to negotiate with their parents. In some cases, it will help parents who face pressure from their relatives. It will provide a victim-centred remedy, allowing victims to retain control over the process.

The Bill acknowledges the increasing and inhumane practice of forced marriage and its devastating impact on the lives of many young women and some young men. Forced marriage is a culturally sensitive issue, but cultural practices should be sacrosanct only when they do not militate against human rights. Nothing is more important than an individual's basic human rights. We must ensure that the measure is only the beginning of the process of making forced marriage socially unacceptable as well as illegal.

Jo Swinson (Liberal Democrat, East Dunbartonshire)

I am delighted to give Liberal Democrat support to the Bill. My noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is a great champion of such issues, introduced the measure in the other place. It is to the Government's credit that they adopted it, and I want to place on record my thanks and appreciation to them for that and for, with Conservative support, providing parliamentary time to ensure that it reaches the statute book. It is a good example of consensual, cross-party working to tackle an appalling problem.

The concept of marriage is one of an equal and loving union and a commitment that is entered into willingly. If the commitment is forced, it is no longer marriage but can be tantamount to a prison sentence for the victim. As we have heard, forced marriage can lead to horrendous crimes: abduction; rape—often repeated rape; honour killings and other violence. Some victims are effectively turned into domestic or sexual slaves.

Although laws that are already on the statute book could be used to punish people who force someone into marriage, waiting until the crimes are committed before we act is too late. The Bill is therefore essential. "Prevention is better than cure" is an old adage; it is much better to stop such marriages happening.

It is important to acknowledge that the coercion does not need to be physical but can be psychological. The huge psychological pressure that can be put on an individual and the stress that that causes can lead to a forced marriage.

There is currently no offence of forced marriage and that must be remedied. As we have heard, the forced marriage unit processes about 300 cases a year and has made great progress in tackling the problem. However, that is not enough to get to grips with the matter. Those 300 cases may be the tip of the iceberg—many go unreported. We therefore hope that, with publicity and education awareness of the legislation, more individuals will be encouraged to come forward.

That leads me to consider whether the offence should be criminal or civil—a point that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised. Although much discussion and debate has taken place, the civil route is the right approach. It is vital not to discourage people from coming forward, which could happen if they felt that they were effectively criminalising members of their family. Although the Bill does not create a criminal offence, we must recognise that it provides for powers of arrest, so effective action can be taken if a forced marriage protection order is broken.

The application by a third party is a vital element of the Bill, especially—though not only—when children are involved. We cannot expect those who are under age to have full cognisance of the different legal options at their disposal and we must rely on others to look after them and highlight the matter to the courts.

Support for the Bill comes from a wide range of organisations, which speaks volumes. They include: the Association of Chief Police Officers, Liberty, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Newham Asian Women's Project, Rights of Women, Southall Black Sisters, the three main parties in the House, and, I am sure, many other political organisations. It is welcome to see so much support for tackling the issue.

I should like to touch on the point that the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) made about the difference between forced and arranged marriages. We must be clear about that distinction. The regulatory impact assessment identified a potential risk that the Bill would disproportionately impact on black and minority ethnic communities and might be interpreted as a cultural criticism of them. That is why we must be clear that forced marriage is an abuse of human rights and can never be acceptable. By contrast, arranged marriages are a union between two consenting adults and have taken place for centuries, across all cultures.

Indeed, we do not need to go back very far in British history to see many examples of arranged marriages, particularly among members of the aristocracy and the upper classes. I must confess that I am quite a fan of Jane Austen's novels. One only has to read "Pride and Prejudice" to find characters such as Mrs. Bennet who are masters of arranged marriages. Arranged marriages have taken place for a long time and, although they have more recently become less common in British culture, they obviously still happen in our south Asian communities.

I recently met a group of young Asian women in my constituency and we discussed a wide range of topics. The issue of arranged marriages came up, on which I was genuinely interested to listen to their views. They likened the process to an introduction service or a dating agency almost, with their parents making the first move so that they did not have to. They talked about arranged marriages in an incredibly relaxed way, because no pressure would be put on them to marry someone whom they did not want to marry. In fact, they welcomed arranged marriages as something valuable.

The other point that those young women raised with me—it was their major concern and is why it is so important to draw the distinction between forced and arranged marriages—was the continued negative portrayal of British Asian communities, particularly Muslims, in the British media. It is therefore important that we do not allow forced and arranged marriages to be confused. If that happened, the confusion could be used in the media, which would create divisions within our communities, when we need to do the opposite. We should also be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that forced marriages are an issue only in Asian communities. As the Minister pointed out, the victims can come from all racial and religious groups, from all ages and from all parts of the country.

I should like to raise the issue of those victims who are children or who have learning difficulties. There is a problem with those with learning difficulties being forced into marriage, whether it is done to secure a visa or is related to their learning difficulty, in order to create financial security or obtain a full-time carer for them.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I have had direct experience of that. One of the reasons for the practice is simply cultural, on the assumption that all women should be married. There is a school in my constituency for children with learning disabilities. I am afraid that there is a consistent pattern of girls being removed at the age of 16 to be sent to the Indian subcontinent—if that is where they originate from—to be married, even though many of them probably have little understanding of what they are going to do.

Jo Swinson (Liberal Democrat, East Dunbartonshire)

The hon. Gentleman raises an important and worrying issue. What is welcome in the Bill is that the wishes and feelings of the victims will be considered by the courts in determining whether to issue a forced marriage protection order. However, there is a possible difficulty, in that the participation of people with learning disabilities in court is often hampered by inadequate provision to assist them. Sometimes it is even assumed that they cannot give evidence, when in fact the proper support to enable that can be provided. The use of intermediaries can be one way round for individuals in those circumstances, including children, to ensure that the court can properly understand the victim's wishes. Other measures are available, under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Incorporating such measures at the discretion of the judge might be helpful in better understanding the wishes of the victim. I should be interested to know the views of the Government on that issue, which could be explored further in Committee. Finding a solution would be welcome and would ensure that all the victims had their views heard adequately.

Before drawing my remarks to a close, I should like briefly to mention Scotland. The legislation will apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland only, but the problem clearly affects people throughout the UK. The forced marriage unit deals with cases in Scotland, because that is where the centre of excellence and expertise is. In fact, the consultation in 2005 was run jointly by the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. The highest number of responses were from London and Scotland, so forced marriage is obviously an issue there. Will the Minister discuss the issue with her counterpart in the Scottish Executive? The view was expressed in the debate on the Bill in the other place that in passing the legislation we would be sending a powerful message to countries throughout the world about how the issue can be dealt with and forced marriages prevented, in the hope that other legislatures might adopt similar proposals.

Bridget Prentice (Labour, Lewisham East)

I hope that I can give the hon. Lady some assurance by saying that we will discuss the issue with the Scottish Executive. My understanding is that they hope to introduce similar legislation later this year, and we will certainly encourage them to do so.

Jo Swinson (Liberal Democrat, East Dunbartonshire)

I thank the Minister very much and am pleased greatly by that intervention. I have been discussing the issue with my colleagues, although obviously the Scottish Parliament is in recess at the moment.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

Part-timers.

Jo Swinson (Liberal Democrat, East Dunbartonshire)

Members of the Scottish Parliament do come back rather earlier—the holiday season is rather different in Scotland. However, it will certainly be helpful if the provisions can be extended north of the border, too. No doubt the experience and expertise of the forced marriage unit will be very welcome in dealing with the legislation in Scotland and in ensuring that Scottish victims are also protected.

In conclusion, the Bill is long overdue. It is urgently needed to tackle a horrific problem. As well as sending out a clear signal about the unacceptability of forced marriages, the Bill will give those at risk of becoming victims access to tools to prevent them from happening, rather than waiting for the crime to be committed, because at that stage the control that is wielded over many victims' lives makes access to justice all but impossible. It is excellent that the Government have adopted the Bill and it is wonderful that the Conservatives support it. The Liberal Democrats will also give it our wholehearted support.

Margaret Moran (Labour, Luton South)

I, too, welcome the Bill, which has unanimous support throughout the House. However, I was extremely worried by the original Bill, which Lord Lester introduced in another place, and vigorously opposed it. I did not do so because forced marriage is not a serious crime—we all acknowledge that it is—but because I know from my constituency case work that to criminalise it in its own right would be to alienate and divide families. The worst thing that we could do to a victim or survivor of a forced marriage would be permanently to separate her—it is more than often a her—from her family and support networks, and that was what the original Bill would have done. That would be incredibly divisive and would leave the survivor of a forced marriage with nowhere to turn and with inadequate support. That is a deeply damaging proposal for anyone in that position.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I hope that the hon. Lady will excuse my intervention but, while I am absolutely satisfied that the Bill has been substantially improved, I can assure her that the original draft, as presented in the House of Lords, did not create a criminal offence.

Margaret Moran (Labour, Luton South)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I am referring to the earliest discussions on the issue of forced marriage, which certainly did refer to criminalisation, to which many of the groups that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) mentioned were also deeply opposed. Indeed, there was quite a consensus among Refuge, Southall Black Sisters and others that a criminal offence of forced marriage was simply not necessary.

Another problem was that creating a criminal offence would simply add to the existing list of criminal offences that can be applied in such circumstances. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, action can be taken under the Marriage Act 1994. Action can also be taken against kidnapping, child abduction, false imprisonment, and assault and battery under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, against threats to kill under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, against child cruelty under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, against blackmail, and so on. Happily, the Government have introduced many of those measures since 1997. However, the fact that victims and survivors of forced marriages are not using many of those measures is an indication that they were not totally effective in tackling the issue. Civil action is therefore most welcome.

I commend the Government on the fact that a lot of work has already been done in the Home Office and the Foreign Office, including the establishment of the forced marriage unit and the issuing of extensive guidance to the police, to education and social services professionals and, most recently, to health professionals. That guidance is excellent, but we need to test how well it is known, enforced and monitored. We also need to ensure that it applies across all public services, including housing and the whole range of local government services, as well as the whole of the criminal justice system.

Another reason I believe that the Bill represents a more appropriate approach is that we need to take a more co-ordinated and holistic approach to violence against women. Many of the issues that we are dealing with here are parallel and integral to tackling domestic violence and violence against women across the piece, including rape, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley referred.

The issues involved include power relations, protection—which is very much the aim of the Bill—and prevention. The measures on third-party applications and legal aid, and the provisions to enable courts to issue injunctions to prevent repeat offences are most welcome. We also need to ensure that the other "P", provision, is dealt with. We must ensure that there are appropriate sources—I stress the word "appropriate"—of support and refuge for the survivors of forced marriage, just as we need better and more adequate protection for those surviving domestic violence. There is a huge gap in that provision at the moment, and I hope that Ministers will look at that as part of the implementation of the Bill.

The Bill will allow survivors to come forward more easily. It will also enable us to help them to address the issue. I know from my casework the absolute despair experienced by forced marriage victims who can find nowhere to turn. The incredible family networks, particularly among the Pakistani, Kashmiri and Bangladeshi communities in my constituency, are a source of huge strength, but in circumstances such as these, they are a source of great division and despair because there is almost no one who is unknown to the extended family and friends to whom a victim or survivor can turn in a moment of crisis. We need to ensure that we establish appropriate, independent sources of support in these communities. They do not exist at the moment.

I want to refer to a pilot that is one of three UK-wide national pilots on forced marriage. It is being run from my office. How extraordinary is that? I am pleased to say that it is Home Office funded, but it is being run from my office because, despite the size of the Pakistani, Kashmiri and Bangladeshi communities in my constituency, there was nowhere for survivors of forced marriage to turn for independent advice and support, where they would not be known and where their stories would not be relayed to other members of their community.

I want to thank the Home Office, Equalities Networks—a social enterprise based in my constituency that is helping to run the pilot programme—and particularly Dr. Nazia Khanum, who wrote the reports to which I will refer in a moment. During the pilot programme, forced marriage survivors talked to other victims and survivors of forced marriage. It has been most impressive. However, although it started out as one of three Home Office-funded pilots, ours is the only one still in existence. Sadly, the other two have gone by the wayside, and Ministers need to learn lessons about why that happened. Those pilots were extremely valuable, but, like the pilot that is being run from my office, they had insufficient resources to continue, and we risk losing the lessons that we have learned. We were originally told that the pilots would be evaluated and rolled out across the UK, but it has all gone terribly quiet.

So, while I commend the measures in the Bill, I believe that we must address the serious issue of matching our words and our deeds to ensure that survivors get the support and resources that they need. We must work with the communities that continue, in some cases, to perpetrate this serious crime to ensure that they understand how seriously we take the matter. More importantly, they must also understand that we are working with them to ensure that they have the education and support to break away from the often intense cultural pressures that exist in some communities. We should never underestimate the intense pressures and obligations that some families feel to bring a bride over from Kotli, or from Sylhet in Bangladesh. These families need help to enable them to be strong enough to say that their daughters or sons should not be put through some of the worst instances that we have seen.

The pilot to which I have referred involves producing a research report to examine the extent of the problem. As other Members have said, it is difficult to estimate the extent of the problem, despite the work of the forced marriage unit, or to determine whether we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg. A second aspect of the pilot involves a project called Changing Lives, which works to enable young people—men and women—in the communities that might be subject to forced marriage to advocate within their own communities. This means that people will not just be talking to the "usual suspects", or the so-called community leaders. We are using young people to educate and support other young people. The third phase, which we are coming to at the moment, involves training key actors in the local community—including deliverers of public services such as the local authority, colleges and other educational institutions—who are likely to come into contact with forced marriage victims so that they can identify and support them where necessary.

Extensive research was undertaken with not only individual victims and survivors, but voluntary and community groups, and one of the most astonishing things that we learned was that local community groups were receiving more than 300 approaches a year on this issue in my constituency alone. That is an enormous figure when seen in the context of what the forced marriage unit is reporting. Obviously, some duplicate reporting could be involved, as forced marriage survivors are forced to go from one agency or community support organisation to another. It is therefore impossible to gauge the exact extent of the problem, but 300 is still, by any standards, a very large number.

The report found that very few of the individual forced marriage survivors or the agencies coming into contact with them had any knowledge of the forced marriage unit. It also found that they had very little awareness of the good work being done by the Home Office and the Foreign Office, and little or no awareness of where to go for support. There was certainly no knowledge of any counselling provision being available. There is a huge chasm between those who are experiencing the problem and the work, albeit good work, that the Government are doing. We need to bridge that gap urgently.

Another issue that arose was a little more controversial. Many of those involved in the report felt that the definition of "forced marriage" should include false marriages. This takes us into more difficult territory. There were many examples of young men and women being told that they were to marry a certain person, or a certain type of person, only to find that the person they were marrying was wholly different. In one case, someone with severe disabilities—not that that should be an impairment—was falsely represented as the person to whom someone was about to be married. Many of the people referred to in the report felt that being coerced into marriage on the basis of false information was almost as bad as being coerced on the basis of no information at all, so they wanted the definition to be extended. They also felt that there was a need for a victim support network to combat isolation and to share experience and spread awareness of the options available. They wanted a building up of capacity in the community and voluntary sector to provide counselling services and guidance where needed. Also important to them was mentoring or partnering of people who have experienced forced marriages with those in danger of experiencing them or those who fear that their families might push them in that direction.

What are the lessons from the project so far? All I have been able to do in the time available is to provide a taste of the report, which will be published shortly. We learned that there is an urgent need for more preventive measures through early detection. We need to work with our schools and colleges, as well as with GPs to identify where forced marriage is likely to occur. Health visitors, social workers and teachers can also be involved. They need to be able to recognise the signs and ask the appropriate and culturally sensitive questions when a young man or woman is in danger of being forced into this situation.

Appropriate training is important so that all those across the public sector and the criminal justice system can understand the issues. I believe that it should be accredited training, as I have already encountered an individual, purporting to be an organisation, claiming to be running forced marriage training, yet there appears to be no substance or understanding behind it. We need to ensure that any training is properly accredited and monitored, while also ensuring that citizenship and English language classes are maintained. In some areas, they have effectively been taken away from some of the women when they do not go ahead with gaining any qualifications. One of the key barriers is language, yet we are depriving some women of the very means of articulating their problem and their desperation. That needs to be looked at again. We need to ensure that we are empowering these women and we need more funding and access to leadership courses for women who are likely to be in this position.

Immigration issues—the hon. Member for Beaconsfield dealt with some of them—are also important. I often see in my constituency surgeries young men and women who have been deprived of permanent residence in this country by their partner's refusal to sign the appropriate papers. I encounter a whole range of issues where people are forced to sign for permanent residence under the immigration rules under coercion. When that fact is raised with the immigration authorities, the answer is often, "There is nothing we can do about it now, because the person signed the paper"—regardless of the fact that it was done under duress. A whole tranche of immigration issues need to be addressed.

We need a survivor's network. My project suggested to the Home Office a follow-on project called "Forced Marriage Online", whereby survivors could give each other advice and support anonymously. More particularly, we could learn more about the circumstances of these victims and survivors in a way that would be safe for them while helping to inform us. We simply do not know enough about the full extent of the problem.

I believe that we should put our money where our mouths are. As I have said, this Bill is excellent, but its implementation and monitoring will be critical. With pilots of the sort that we are running from our office, being told that there is no further funding once the pilot is finished makes a mockery of what we say about tackling forced marriages. What we say and what we do are two very different things. I know that Ministers will take this matter forward and ensure that we put our money where our mouths are. We need more structured consultation and more listening to the survivors so that we can hear their voices more clearly. That has tended to be lacking throughout this entire debate.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

It is not often that the House is united in its approach to a Bill. I am delighted that all parties seem to have a common approach to what I believe is a very sensible Bill indeed. Every one of us regards forced marriages as evils. They are quite awful; they are an infringement of human rights; they cause utter misery; and they are often accompanied by violence, so anything we can do to put an end to them is to our advantage.

How many forced marriages are there? I do not think we can ever know the truth about that. The forced marriages unit hears of some 200 or 300 a year, but there must be many more where, in truth, the victim—usually a woman—is unable to speak out or unable, largely through fear, to seek help from those who could offer it. Forced marriages are therefore a very bad thing indeed. We occasionally read horrible stories about so-called "honour killings" and we are disgusted by them. The House has a duty to take note of the problem and to see what can sensibly be done about it.

I represent Woking, which has a large and well settled community of Pakistani background. We have the Shah Jahan mosque—the oldest in the country—and this community, mainly based in Maybury and Sheerwater, makes a huge contribution to local life in Woking. We have a harmonious, happy and settled community there. In preparing my contribution to the debate on the Bill tonight, I thought that I would speak to some of those who represent the Pakistani community in Woking on both the borough and county councils in order to find out their views. It will be no surprise, I am sure, to find out that all those to whom I spoke utterly condemned the practice of forced marriages. A leading county councillor, Shamas Tabrez, reminded me in a conversation that forced marriage is condemned at the highest level and is forbidden and illegal in Islam.

We are very fortunate in Woking in having a strong mosque, which provides a spiritual and cultural centre for so many people and whose imam provides so much excellent advice. There are excellent councillors in the Maybury and Sheerwater area and many other bodies offer support to those in the community who need it.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

They have an excellent MP, as well.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am so grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall think of something very nice to say about him at some later stage.

What my friends in Woking told me was that, much as they condemned forced marriages, they believed it important to differentiate them from arranged marriages. There is a world of difference between the two. We must understand that in many cultures, there are arranged marriages that are entered into voluntarily, though in a sense initiated by the families of the parties concerned. I venture to suggest that arranged marriages can often be much more successful than those that are not. The parties may come from families that know each other, so they start out with the absolute advantage of having mutual family support through parents and others who are all together in one big family. That can be essential, particularly in the early years of a marriage. There are many arranged marriages. Providing that they are entered into voluntarily, I say let that habit continue because in many ways they are a force for good in our community.

Is there a problem with forced marriages in Woking? My general view is no, and I shall explain why. What evidence do I have for my proposition? A very important charity, based in the London area, provides safe houses for women who have been forced into marriage. It picked up more than 100 cases between March 2006 and February 2007 of women in London and the home counties. Only one case came from Surrey, and that was not, I think, from Woking.

What is it about Woking? What is it about any community—this is the point of my speech—that can help so far as forced marriages are concerned? The first thing is to have an open and caring community, with strong and effective local support through various agencies to the settled community in that area. That is excellent. The importance of good local representation is also vital. As I said, Woking has an excellent mosque with an imam, the Maybury centre and the Asian women's groups. There is plenty of advice from different organisations for those in the Pakistani community.

We have four excellent local councillors in Shamas Tabrez, Riasat Khan, Mohammed Iqbal and Muzzafar Ali, all of whom are well known to me and serve their community well. When I say to them, "What about forced marriages in the Woking area?", they respond in these terms: "We are so stuck into our community and involved in it that we try desperately hard to hear of any problems that may crop up so that we can get on top of them, help the constituents and prove to be good advisers and helpers. We have a community where there is a culture of openness and mutual support. People with problems in our community are encouraged to talk to the various agencies that are there for their benefit, including the local councillors."

There is a lot to be said for strong local communities. If somebody—let us say that it is likely to be a young woman—is frightened and has been put into a forced marriage, she will need to turn to somebody for help. My point is that a strong community, with plenty of avenues to get good help and advice from people who understand the issue and are close to those whom they are helping, is important. We very much have that in Woking.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I very much support what the hon. Gentleman says. Does he accept, however, that for some women the strong open community might feel as though it is open to people other than them? It is relatively easy for those of us in leading positions in society to assume that those structures are open to everyone in the community, but isolated and young women in particular sometimes do not feel that they are open to them. There is an obligation on us to create alternative structures that they might find more accessible.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

How right the hon. Lady is. I am grateful to her for that intervention. There are those who, despite the good local structures and contact points, still feel alone and frightened. It is up to us to try to help them as much as we can.

On the Bill itself, little has been made of whether it is proper to approach the problem from the point of view of the civil law or the criminal law. In my judgment—I declare an interest as a part-time district judge, practising lawyer and Crown court recorder—what the Government have done is right. We should probably approach the problem from the point of view of civil sanctions. To bring the criminal law into it at the moment would not be appropriate. Apart from anything else, we legislate far too much in terms of the criminal law, and it could up the ante a little too much and cause more problems than it would solve. However, as hon. Members have said, forced marriages quite often—in fact, almost always—involve an element of crime, whether it is rape, kidnapping or violence. Many of those serious crimes are deeply connected with forced marriages and should be treated accordingly. The Bill is right to look at the problem from a civil point of view.

I have another point to put to the Solicitor-General. The Bill provides that the procedures for a remedy will go through the family courts, by which I take it to mean the county court, the High Court and so on. Will she dwell a little on the prospect of extending the jurisdiction to the family side of the magistrates courts? They are more in number. An awful lot of places that do not have a county court have a magistrates court. They also have the advantage of speed and cheapness.

I want to raise another issue, which has been touched on. The issues connected with religion and culture, which are quite sensitive, will come before county court and High Court judges. I cannot stress enough the need for relevant training for the judiciary when they are handling such cases. That training was mentioned in an intervention. It could and should be extended to many other people in this general field, if one likes to put it that way, who would benefit from the proper training necessary to equip them adequately to deal with the cultural and religious issues involved. The hon. and learned Lady will know, and will be able to tell me, that the judiciary are obliged to go on regular refresher courses for training purposes and so on, but to add at some stage something specifically on the issue of forced marriages might be a sensible way forward.

I want to touch on some other aspects, which can be examined carefully in Committee. The Bill mentions a forced marriage protection order. First, what is in it and against whom can it be made? Under proposed new section 63B, the contents of the order can be absolutely anything:

"A forced marriage protection order may contain...such other terms"

as the court thinks appropriate. Against whom can it be made? That is very widely drafted, because such an order can be made against other persons

"who are, or who may become, involved in other respects".

I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Lady will be able to narrow that down a bit either at this stage or in Committee. At the moment, the order can say anything and can in effect be made against anybody. In proposed new section 63B(2), the word "knowingly" does not come before the word "involved". One wonders whether in fact orders can be made against people who are, in truth, not culpable and not aware of what we might describe as culpable or guilty participation.

My next question is who will be able to apply for a forced marriage protection order? I appreciate that many Bills nowadays do not tell us the full story. That is generally left for regulation to do later. The Bill tells us that an application can be made by

"the person who is to be protected... or... a relevant third party."

That is fine as far as it goes, but who is a relevant third party? According to the Bill, it is

"a person specified, or falling within a description of persons specified, by order of the Lord Chancellor."

Who on earth will that be? It might be helpful if we could be told tonight; otherwise it seems likely that anyone with a tenuous or not tenuous, or close or not close, link with the family concerned will be able to make an application. Surely the Government do not want the definition to be as wide as that.

Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrat, Solihull)

I should be interested to know why the hon. Gentleman thinks that we need to restrict the definition of those who may apply for the order. The person concerned might have a social worker, or might know of someone in the community, who would be prepared to stand up for him or her and who might not be a particularly close associate.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I take the hon. Lady's point. Indeed, in a sense she has put her finger on the issue, which is that at some stage we shall need a little more definition of the type of person who can make a application. The hon. Lady may agree with me that it might not be appropriate for a family friend or acquaintance to be permitted to make such an application, and that therefore limitations may be necessary.

I have pointed out that a court can make any order that it wishes. I feel that at some point we shall have to discover the likely terms of an order. There is a direct parallel with the legislation on antisocial behaviour orders, which also gave courts power to make whatever orders they wished. As a result, courts all over the country made absurd orders whose terms were so wide as to make them totally unenforceable—for example, "The defendant shall not enter the City of London" or "The defendant shall not commit a crime". Only case law tightened up the definition of what should be in an ASBO. It now appears that anything can go into a forced marriage protection order. It would be helpful if the Government gave us some idea of what might go into such orders, how wide they might be, and what might be seen as going a step too far.

The provisions on arrest also have powerful implications. A constable may arrest someone who is in breach of an order, but under new section 63J

"An interested party may apply to the relevant judge for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of a person".

An interested person is defined as

"(a) the person being protected by the order"

—so far, so good—

"(b) (if a different person) the person who applied for the order"

—so far, so good—or

"(c) any other person".

That provision too is very wide, and we may have to have a look at it in Committee.

I think that the Bill is right to provide for a person who is arrested to be brought to court very quickly, but I ask the Minister to confirm that the judge will refer to section 5(1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Bail Act 1976 when considering the granting of bail. Will securities, sureties or other conditions similar to those imposed under that Act be imposed in these circumstances?

I think we all want a society in which people can live without fear, force or coercion of any kind. I hope to goodness that the Bill will prove slightly helpful in the long run, but I remain worried because whatever else happens—even if the Bill sails into law—we will depend on the victim coming forward, or on someone coming forward on the victim's behalf. We need to make life straightforward enough to give people the feeling that however badly they have been treated they can come forward, obtain protection and be looked after properly.

I wish the Bill well. Let me end by repeating what I said earlier. Woking is a strong community. We are aware of this issue, but there is no evidence of there being a great problem in Woking. That bears testimony to the quality and strength of its advice bodies and local councillors.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

The issue of forced marriage can affect anyone. I was privileged to be present at the commemoration of the first anniversary of the forced marriage unit when Baroness Scotland of Asthal reminded us:

"Forced marriage affects children, teenagers and adults from all races and religions, including Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Sikhs. And it is not solely an issue facing Asian communities."

However, I am shocked that each year the FMU deals with 5,000 inquiries and takes on some 250 to 300 cases, largely relating to people of south Asian descent.

We must be robust in tackling this abuse of human rights. Many Members have referred to forced marriage in that context. I am proud of the Government's record on legislating on human rights and I wish to remind Members of specific commitments in international human rights instruments that refer to this issue. Article 16 of the universal declaration of human rights states:

"Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."

Article 19 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child declares:

"States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child."

Tragically, forced marriage affects a number of children every year.

Unlike some Members, I welcome the decision not to make this a criminal offence. Lord Lester has deployed his legal skills in his usual imaginative and powerful way. Making this a civil offence empowers the victim. In civil cases, the victim has control over the legal proceedings. I have worked too often with victims in criminal proceedings who have felt pushed out as the Crown Prosecution Service takes over the case. In such circumstances, the victim's worries and concerns—which in cases such as forced marriage are often complex—can be ignored. Making this a civil offence will empower some victims of forced marriage, just as some victims of domestic violence are empowered by the injunction procedure. It will give the victim more control over the system, which is welcome. It also recognises a brutal reality. In forced marriage cases, the family is often both the oppressor and, at some point, the supporter. Families are complicated. A person's family can wickedly bully and harass them into a marriage that they do not feel is right for them, but at a later point that person might think, "I want my mum." Making this a civil wrong recognises some of the complexities in family relationships.

All Members agree on the issue and I want to remind Members of our record when we all agree. We should think about what happened in respect of the Child Support Agency and the dangerous dogs legislation. It is risky when we all agree. That is especially true of this Bill and I want to alert Ministers and other colleagues to that. It started as a private Member's Bill and, although we have consulted on whether we should legislate to criminalise forced marriage—and decided not to—this Bill has not been widely consulted on. Because of the nature of the offence that we are trying to address, we need alliances if we are to enforce our ambition effectively. If people are not signed up, on board, engaged or have not been enabled to use their imagination about how to fix the situation, there is a risk that we could end up with a great piece of legislation that does not work. We have, for example, legislation against genital mutilation that has never been deployed.

There is a job to be done in reaching out to people beyond the confines of this place. When I was speaking in my constituency about this Bill, a Sikh woman, who is a member of Slough borough council and a respected member of her community, asked me, "Who have you talked to about this, Fiona?" I mentioned conversations with Southall Black Sisters and others who are enthusiastic about the Bill. I could tell from her contribution that she was anxious that if the Bill was not well constructed, it could inflame the sort of arguments that happen in families and be used as a tool in family disputes to batter each other. There is a risk of that and we need to avoid it. The best way to do so is by engaging with the communities that know best how their families operate about the sensible ways to avoid it and how to engage the resourcefulness of those communities to make a difference.

I feel strongly that during the summer we need to consult as widely as possible with all sorts of people. As I suggested when I intervened on the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I fear that sometimes we can be a bit smug. We all say that we are against forced marriage, but my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) has dealt with more cases of forced marriage than any other Member. We have to stop and ask why that is so. Is it because Keighley is a hotbed of forced marriage? Is it more prevalent there than in Slough? Or is it because victims of forced marriage in my hon. Friend's constituency know that she is on their side? It is like wearing a red ribbon. She is on their side and she has stood up in mosques and in front of big, nasty bullies who say, "Oh, that is not a problem round here." She has stuck up for victims. It behoves all of us not to be complacent, but to stick up for victims and engage with all the communities that might be affected by or interested in this Bill. We should ask them what they can do that would make a difference.

We all know that legislation does make a difference. It creates an important framework of values that can change people's behaviour. For example, the establishment of the forced marriage unit and the clear lead from this Government on the issue have meant that many religious leaders have said that there is no place for forced marriage in their community and that they oppose it. They are very good at saying that, but slightly less good at acting on those commitments. We need to recognise that legislation has an important role to play, but we need to do more than just pass this Bill. We need to reach beyond it.

Some community leaders who make such statements do not notice the distress of someone who is trying to engage them. They try to pretend that the marriage is not quite false—"It is an arranged marriage with a bit of difficulty" they say, "because she is having a slightly hysterical moment. That's what happens to teenagers, isn't it?" I have heard and barged into such conversations. We need to engage with people on that.

I have seen schools turn a blind eye to young women who have spent a lot of time off-roll. They have not bothered to find out what has happened to them when they have gone back to Pakistan, for example. In creating a sort of cultural tolerance, we have sometimes winked at, or not had the determination to march towards, things that should give us pause. We have not challenged habits and practices that, while not being the sort of forced marriages that would be subject to action under the Bill, are on the boundaries of it. We all have a duty to act on that.

Hon. Members have talked about imaginative solutions. If we pass the Bill, we can deliver some of those. A convent of nuns in my constituency—sadly, they have moved to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—ran a school that had a place of retreat. I remember Sister Mary Stephen telling me that a young Muslim woman, seeing a female community of people who valued their faith, came to her to see if they could help her in moments of stress. It was striking that that woman wanted to reach outside her community to find like souls, who had some authority and who could provide some refuge for her, because she was fearful. We need to examine whether there are imaginative ways of creating refuge and space for women. First, however, we should give women power over their lives, and this Bill is one of the ways to do that.

We can do other things, and I hope that by passing the Bill we can change the habits of Government Departments, which disempower women in such circumstances. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) pointed out, there are women who have been tricked into marriage, or bullied into signing off the settlement of their husbands, who then perhaps disappear to reunite with wife No. 1, whom wife No. 2 did not know about. The fact that the Home Office says, "It is no business of yours now" is offensive and disempowering for women. We need to think of new ways to solve such problems without interfering with the privacy rights of men and women in such circumstances.

I cannot find adequate words to describe the rage and distress of young people who have been tricked or forced into marriage. It is overwhelming and absolutely disabling for them. It is profoundly disempowering. I hope that the Bill will help to remedy that by giving them power in such circumstances. It is in a long tradition of legislation on human rights. We have an opportunity during the summer to ensure that the sort of consultation that I have talked about is delivered.

We have a fantastic track record on families and marriage, and this Bill will be one example of it. I was therefore enraged today to hear Conservative Members saying that my party does not care about families and marriage. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is my neighbour and for whom I have a great deal of respect, has not made such comments; I heard those comments on the radio today, however, in relation to tax allowances being shared between husbands and wives. Actually, the Government have a great record on human rights, families and children and on enabling families to cope in the circumstances they face.

The Bill has support across the piece. All Members who have spoken stressed that it is supported by the three parties represented in the Chamber. This is a great opportunity, but we need to make sure that such widespread support does not slide into complacency about the detail of the legislation and how we actually deliver refuge and support for women. We need good practice in every Department—whether on regulations for the courts about witnesses with learning difficulties, the treatment of women by the immigration service or the advice that police and schools are given about women who are at risk. The forced marriage unit sends out advice on such things, but it is often put at the bottom of the pile. The Bill gives us the chance to bring it to the top of the pile and to make sure that it is absolutely what is required in practice. It will allow us to change the lives of disempowered young women and men who have been forced into marriage against their will.

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who made her case in a typically powerful manner. I am sure she also made a powerful case for membership of the Public Bill Committee.

It is not often that I rise to congratulate the Government, but I do so on this occasion. I am delighted that they have taken forced marriage so seriously and I commend them for introducing the Bill. All-party consensus usually precedes a mess—the Child Support Agency and membership of the exchange rate mechanism jump instantly to mind—but in this case it has delivered a sensible result. I certainly endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Slough that we should not be complacent about the detail simply because we all support the aims of the Bill.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), whom I mentioned earlier. She is both my parliamentary neighbour and my constituent, and has been incredibly persistent about forced marriage for many years. She has also been immensely brave for many years and should take much of the credit for the Bill. I know how sorry she is that she cannot be here to take part in the debate, but that should not detract from all the work she has done on the issue over many years and for which she is extremely well respected both in the House and in our local area.

I supported much of what the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) said in her speech, on which I congratulate her. Whatever legislation is enacted, some cases will always slip through the net; they will go undetected and will not be dealt with. The Bill has two objectives that we all share. The first is that the number of cases should go down. We should like them to be eliminated, but given that some will slip through the net, let us hope that the number goes down. Secondly, we want the people responsible for the practice of forced marriage to be properly prosecuted.

I, too, was shocked at the scale of the issue. The forced marriage unit deals with a massive 5,000 complaints a year—100 a week—in 300 of which the unit is certain a problem has occurred. That is an immense problem and we should be doing everything we can to deal with it.

We need to find ways to reduce the number of cases and to prevent such things from happening, as well as making sure that people are properly prosecuted. As I said earlier, part of the solution must lie in dealing with the issue of people entering the UK on a marriage visa—a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Calder Valley. I would not go quite as far as the hon. Lady, but raising the age from 18 to 21 would certainly help.

The older people are when they are allowed into the country on marriage visas, the greater the chance that they will be mature enough to resist some of the pressures that they face when being forced into marriage, and we should not underestimate those pressures. This is not a silver bullet, but if those people were a bit older, it might help to reduce the number of cases.

There has been lots of talk during the debate—it has been very interesting—about whether this should be a civil or a criminal offence. My hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Woking (Mr. Malins), who are very distinguished lawyers and parliamentarians—certainly far more distinguished than I am or ever will be—made powerful cases for why we should support this being a civil matter. I am not entirely convinced that the offence should be a civil and not a criminal one.

Making forced marriage a specific criminal offence would send out a powerful message that it is not tolerated in our county and might act as a deterrent. I certainly would not want anyone to think that, because it is not a criminal offence, forced marriage is not a problem and that they can carry on with forced marriages, because doing so is not a criminal offence. I would not want anyone to take away such a message from the debate. Making it a criminal offence would help to make it clear that forced marriage is completely and utterly unacceptable.

The hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) raised the issue of promoting the use of English, which would also help. I should certainly like more to be done to ensure that people who come into this country have a better grasp of English. If we are trying to encourage people to come forward with their complaint, they would certainly have more confidence in approaching our legal system, which can be daunting at the best of times to those of us who are fully conversant with English, if they had a better grasp of English. We need to deal with that important aspect.

Above all, I should like to know from the Minister how we will measure the Bill's success. As I said earlier, presumably we have two objectives: a reduction in the number of cases and ensuring that the people involved are properly prosecuted. I should be grateful to the Minister if she gave an indication of how many people she envisages will be prosecuted as result of the Bill. Everyone supports the objectives and the motives, but the focus of my concern is on how effective the Bill will be in tackling the issue. I am interested to know how much of a reduction in forced marriage we can expect as a result of the Bill.

If the Bill does not lead to the number of prosecutions that we hope for and a reduction in this evil practice does not occur, I hope that the Government will give a commitment to look again at the issue to see whether making forced marriage a criminal offence will deliver the reductions and the change in culture that we want.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that the consultation process should not end with the passing into law of the Bill? The Bill provides that guidance can be prepared by the Secretary of State. Is it not important in formulating that guidance that the Minister continues to listen to representations?

Philip Davies (Conservative, Shipley)

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is entirely right, and I was certainly heartened by the Minister's comments in her speech, when she told us how much consultation had taken place before the Bill was drafted. That was a perfectly proper process, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right that that should be an ongoing process, rather than being seen to be done and dusted.

We need to see how the Bill works in practice and we need to continue to consult the people the Minister consulted before the Bill was produced to see whether it is having the desired effect. If it does not have the desired effect, I hope that the Government will commit to look again at whether forced marriage should become a criminal offence. Despite the persuasive skills of my hon. Friends, I am still not entirely convinced that we as a House should not send out a clear message to the country that we will not tolerate this evil trade any longer. It is completely unacceptable in this country and in this day and age. The number of cases that are referred to the authorities is completely unacceptable too. I hope that the merits of making it a criminal offence will be considered further in Committee, but, whether or not that occurs, I am delighted that the Government are making a giant step in the right direction with the Bill and I commend it to the House.

Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrat, Solihull)

More than 20 years ago, before I ever dreamed that I would end up in this place, I met a young man called Mooli. He was the son of an Asian manager where I worked. Mooli was at university. He had a girlfriend and a happy, fulfilling life. I then heard that Mooli had got married. In his holidays he had been working at a petrol station and, apparently, on his wedding day, he had gone to work, left halfway through his shift, gone through a marriage ceremony and then gone back to work. A bride had been brought over from Pakistan—someone he had never met and certainly did not want to marry. I was quite shocked, as you might imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

That was a forced marriage at one end of the spectrum that was so ably described by the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty). Mooli decided to comply with the marriage and retain his standing in the community. He went back to his university studies and at least had something of a life. However, for those who disobey, running away and often being treated as dead by one's family—with the ultimate conclusion of the reality of death itself—is all too real a prospect in some circumstances.

We have discussed the difference between a forced marriage and an arranged marriage, so I do not want to dwell on that. I echo the point made by hon. Members on both sides of the House that it is certainly not for us to consider whether arranged marriages or traditional western types of marriage have advantages over each other. As long as the people who enter into the marriage do so consensually, clearly it is perfectly acceptable.

Lord Lester originally introduced the Bill in the Lords in January. I am delighted that the Government have adopted it and I thank all the other noble Lords who worked so hard to make it a sensitive and workable document. We have talked about the difference between civil and criminal redress. It is right to adopt a pragmatic perspective, because how can a young person take out criminal proceedings against their own family? Forced marriage is a violation of the European convention on human rights, the right freely to enter into marriage and the right to bodily and sexual integrity.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

The hon. Lady's comment about criminal proceedings left me a little puzzled. She asked how a wronged person could take out criminal proceedings. Surely if this was to be a criminal offence, a complaint would be made and it would then be a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. In other words, the decision to prosecute would be at arm's length from the person complaining.

Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrat, Solihull)

Regrettably, the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when others explained that point much better than I can. Earlier, the question was asked: how can someone criminalise a member of their family and still try to maintain their family circle? It is particularly difficult if it is an extended family; when someone is ostracised by their family, the repercussions are severe. The Bill will act as a preventive measure wherever possible. It provides for swift injunctions to prevent marriages, and it will hopefully result in the restoration of family relationships. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman.

I mentioned the violation of the European convention on human rights. Forced marriage also contravenes its underlying principles of self-determination and human dignity, and it contravenes the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. It is a form of sexual slavery; women are bought and sold by means of a dowry. We recently marked the bicentenary of the abolition of slavery, but it is alive and well in our own backyard. It is an affront to everyone in society that we allow that slavery to continue in our midst.

The Government's forced marriage unit deals with 300 cases a year, although the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) shocked me—and, I am sure, many other hon. Members—when she said that it receives more than 5,000 inquiries a year. Some 85 per cent. of those 300 cases involve women and girls, and at least a third of cases involve young people under the age of 17. Children as young as 12 and 13 come forward as victims. The immediate family, the wider family, and often the community seek to impose on the young and control their behaviour.

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) remarked, the cases that we know about are the tip of the iceberg. Forced marriage is often secret, unseen and unreported. Even in Woking, where the sun always shines and everyone shares their deepest family secrets, I am sure that there are instances of forced marriage. It is a bit like domestic violence: it pervades all classes and communities. We do not know what goes on behind closed doors. Homophobic bullying is also similar. Head teachers may say, "Oh no, we don't have anything like that here," but that often means that they are not looking or listening for it, and that children do not feel that they can come to them with their problems.

In some communities, the problem is overt. Recently, I listened to chilling interviews on the streets of Birmingham following a so-called honour killing. Some of the men interviewed openly expressed the view that the family had the perfect right to use that ultimate sanction on a young woman or girl who disobeys. Honour killings are clearly already covered in British law as murder. What we need, and what the Bill provides, is legislation to help fix a lesser crime.

We have talked about the fact that the Bill offers civil, not criminal, remedies, but I am sure that it will send a strong message that those practices are not acceptable in this country, regardless of one's community or background. It will embolden young people to assert their human right not to be forced into marriage, and it will enable people who are concerned for young people's welfare to act for those who are unwilling or unable to act for themselves. It sends a strong message to those who use many subtle means of exerting pressure on a young person, including emotional blackmail, physical violence, deception, aiding and abetting, and inducement of extended family members. Deception is particularly important. Young people may be lured abroad on the pretext of a holiday or other matter. The wider family may be the ringleaders, and the Bill makes it clear that they may be just as culpable as close family.

Fears have been expressed that the Bill will drive such activities even further underground, with families taking children abroad at an even earlier age. There are also fears that the Bill will stigmatise some ethnic minority communities and lead to entrenchment and further discrimination. However, the emphasis is on the protection of the victim and avoidance of forced marriage rather than prosecuting perpetrators, which is right. As I have said, an injunction will enable swift action to be taken to stop a forced marriage, which will enhance the chance of reconciliation with the family.

As I have said, the cases covered by the FMU are the tip of the iceberg. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has reported that one in 10 calls to its Asian child protection helpline relates to forced marriage, although callers do not always say that that is the problem in the first instance. The initial problem described may involve domestic violence, rape, self-harm, young runaways, suicide or even the threat of murder. In 2006, 82 young people called ChildLine about arranged and forced marriage, describing problems such as their parents not listening to them, the prospect of being disowned, fear of violence from family members and physical abuse that they were already experiencing.

Education is a big issue for girls who, once married, tend not to go to school. There is a huge pool of underused talent that we must exploit for our country. The Equal Opportunities Commission has reported that Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Afro-Caribbean women are aspirational, confident and increasingly well-qualified. However, even if they enter the world of work fully supported by their families, they can be held back by the work culture. I recently managed to secure a short Westminster Hall debate to bring the issue of cultural intelligence—sensitivity on behalf of employers—to the awareness of the Government and, hopefully, the wider world of work.

Leaving aside the issue of justice, if we do not do all that we can to enable those young women to achieve their true potential, we, as a society, will miss out on their talents and their economic potential to increase the overall wealth of this country. It is all interconnected: the empowerment of women through better education and increased economic power gives them greater awareness and the ability to exert their own human rights, but they need joined-up support.

The group Rights of Women has asserted the need for continued civil legal aid. I was glad when the Minister confirmed in response to an intervention that legal aid will be available, where it is appropriate. Liberty has pointed out the importance of non-legal mechanisms such as funding, women's groups, non-governmental organisations, community groups, leaflets, websites and videos. The need for the proper training of social workers and others in the field has already been raised, and it is clearly important.

By placing forced marriage within family law as part of domestic violence, the Bill will hopefully avoid the stereotyping of any specific community, which would be entirely wrong. The newly introduced gender equality duty will require agencies that deal with the victims, who include men as well as women, to be sensitive to culture, race and gender.

Violence against women and men is pervasive. As I have said, it occurs in every social group and every class, and it affects every sexual orientation. The Bill provides a sensitive framework that will enable victims of forced marriage and their supporters to gain justice, hopefully without irreparably damaging family and wider relationships, by preventing that form of sexual violence from ever taking place.

Unlike the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I think that if the Bill is successful, a measure of its success will be that the number of complaints goes up as more people feel able to come forward. With the words of the hon. Member for Slough about the importance of consulting and ensuring that we do not go forward with a cosy consensus ringing in our ears, I look forward to examining closely some of the practical implications of the Bill in Committee.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

I have been delighted to listen to many of the speeches that have been made in this debate. Clearly, there is enormous cross-party support for the Bill. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) on highlighting this important issue and bringing it to the attention not only of Members of this House but of the wider community.

I will be fairly brief, but I wish to make several points to the Solicitor-General, whose opinion I always appreciate. First, I want to try to understand, from her point of view, the spectrum that has been highlighted during the debate between forced marriage, arranged marriage, matchmaking and the general psychological pressure that is sometimes put on young women to get married. As the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) said, forced marriage often goes hand in hand with violence against women in a symbiotic relationship. Another problem with forced marriages is that of women becoming a form of quasi-forced labour. A lot of the young women who come from abroad have no social or family network. They are brought into this country as a form of slave labour for the household—sometimes, unfortunately, for the mother-in-law, who views her as an adjunct to the family merely as unpaid labour. The hon. Member for Solihull said that sometimes those young girls become, in effect, sex slaves. That is a big problem, because they have nobody to protect them. I hope that the Bill will go some way towards dealing with the three abuses—violence, slave labour and sexual slavery—that these girls have to deal with when they are brought into this country through forced marriages.

I still find it difficult to distinguish between forced marriage, arranged marriage, and psychological pressure. How does one define a forced marriage? As we heard earlier, many women come under enormous psychological pressure to go into a marriage. Is that a forced marriage? If not, why not? Perhaps the Minister can clarify those points.

Secondly, strong community relations are key to this. While there are many benefits to multiculturalism, perhaps one of the unintended consequences has been the prevalence of forced marriage in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) observed that there are 5,000 such cases; there would have been far fewer 10 years ago. Strong community relations play a key role, and communication is critical. It is important that the infrastructure is in place and that there is a facility to help women caught up in forced marriages to find an easy way out of the trap in which they find themselves. That does not mean we must have a society into which people from different ethnic backgrounds feel they have to assimilate; we need an integrated society in which we respect others' cultures and backgrounds without making them assimilate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley made an important point about language. As people come into this country, it is important that there is far more encouragement for them to adopt its mother tongue, which is English, so that they can integrate, if not assimilate. Learning English is important because if they have a problem with their marriage, they should be able to communicate, in English, any problem to the facility that the Bill seeks to introduce.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I am most intrigued by my hon. Friend's observations about how to distinguish between a forced marriage and an arranged marriage. The definition in the Bill refers to force, including coercion

"by threats or other psychological means",

whatever that means. What about the situation where there is family pressure for an arranged marriage? Would it not be rather difficult to decide whether that meant it was a forced marriage?

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

That was very much the point I was trying to make at the beginning of my speech, to tease out from the Solicitor-General how she defines arranged marriages where psychological pressures are created by families at home. They may not come from wealthy backgrounds, and financial pressure may be put on people to get involved in a marriage that ultimately becomes unwelcome and, in many ways, abusive. We want to try to prevent such situations through the Bill.

I want to return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) made during his speech on the importance of judiciary training. There is no point in introducing legislation to deal with this sensitive issue without ensuring not only that people have proper training to understand the variety of issues that those who go through forced marriages deal with, but that the numbers are there. Will people who have judicial training be required to learn a foreign language, so that they can communicate with some of the young ladies who are being abused?

My fourth point relates to what the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said about empowering the victim. Many of the women in question are very young and have no family network in this country. I am perplexed about how we can empower somebody who cannot communicate, and has found themselves in a trap—in a family who may well coalesce around the husband and protect him. They might be abusing that young person, and there might not be a mechanism by which the young woman can escape from the trap in which she finds herself.

Lorely Burt (Liberal Democrat, Solihull)

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. His colleague, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), talked about the wideness of the definition of those able to intervene. I am hoping that if an individual finds themselves in such a circumstance, the Bill will enable a friend, social worker or someone to whom they have gone for help to intervene on their behalf by virtue of the wideness of that definition.

Brooks Newmark (Conservative, Braintree)

I understand the spirit in which the hon. Lady makes her point, but the reality is that many of those young women feel trapped in their homes. Many do not get out even to do the shopping. They have no social network in which to communicate with anybody, even extended members of the family, let alone social workers or other parties who could try to help them. That is the Bill's weakness.

Who is the relevant third party, who will make the application? If there is no way for the individual to communicate, no social network and no social worker with whom to interact, and the position is compounded because the family gangs up on her as she becomes increasingly unhappy, a problem develops. I suspect that, although one, two, half-a-dozen or even 500 women may escape and go to the courts to ask for help, probably 10 times that number cannot escape. I believe that that problem will continue to exist.

Although I support the Bill, and it is great that there is cross-party support for dealing with such an important issue, I believe that there are many outstanding questions, which I hope that the Solicitor-General will now clarify.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

I compliment all—I stress "all"—the contributors to the debate. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made a characteristically balanced contribution—he will be a huge asset to the Committee. The Bill is good now, but if it can be improved, he is the man to help us do it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) made the distinction, which is not such a difficult one, between forced and arranged marriage. Her ability to make that distinction was echoed by that of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire made the powerful point that arranged marriage, as opposed to forced marriage, has existed cross-culturally, and she mentioned "Pride and Prejudice". She is right, and a slightly parodic Bollywood film, "Bride and Prejudice" makes the same point. The great distinction between forced and arranged marriage is consent. People in forced marriages never live happily ever after.

I was glad to have the professional support of the hon. Member for Woking for the civil route that the Government have chosen to take. I assure him that there will be training through the Judicial Studies Board—we have already thought about that. He was keen to know whether the Bill's implementation could be extended to the family proceedings court. It contains a power to do that, but training will probably be necessary before that happens. We owe a lot to the High Court, which has cut out a niche in identifying the sort of cases that we are considering. It is therefore important that we stay, for the time being, where the expertise is. Of course, powers to extend can follow.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) for her work on violence against women. She has done that year in, year out throughout the time that I have known her. She readily acknowledges that the criminal tools are too unsubtle an approach for the problem. A young person would not be encouraged to leave if it were likely that one or more members of the family would find themselves before the criminal courts. She made the powerful point, which was reflected in other speeches, that the scale of the problem may be much greater than any of us know. We must therefore ensure that there is adequate and good quality training if the problem emerges on a larger scale than we expect. We must ensure that, for example, survivor support is well resourced.

The hon. Member for Woking made more points, but they are better left to the Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said that she believed that there was a need for more consultation. As she acknowledged, the Home Office carried out a consultation in 2005. The result was overwhelmingly in favour of not criminalising the offence but dealing with it through a civil route. Many organisations were consulted then.

After Lord Lester introduced his Bill in another place, the Odysseus Trust, with which he is linked, also carried out a consultation on how it ought to be amended to make it more effective. A large number of organisations were contacted and there were 32 respondents, including Ashiana, the Asian Family Counselling Service, the Commission for Racial Equality, Hounslow domestic violence network, the Iranian and Kurdish Women's Rights Organisation, Imkaan, the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain and the Newham Asian Women's Project. Southall Black Sisters have been deeply involved from the start, as have Rights of Women. As others have said, we must of course not stop consulting or ensuring that eyes remain fixed on the functioning of the Bill. However, I hope that my hon. Friend can none the less be satisfied that a good deal of consultation has been taken forward.

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) still has doubts. Even his colleagues cannot persuade him that the criminal route is not the right one. The problem is that people might be deterred from coming forward if they fear that they will criminalise their families. If they can take a gentler route and just seek help, thereby stopping the situation before it really starts, there might be possibilities for reconciliation and healing that would not arise if the police were called in. That is the line that we are taking. It has met with support throughout the House tonight and, overwhelmingly, among the organisations that we have consulted.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about numbers, but we are talking about a quasi-invisible crime, so it is hard to say. Last year or the year before, the Metropolitan police were aware of 518 cases and, as many hon. Members have said, 300 such cases come to the attention of the forced marriages unit each year. Moreover, the High Court was aware of 30 cases, but I cannot say more about numbers. He talked about whether large numbers of people will be, as he put it, prosecuted—he meant be taken to the civil courts. I cannot predict whether that will be the case, but I hope that the Bill will send out a powerful signal from the House not only that those consequences will follow, but that the practice must stop. Rather than there being a great emergence of new cases, it would be far better if we acted effectively tonight to deter people.

There are a number of people to whom I should pay tribute, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice who, as Home Secretary, gave impetus to the original consultation, which took place way back in 2005, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Pensions Reform, my distinguished predecessor, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who launched the document when he was Home Secretary. That document was all about criminal provision, which was overwhelmingly rejected. It is hugely to the credit of Lord Lester that he carried the torch forward and changed the offence into a civil one.

It is also hugely to the credit of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) that she has championed the cause throughout. She cannot be here tonight for very good reasons and she is sorry for that, but if she was prepared to serve on the Committee, her input would no doubt be most welcome.

The issue that we are discussing applies to all races and all religions—to Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and Muslims. It is also not confined to one society, as many have said. Forced marriage amounts to a serious social evil. It can also amount to sexual slavery and can affect people as young as 12 or 13. Dowries are paid and people are bought and sold. As has been said, resistance can lead to honour killings and submission can lead to suicide. Forced marriages are a dreadful social evil.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

May I ask a delicate and sensitive question of the Solicitor-General? What is she prepared to do about what is clearly the physical abuse, and perhaps even rape, of a young girl who has been compelled to enter a forced marriage? Is that a subject about which the Solicitor-General is concerned? I am deeply worried about what we can do about what has been done to a young woman.

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

The hon. Gentleman has not had the advantage of hearing the debate, which has covered that territory fairly significantly over the past couple of hours while others of us have been here. Of course, if someone is compelled into a marriage and forced to have sex, that would be rape. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield made that point and also listed the other offences that are frequently committed in the course of a forced marriage and what follows thereafter. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will read the report in Hansard tomorrow—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

But what is your view?

Vera Baird (Labour, Redcar)

What we are seeking to do is to give young people in danger the tools to prevent the danger from emerging, but if criminal offences are committed and it is appropriate, the people involved should be prosecuted. However, we are not prepared to put the onus on a young person by saying that the only way they can get out of the situation is to go to the police and compel their family to become involved in criminal proceedings. We are not prepared to say that that is the right way forward, because that is not the case. If they can have recourse to someone else, a civil conclusion can be reached that might head the problem off at the pass before it goes into the horrifying areas to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded.

This is not just a national problem; it is an international one as well. India now has a Minister for women and child development, I think for the first time, and I was fortunate enough to meet Renuka Chowdhury recently at a Commonwealth women MPs' conference in Kampala. She assured me that the Indian Government had legislated to prohibit child marriages in India. She also told me that a women's commissioner was engaged in a programme to educate people on this matter and to prevent forced marriage. It is possible that the advent of this legislation will encourage legislation over there to give enhanced protection. I also understand from Lord Lester that it is not impossible that similar steps will be taken in Pakistan and Bangladesh. I have read his speeches on this matter, and I met him today. I hope, therefore, that we are creating an influence that will go beyond the four corners of the statute and of our jurisdiction.

Implementation will be important. We have the benefit of the forced marriage unit, which is well grounded in promoting and publicising the issue and in producing guidance. It is a great credit to our High Court judiciary—if that is not too patronising a way to describe such an august group—that they have identified this issue where it has arisen, and responded to it. When the Bill has gone through all its stages, we shall therefore be starting with a body of understanding and support in the judiciary, in the forced marriage unit and in civil society.

The procedure that we shall use involves a tried and tested formula that is to be found in part IV of the Family Law Act 1996, which provides solutions to family problems. It is good that the provisions are to be embedded in family law, because they will not seek to point a finger at any part of society. They will simply accept the issue for what it is, namely, unacceptable family behaviour that can be dealt with by civil injunctions, just as other kinds of violence against family members are now. They are flexible and broad enough to allow a judge to head off the danger and to make all orders that are appropriate for protection.

We are arming ourselves well with the Bill, and we will see whether any more needs to be done in Committee. Cross-party support here today has been most welcome, and I am sure that that will continue. We will all work hard to make the best of the Bill, because we must. We owe it to our young citizens whose young lives are curtailed and whose opportunities, hopes and expectations are blocked by the impossible-to-tolerate evil of forced marriage. We must take steps now, and it is good that we have cross-party support for doing so. We are taking steps now to stop it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [ Lords] (Programme)