Counter-Terrorism Bill
Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Before we begin, I have a few announcements. Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets during Committee meetings. I emphasise at the outset that in today’s proceedings and those on Thursday—that is to say during the passage of the resolutions with which we are about to deal and then in the public evidence sessions—members of the Committee should remain seated. When we get to clause by clause, line by line consideration, members will conduct themselves as they usually operate in the Chamber, standing when speaking. Please ensure that all mobile phones, pagers, etc. are turned off or are switched to silent mode during Committee meetings. In addition, I remind the Committee that there are money and Ways and Means resolutions in connection with this Bill, of which copies are available in the room. I would also like to remind members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chairman Mr. O’Hara do not intend to call starred amendments.
The process of taking oral evidence in Public Bill Committees is of course new, and it might therefore help if I briefly explained what is proposed, so that it can be clear to us all. The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, for which debate is limited to half an hour. We will then proceed to a motion to report written evidence, and then a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence sessions, which I hope we can take formally. Assuming that the second of those motions has been agreed to, the Committee will move into private session. Once the Committee has deliberated, the witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the room and our oral evidence session will commence. If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, it will hear oral evidence today and on Thursday and then revert to the more familiar proceedings of clause by clause scrutiny next week. Before I call the Minister to move the programme motion, I inform the Committee that I have selected amendment (a) to the motion, which stands on the paper in the name of Mr. Dominic Grieve. I first call Tony McNulty to move the motion.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
On a point of order, Mr. Bercow. I welcome you to the Chair of the Committee. You will recall that in the programming sub-committee yesterday—[ Interruption. ]
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Order. If we are going to conduct the proceedings of the Committee, it is basic courtesy that members should listen to the member who has the floor, and that is Mr. David Heath.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
You will recall, Mr. Bercow, that in the programming sub-committee, when we were discussing the witnesses who might potentially give oral evidence, we looked at the possibility of inviting the Information Commissioner to give evidence. Despite the fact that both sides of the Committee seemed to feel that it would be a useful exercise to have evidence from the Information Commissioner, we were told that he was not available, either today or on Thursday. Is there any means—formally or informally—by which the Committee could invite the Information Commissioner to give written evidence? That would be extremely helpful.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that it can be done informally. There is no formal mechanism by which to invite the Information Commissioner—or any other potential witness—to submit written evidence where that evidence is not already extant. In other words, formally to request new material in written form is not in the Committee’s power. However, I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point of order and will ensure that it is relayed to the Information Commissioner. I now call Mr. Tony McNulty to move the motion.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 22nd April) meet—
(a) at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 22nd April;
(b) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 24th April;
(c) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 29th April;
(d) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 6th May;
(e) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 8th May;
(f) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 13th May;
(g) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 15th May;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
TABLE
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks. I call Mr. Crispin Blunt to move amendment (a) to the programming motion, which stands in his name.
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, in the Table, column 3, after “Lord Carlile of Berriew QC”, insert “; Dame Stella Rimington”.
I echo the Minister’s welcome conservative remarks about the need to move back to a rickety old Committee Room next week, which would be preferable to this room for the legislative stage of our work. I formally welcome you to your position, Mr. Bercow. The amendment stands in the name of my hon. and recently learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. I agree with the Minister about the need to conduct these proceedings in a calm manner, given the serious nature of the issues that they will address.
I welcome in particular to the Committee the hon. Members for Nottingham, East, for Stockton, South and for Sedgefield, who made contributions on Second Reading. I am slightly surprised that the eight hon. Members who take the Labour Whip and who spoke on Second Reading in a manner that might be described as hostile to elements of the Bill have somehow or other avoided selection for the Committee. The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the hon. Member for Tynemouth may be able to throw some light on that.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Order. The Committee will proceed in an orderly fashion. The remarks that the hon. Member for Reigate has just made have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our proceedings. The selection of hon. Members for Public Bill Committees is not a matter for him. If he wants to move the amendment, he should continue to do so.
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
It is important to make it clear at the first sitting of the Public Bill Committee that the Committee does not entirely reflect the full views of those who support the Government and who form the majority of the Committee. That is the point.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Order. I know very well the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. It is not a matter for debate. I have told him that it is not proper for him to be making that point. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to move his amendment, he is absolutely welcome to do so. This is his opportunity. However, I must repeat to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to have to keep doing this, that I am not engaged in a debate with him. I am telling him what is orderly and what is not. What he has just been saying is not orderly and I invite him to get back into order.
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
I am grateful. On a point of order, Mr. Bercow. At what point would it be appropriate to raise these matter in the proceedings of a Bill Committee? I would regard it as being at the beginning. When the proceedings of the Committee of Selection are not reportable, and a Bill Committee is produced by a Committee of Selection that would appear not to reflect the views of the House, at what point is it in order to raise those matters?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
The answer is very simple. The selection of members for the Committee is not a matter for consideration by members of this Committee at any stage in its proceedings. I would advise the hon. Gentleman, if he is concerned about the matter, to take it up through the usual channels.
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
Thank you, Mr. Bercow. As a member of the usual channels, you can be sure that we already have taken it up. However, I have now put the matter on the record, which is all that I was seeking to do. I was not seeking to challenge the decision of the Committee of Selection.
The amendment goes to an important principle about the conduct of Public Bill Committees. I know that the House is at an early historical stage in dealing with Public Bill Committees. This is the second Committee on which I have sat that takes evidence at the beginning of its proceedings.
There is an important issue, first, about the opportunity to hear witnesses whose points of view might be uncongenial to those held by the Committee and particularly to the majority on the Committee. There is also an important point of principle about Back Benchers.
The suggestion that Dame Stella Rimington be a witness came to me from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre as soon as he was notified that he had been selected to serve on the Committee. By that point, the usual channels had, in the normal way, had more than one discussion about which witnesses might be appropriate to assist our proceedings. I thought that the suggestion from my hon. Friend was excellent. However, I proposed that he make the suggestion, as a Back-Bench member of the Committee, through the usual channels—the Clerk of the Committee—so that the witness could be regarded as not having been produced in collusion by the usual channels and the Front Benches.
It is important that Back Benchers should have witnesses whom they wish to see. However, although the suggestion had my strong support and that of my hon. and learned Friend, we received a response from the Cabinet Office to the effect that the matter had to be dealt with through the usual channels. I thought that that was inappropriate and that the system ought to allow for the suggestion of witnesses from Back-Bench members of the Committee, and should not rely on the fact that my hon. Friend has a particularly good relationship with his usual channels. That should not be a requirement for the endorsement of that suggestion. However, that was the first response. It was then taken up through the usual channels, and, to my surprise, no inquiry has been made of Dame Stella’s availability to attend. The motion put forward by the Government yesterday at the Programming Sub-Committee did not include Dame Stella Rimington.
Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am intrigued by his argument. Will he explain how long ago Dame Stella Rimington was involved in working for the security services and her relationship with the Conservative party?
Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)
I am afraid that I am ignorant of any relationship between Dame Stella Rimington and the Conservative party. Other hon. Members might be able to assist on that, but I am not aware of any relationship. Dame Stella finished being the head of MI5 in 1996, which was 12 years ago, but she could have given—or can give, if the Committee agrees to the amendment—important evidence on the climate in which anti-terrorist operations are conducted. She had long experience in that post and to a degree is freed from the immediate considerations. Obviously, it would be inappropriate to take public evidence from the serving head of MI5.
Dame Stella would be an expert witness on the wider consequences of some of the legislative framework, particularly the increase from 28 days to 42 days for detention without charge. She has particular experience relating to Northern Ireland as well as in dealing with the emerging threat from Islamic terrorism in the 1990s. She has an impeccable professional reputation and would make a fine witness if the Committee were inclined to agree to the amendment. I am as much concerned about the process as I am about her qualities as a witness, which are exemplary, so I regret that the Government and the Cabinet Office have not seen fit to establish her availability. I think that we should request her to attend by putting her name on the Order Paper.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
With regard to how I intend to deal with these matters, I am happy to facilitate a general debate now on the merits or demerits of the amendment and on the Government’s main motion, but it is important to stress that we have to dispose of all of the motions—there are a number of motions to dispose of—no later than two minutes past 11. That is procedurally required, and I am sure that members of the Committee will agree that it is important not to lose time for questioning our various witnesses. Five members are seeking to catch my eye, which is absolutely fine, but it would be much appreciated if colleagues could bear that in mind.
Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)
Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Bercow. I will take your strictures for brevity extremely seriously and just want to make three points. While it would be inappropriate to get into a debate about the credentials of Dame Stella Rimington and the evidence that she might give us, the hon. Member for Reigate should be aware that the Home Affairs Committee has just concluded a lengthy inquiry in which we took an immense amount of evidence from expert witnesses. At no point did any Conservative member of that Committee seek to have Dame Stella Rimington called to give up-to-date evidence. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind, because he is out of line with the views of his own colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee.
My final point—it is probably worth putting on the record—is that I understand that Dame Stella Rimington is involved in Conservative party policy groups, and that does not in any way exclude her from giving useful evidence. [Interruption.] It is useful to put that on the public record since the hon. Gentleman seems to be completely ignorant of the fact. May I also ask the Minister to make it clear to the Committee when he sums up how much time the House will get to discuss the Bill on Report, because that stage is extremely important for the Bill and it would be useful to clarify that point?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
I shall amplify that point. Although it is not under discussion at the moment, it will be critical to have sufficient time to discuss the Bill on Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington cannot be here this morning due to a long-standing constituency engagement, but he sends his apologies and will of course join us later. The Minister of State suggested that the Bill was going to be fun. I know that he had his tongue firmly in his cheek at the time, but these are serious matters—even the areas on which members of the Committee agree, let alone those that are contentious, are extremely serious. The characterisation of the Bill as fun may not hold true, but I hope that we can conduct our affairs in an appropriate way and with respect for each other’s points of view.
I am grateful to the Minister and to the Treasury Bench for having listened to some of our suggestions during the early stages of this process about who should give evidence, particularly the inclusion of Scottish Law Officers to deal with the important issues that relate to the Scottish law system and the way in which that is affected by the legislation. This is an evolving procedure. This is the second Public Bill Committee on which I have sat that has taken evidence and I am not sure that we have all the procedures right at this stage.
There are two matters that I should like to raise today, Mr. Bercow. The first is the matter that I raised on a point of order and I am most grateful for both your response and that of the Minister. Where we have agreed to seek oral evidence and it is not possible simply because the person involved cannot attend our Committee meetings, we should invite that person to provide written evidence as a matter of course. That is common sense and perhaps that could be fed back to the relevant authorities.
My second point is that the evidence sessions for this Committee finish on Thursday evening. The deliberative sessions start on Tuesday morning. Under the rules of the House with the three-day requirement for amendments, any matter that arises out of the evidence that we receive on Thursday afternoon cannot be incorporated in an amendment for the first sitting on Tuesday morning. I do not suggest that anything will necessarily emerge, but it seems to be a flaw in the procedures and the Chair would perhaps need to apply some discretion in allowing a starred amendment were that to happen.
It is obvious why we are not receiving evidence from the secret intelligence community this morning or on Thursday, but having someone from that community to give evidence would be a sensible move, even if it is someone whose experience is not as up to date as perhaps we would wish. Therefore I will support the amendment today. Again this demonstrates the need for perhaps more clarity in our procedures to ensure that where a significant part of a Committee wants to receive evidence from a particular witness they have the opportunity to do so.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
I will sympathetically consider the hon. Gentleman’s request for the exercise of discretion. Beyond that I will report back his remarks to what he called the relevant authorities, in this case the Chairmen’s Panel.
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Bercow. I rise briefly to support the amendment and to pick up some of the comments of my fellow member of the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Reading, West. In view of the evidence that we have taken on that Committee, our not asking for Dame Stella Rimington to come forward was probably a mistake. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I think he is mistaken about her involvement in Conservative party policy, but I stand to be corrected on that.
The great value that Dame Stella Rimington will add is this. It became clear in our deliberations in the Home Affairs Committee that, particularly on the issue of detention without charge and the evolution from a state of internment during the Northern Ireland troubles through to how that was manipulated and manoeuvred towards the so-called end of the Northern Ireland troubles and then into the emerging threat from Islamist fundamentalism, she has a unique view on these two varied, but similar, campaigns. I believe that she could give an unparalleled and very useful insight into these matters.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Bercow. I want to add only a couple of points about procedure because a serious issue is raised here. Clearly there may be differences of opinion as to whether Dame Stella Rimington is a sensible person for this Committee to listen to. But the point has been well made that, for obvious reasons, we do not have access to the heads of the security services. Therefore, individuals who have served in the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service in the past are likely to be extremely helpful to the Committee and to be able to give evidence in a way that those who are currently serving are not.
The second point, which I raised last night and which troubles me far more, is that it appears that the Committee and, indeed, the Commons generally are toothless in this process. We rely on the usual channels to communicate a wish, and it is then actioned by the Government to see whether the person concerned can be brought before the Committee. It appeared that the request had simply not been processed because the Minister had taken the view that Dame Stella Rimington was not worth listening to. Therefore, we were not even in a position to know whether she was available. I find that situation deplorable. It highlights areas where the House of Commons is deficient in its processes. I hope that that will be communicated back. I may have misunderstood the position, but I was left with the distinct impression that a veto had been applied at an earlier stage by the Minister, on the basis that it was his prerogative to do so, so that we did not even know whether she could come or not.
I do believe that it may be helpful for us to hear from Dame Stella. She may have less to say that would be helpful to us than we would hope, but her name was put forward in good faith as someone whom we think could probably help the Committee. I commend the motion and amendment to the Committee.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Before I call Ben Wallace, in case people are not watching the clock, I emphasise that we now have a maximum of only six minutes. We have to dispose of the motions, and I also want to say, for the benefit of the Committee, a few sentences about how I intend to conduct the public evidence sessions.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Bercow. At the outset, in response to the point made by the hon. Member for Reading, West, I would like to clarify the fact that I think that he is confusing two dames. Former Dame Pauline Neville-Jones has been involved with the Conservative party. She is now Baroness Neville-Jones of Hutton Roof and is a member of the shadow Cabinet. I am sure that it is not the first time that he has mixed up the dames.
The reason that I made the suggestion to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate was because the balance of the witnesses was focused on the protection of human rights and the judicial body, as opposed to the operational aspect. I concede that the first witness today relates to the operational implication of the law. However, it is clear to some of us on the Opposition Benches who have operational experience in counter-terrorism that bad law affects not only rights, but the business of intelligence gathering.
Dame Stella Rimington has expert knowledge of intelligence gathering and, to my knowledge, no link to any political party. She was a first rate director general of the Security Services who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark pointed out, knows the bridge from one type of terrorism to the other, and could properly contribute to the process of the Committee. If we get part of the Bill wrong, it may have an impact on the ability to recruit sources and run informers, which is at the heart of the operational side of counter-terrorism. I think that she would have contributed greatly, and I hope that the Committee will take advantage of experience that is out there, rather than shut down any debate.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
I do not have time to do anything other than to move the main motion and to say that I have not learnt anything to suggest other than that the Committee should resist the amendment.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Copies of any memorandums that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Good morning. My name is John Bercow. I am Member of Parliament for Buckingham and am co-chairing this Public Bill Committee with Eddie O’Hara. I warmly welcome our witnesses. May I ask you to introduce yourselves formally, for the record?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you. Before calling the first member to ask a question, I would like to remind all members of the Committee that questions should be limited to the scope of the Bill. I call first Mr. Dominic Grieve.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
Good morning, and thank you for coming in. Can I deal first with pre-charge detention? It has been suggested to us that the Association of Chief Police Officers has a collective view about pre-charge detention. One of the problems is that if one looks at the ACPO website it is impossible to see who serves on the ACPO terrorism and allied matters committee. No such information is provided. It is difficult to know how ACPO comes to its collective decisions. Could you help the Committee by indicating how that has happened, who is on the ACPO-TAM committee, and whether an expressed viewpoint is a collective viewpoint, a majority viewpoint, a unanimous viewpoint or the viewpoint of certain individuals?
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
I am grateful for that. So would it be perfectly possible for there to be divergences of views within the TAM committee as well?
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
May I then to turn to the main issue around extending pre-charge detention from 28 to 42 days? The Home Affairs Committee has received evidence from the Director of Public Prosecutions that it has been managing comfortably with an outer limit of 28 days’ detention. How does that affect your perception of the need for an extension?
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
Is not the position that, as matters stand, the Crown Prosecution Service is closely involved in any prosecution decisions as to when charges are brought and, indeed, is involved at quite an early stage? If, historically, it has not seen that as a problem in terms of prosecuting the most difficult and serious terrorist offences, why is there this divergence of views with yourselves?
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
May I turn briefly to time periods? One of the issues which has been raised during the course of discussion is that there have been occasions when the 28-day limit has come close to being reached. I do not know whether you can help us on this—I am deliberately trying to be a bit careful and am speaking in generalities because I am conscious that there are matters which may well be sub judice at the moment. One of the problems that I have had is that on the two examples that appeared to be given of going to 28 days, I was able to obtain information quite readily from others involved that, although it might have gone to 28 days, the evidence on which the decision to charge was made had in fact been available quite substantially earlier. Could you make any comment on that?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
With the agreement of the Committee, I would like to take further questions on the subject that Dominic Grieve has opened up, namely pre-charge detention without trial, so that we can deal with the subject in one block, rather than continually coming back to it with other subjects in the interim. Therefore, other Members who wish to raise questions on that point are welcome to do so.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
I am grateful to the witnesses for what they have to say. Sir Ian, you said that there was a pragmatic inference. Would you expand on that a little and explain the circumstances in which you believe that the present 28-day limit would need to be breached?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
Under the Bill, the trigger for a parliamentary decision on extension would take place not in the circumstances of calm, but effectively in the circumstances of emergency. We have spent a lot of time over the last few years quite properly looking at those matters and trying to provide appropriate legislative weapons to the police and prosecuting services, and we have made a number of changes. What is your assessment of what we have done so far? For instance, how effective have the lower order offences that were introduced been in enabling you to prosecute someone at an earlier stage?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
The point that I am attempting to elucidate is that we have the acts preparatory, which I hoped would be a useful addition to your armoury. I think that you have confirmed that it is. We have the lowering of the threshold for an evidential basis for prosecution, which again ought to be extremely helpful. Given that those weapons are available to prosecute somebody who is held on a lower order offence before the court, under what circumstances would there not be sufficient evidence to proceed to prosecution of such people—on acts preparatory, or one of the other offences available—so that they would have to be held for longer than 28 days?
One of the arguments has always been about encryption, but there is a prosecutable offence of refusing to provide a key to encryption. I do not understand the argument for the measure, and I ask for your advice on why those things are not sufficient to enable somebody to be held in custody, facing a charge which might not be the most serious charge that they will face after continued investigations, but which is sufficient to hold them in custody.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you, Mr. Quick. I have a list of nine members of the Committee seeking to come in specifically on the subject of pre-charge detention without trial. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that I am happy to take all those questions. It would be a pity if other matters in the Bill were not raised at all, unless that was the specific will of the Committee. However, I would not want hon. Members subsequently to complain that they did not have the opportunity to raise other germane matters. Therefore, I will take everyone’s questions, but I appeal to colleagues to exercise a certain self-denying ordinance—I want pithy questions, and, of course, both pithy and comprehensive replies from our august witnesses.
Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)
Once again, Mr. Bercow, I will obey your strictures, but it is probably helpful if you ask us to be pithy in a pithy manner—that is me done, now.
I have three quick questions for Sir Ian Blair and Mr. Quick. I know that you put some of this evidence in front of the Select Committee on Home Affairs a few months ago, but, for the benefit of the Committee, could you indicate how many serious terrorist plots the police and the security services have disrupted since the London bombings of 7/7?
Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)
Without compromising, allowing me to pry or giving aid to people who would wish to do us harm, could you indicate to the Committee how many of those 12 to 15 serious plots would, had they been successful, have resulted in a loss of life in excess of 100?
Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)
Significant loss of life.
Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)
Aircraft?
Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)
Could you follow up from that and give the Committee some indication of the complexity of terrorist plots compared with 10 or 12 years ago, and the sheer volume of evidence that you now have to shift before you can move to charging a terrorist suspect?
David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)
You just said that one of the problems is opening up evidence that might be on computers, mobile phones and so on. While I understand that, surely it would also apply to other forms of organised crime, such as people trafficking, child pornography and large-scale drug dealing? Those all involve international organisations using mobile phones and IT equipment. What is the difference? If the 42-day legislation is passed, surely in principle there would be no reason why you would not support an extension for other forms of crime, which can have just as awful an impact on the victims?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
I have just a few points. First, there is the inference—and it has been hinted at already today—that the more time the police get, the lazier they get and the more they mess around and go to full term. It has been said clearly by the other David Davis—the shadow Home Secretary—and implied again today, that the evidence in the alleged plot that is before the courts was secured at 14 to 18 days and that the police faffed around for a further 10 days to get to 27 or 28, because they had the time. Would you comment on that?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
Let me ask you an entirely unfair question. Why on earth do you think that people would say that then, if it is so palpably not the case?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
I did say that it was a touch unfair. Others have suggested that in the end it is simply a matter of resources and that were there further resources you would not need an extension of any sort, even in the extraordinary circumstances proposed in the Bill.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
I would probably accept that, given the Opposition’s comments today. Certainly it was as I characterised it in the past and it has been put as cavalierly as that by the shadow Home Secretary. To go back to your earlier point, you said that, notwithstanding what we have already done with acts preparatory and other lower order charges, as they are rather dismissively called; notwithstanding what we have done, as we will hear later this afternoon, about the threshold test; and notwithstanding post-charge questioning—if, heaven forfend, I go to some other part of the Bill—and the Chilcot implementation group’s consideration of intercept as evidence, you are still of the view that there may be exceptional circumstances and that we should legislate on a precautionary basis in the circumstances outlined in the Bill.
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
We started after the 7/7 bombings with a strident demand for 90 days’ detention. That has now changed. We ended up with 28 days: 56 days has been talked about and we are now on 42 days. Surely, 90 days was what was required by you and other agencies. It is not going to happen. How uncomfortable are you with this constant chopping and changing and these figures that seem to be pulled from nowhere?
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
Briefly carrying on from there, what effect do you think it would have on the Muslim community if we went beyond 28 days?
Russell Brown (Labour, Dumfries and Galloway)
Gentlemen, you have both indicated that there have been occasions when you have been pushed tight up against the 28-day limit. On those occasions, has there been a shift in the emphasis of your inquiries or investigations? Had those few extra days been available, might you have taken a different position in your investigation? Did you have to shift emphasis to come within the 28-day period?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
In response to Mr. Heath’s earlier question, you distinguished between the system here and that in the United States and said that intercept evidence, for example, is available over there. In response to the Minister, you also referred to the potential usefulness of intercept evidence. I realise the implications for available resources and that many hours of surveillance would be necessary to produce anything useful, but given that such operations would last weeks, months and perhaps even longer, would it be useful to proceed fairly quickly with the use of intercept evidence?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
May I briefly add a rider. If that were provided for in the Bill, would your view on 42 days be different?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
What, in your view, would be the consequences of not extending pre-charge detention?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
Basically, you think that the time to work out this legislation is before an atrocity happens, so that you do not end up with knee-jerk legislation? At the moment, therefore, you are thinking through what needs to be done.
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
If there had been an election earlier this year, would you be lobbying a new Government now for this sort of legislation? Indeed, might you be going further?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
Would you go further with a different Government, if you thought that it—
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
But you are realistic. You can make a judgment of how far you can go. Do you think that, with a new Government, if you thought that they would go further, you would be asking for more things?
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
I would like to pursue further the issue of relations with the Muslim community. I have a substantial number of Muslims in my constituency. One of the comments that has been bandied around in the debate is that the proposals are the recruiting sergeant for Muslim extremists. Can you tell me whether you have managed to identify any increase in recruits since the change from 14 to 28 days?
Secondly, have you managed to identify any increasing reluctance of the broader Muslim community to communicate with you as a result of the proposals?
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
Trying to pull the strands together, I noted, Sir Ian, that you said that your interest was not so much in 42 days as in the extended period of detention, which appeared to be rather indeterminate, under judicial supervision. I hope that I have not paraphrased that wrongly. That chimes with what Lord Carlile suggested with the radical overhaul of our common law principles involving the period between detention and charge ceasing to be a very short one and potentially becoming a very long one on the continental model, which differs entirely from our legal principles.
Would it be right to say that as far as you are concerned, 42 days is a bit of an irrelevancy, except in that it is an extension of 28 days? There is no magic figure in 42 days.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Order. Three Back-Bench Members want to come in and I want to fit them all in, so you may ask a very brief supplementary, Dominic.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
There are other common law jurisdictions, with which we have a concomity of legal principles and ideas of freedom that have much shorter periods of pre-charge detention, and which are managing that by taking other robust measures, such as bringing in intercept evidence. Do I infer correctly that if we could go down that road, there is no reason why we should be taking the road that you are advocating of long periods of pre-charge detention?
Sharon Hodgson (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)
I want to slightly change the direction for a moment and ask about your view on the current notification requirements for sex offenders. Have those been successful in keeping track of offenders? The reason that I ask is that the Bill proposes a similar notification regime for terrorist offenders. What are your views on that?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you. We have fewer than four minutes to go. Extreme brevity is needed.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
May I ask you to clarify? You used two figures: 37 convictions, with 21 pleading guilty. Out of how many arrests were those convictions?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
Could you please clarify that to the Committee?
The commissioner listed a number of issues about republican terrorism. Point four was a pretty much full penetration of British intelligence in sources and informers. Injustices and detention without trial, be it the extreme of internment or things like dawn raids, help to cause community friction and make that harder. Do you think that any amount of detention without trial in these circumstances will make the job of recruiting sources, as opposed to investigation, harder?
John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)
People have asked about intercept evidence and post-charge questioning. Am I right that you do not see this as an either/or? Even if they were available, you would require the extension of the 28 days.
John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)
To follow the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield about consequences, you said earlier that you did not want to be in a situation where you were having to discuss this after an atrocity. The implication seemed to be that you think that these changes could prevent an atrocity. Is that really your view?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you, Sir Ian and Mr. Quick, for your time and expertise. Thank you also, Sir Ian, for finishing with a matter of seconds to spare—split second timing, you might say.
Thank you very much indeed to our witnesses and to all members of the Committee for their co-operation. We shall now move to the next witness representing Justice, from whom we will hear in a moment. Let us have a speedy turnaround.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
I welcome our witness. For the record, would you be good enough formally to identify yourself, please?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you. My name is John Bercow; I am MP for Buckingham and I am co-chairing this Public Bill Committee. With the leave of the Committee, I would like to ask whether any members of the Committee wish to ask questions on matters other than pre-charge detention without trial. If they do, I will take those questions first, and then move on to the important matter of pre-charge detention without trial. Thank you, colleagues, for your co-operation. I call Dominic Grieve, then David Heath.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
First, may I turn to the issue of the DNA database and data-sharing powers in the Bill? I wondered what your views are on that and whether you consider that the powers being envisaged are proportionate, in view of the fact that they appear to allow—certainly in the case of the security services and others—a wide dissemination of information other than only for the purposes of preventing crime, given that it is specifically provided that it is also for the purposes of national security, which is a rather more nebulous concept.
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
Dr. Metcalfe, I would like to ask you about post-charge questioning. In your evidence, you make it clear that you feel that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is right to suggest that there needed to be very clear provisions, either through a code of conduct or, preferably, in primary legislation, to secure the rights of the individual under post-charge questioning. I notice that you also suggest that there should be direct supervision by the court. Can you elaborate on exactly how you feel that that should take place?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
By the court? Would this be the trial judge who would hear the subsequent case?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you. As we are dealing with post-charge questioning, I shall come back to Dominic Grieve, who wants to come in on that matter.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
I think that it may already largely have been covered. There seems to be widespread agreement about desirability, but is it not very much in the interests of the police themselves that there should be judicial supervision of the process?
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
Dr. Metcalfe, in your document entitled, “Intercept evidence: lifting the ban”, dated October 2006, you said that there was an overwhelming case for the ban on intercept evidence to be lifted forthwith. I think that you were in the room when Sir Ian Blair said, somewhat dismissively, that there are administrative and legislative barriers that make that quite impossible and that it is virtually pie in the sky that it could ever come in over the next two or three years. What is your view on that?
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
What is Justice’s view of the provisions relating to coroners’ inquests and, indeed, their inclusion in the Bill?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
With reference to the proposals for Government-appointed coroners, how would you suggest that operational details about the manner of the deaths or ways that the state was trying to counteract them could not go into the public domain if you did not have Government-appointed coroners?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
The jury can still pass it on.
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
You are almost suggesting that you appoint the juries. That is the logical conclusion of what you suggest.
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
Are you leaving it to your faith in juries to determine whether sensitive information that should protect everyone does not go into the public domain?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
But that is not available, and it will not protect operational security. It is not available and simply would not work, so what would work?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
What would work?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
You are suggesting that you should pull people off the street. The logical consequence of that is to have appointed juries, so what is your objection to having appointed coroners?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
Well, low-level security clearance—
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Order. Pleaser let the witness answer and then of course come back in again.
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
There is a very big difference between low-level security clearance and much higher-level clearance, and the effect of having people with much higher-level security clearance would be that the state, in effect, was appointing the jury anyway.
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
I am confused by that, but thank you anyway.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you, Dr. Metcalfe. If there are no further questions on other matters we will move on now to the subject of pre-charge detention without trial.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
Dr. Metcalfe, I should be grateful if you could give an overview of Justice’s position on pre-charge detention. I do not know whether you were here to hear Sir Ian Blair’ evidence. The view he put forward was that it was a necessity because of the lack of the availability of intercept evidence, for example, which seems to be a voluntary decision of the Government rather than anything else. Could you shed any light on the apparent lack of clarity about how long it is taking in current cases to bring charges against individuals accused of terrorism?
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
May I pursue an issue that I raised with Sir Ian Blair—relations with the Muslim community? What is your assessment of the likely impact of the previous extension from 14 days to 28 days, and of any potential extension from 28 days to 42 days?
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
Have you had representations from any Muslim organisations or prominent Muslims that would substantiate the argument you have just deployed?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
I want to link pre-charge detention with the measures on post-charge questioning. One of the arguments presented by the police is that they need time to examine evidence. Given the provisions in the Bill on post-charge questioning, does it seem to you that if someone were charged with a fairly serious or middling terrorist offence, they would be much more likely to be remanded than released on bail? Would not the police then have all the time in the world to examine evidence and put it to that individual in a post-charge situation? Would not that solve some of their concerns about having time to examine the evidence? Does not the facility for post-charge questioning do half the job of pre-charge detention?
Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)
Dr. Metcalfe, you have set out very clearly in your evidence today and in your memorandum to the Committee the criteria on which you judge that any extension up to 42 days would be unacceptable. You have also just given Mr. Bailey another reason—the effect that any change in the law would have on the willingness of people to come forward with evidence. Using the same criteria and, presumably, maintaining a consistent position for Justice, will you remind me what Justice’s position was on allowing 90 days?
Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)
What would Justice’s position be on 28 days?
Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)
What would Justice’s position be on 14 days?
Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)
What would Justice’s position be on 58 days, which, I remind you, is the period that could be introduced if the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 were amended?
Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)
If it could be amended—let us say, for the sake of argument, that it could—to 58 days, would you oppose or support it?
Alan Campbell (Labour, Tynemouth)
On the basis of where we are now, do you think that you would support or oppose it?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
May I take you back to something that you mentioned earlier, Dr. Metcalfe—the threshold test? I agree with you that it is of some significance, but that was not the position that the police had taken until recently, was it? I think that Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke said that it had no relevance to terrorism cases. Do you agree with me that what we heard from Mr. Quick today was a recognition that the threshold test had a part to play in assisting, as part of the armoury, terrorist inquiries?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
Taking the threshold test together with what I shall persist in calling lower order offences even if it offends the Minister, because that is exactly what they are and it is the correct term, is that not a mechanism for what used to be called a holding offence, to enable a charge to be brought quite properly against a suspect against whom there is prima facie evidence? Furthermore, does your organisation have any objection in principle to the use of holding charges in order to ensure that somebody is kept in custody while further offences can be investigated?
John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth has reminded us of the fact that Justice opposed the extension to 28 days. Which of your five, or possibly six, reasons would you not have used in your arguments against 28 days that you use for 42 days? Is anything different in what you are saying now about the extension beyond 28 days from what you said about the extension to 28 days?
John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)
That is the view of the CPS. Is what you are saying that your position has not changed?
John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)
Do you accept that there is some justification in the increase under the Terrorism Act 2006 from 14 to 28 days, because there have been prosecutions that would not have taken place if there had not been an extension from 14 days? Do you not accept that?
John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)
So it did not happen?
John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)
It did happen, though, did it not? There were prosecutions, were there not, as a result of the extension?
John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)
To you.
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
You are basing your position on the assumption that they are incorrect.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Order. Briefly please, Adrian—if it is on this point. Otherwise, I want to bring in Phil Wilson.
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
How long do you think pre-charge detention should be?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
In paragraph 45 of the brief that you sent us, on page 15, in relation to the Barot case in 2004, you are on about the complexity of cases, I think. You say there were 274 computers, whereas there were 400 in the alleged airline plot in 2006, and 2,000 computer disks, CD and DVDs; you add that
“there were 8,224 exhibits seized in the Dhiron Barot case compared with in excess of 25,000 in the alleged airline plot.”
Do you think that that could all have been sorted out in seven days?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
I do not think it is, because I notice further on, in paragraph 46, you are on about the suspicions of the police. I think I would give them the benefit of the doubt, on the basis that they deal with this on a day-to-day basis. It is credible that they could not sort it out in seven days; they needed more time to do it.
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
I suppose they must be given the benefit of the doubt, because they deal with this on a day-to-day basis. Are you saying that you would only give them seven days to sort all that out?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
What the police say is that they need up to 42 days to help sort out those cases, because they are becoming highly complex. Why should not we accept their views, considering that they deal with this on a day-to-day basis?
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
But with the people who were being charged ultimately after 28 days, the police needed the time to do it. I think what we are doing is dancing on a pin head.
Phil Wilson (Labour, Sedgefield)
I would rather give the benefit of the doubt to the police.
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
Following up on Mr. Wilson’s point and the question whether the Committee was denied other witnesses with operations experience, such as Stella Rimington, who might oppose the legislation, why do you think that people such as Sir Ian and Mr. Quick—operational people who deal with the issue every day—seem to be in favour of it? It must be more than toadying up to their political masters, must it not?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
So why do you think they seem to be supporting the measure?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
Why do you think those two might support it?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
Surely, the motivation of such people is to get a conviction and to keep the public safe.
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
But if the police take the view that more than seven days—seven days is about what you would think appropriate—would help to keep the public safe and secure convictions, why would you not support that?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
So why have you alighted on seven, then? You say that the logical conclusion of what I am saying is that we should have an unlimited amount of time. Why are you saying seven?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
That is clearly not what our operational people think.
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
No, they are considering keeping the public safe, are they not?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
It is the biggest one.
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
Do you not think that we are in a slightly different situation now, given what Sir Ian Blair has said about plots and about the scale of terrorists’ ambitions being remarkable—that is, unlike anything that we have seen outside war time?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
Could it not be that the scale of the problem dawns on people more slowly than you suggest?
Adam Holloway (Conservative, Gravesham)
Well, we do not live in a perfect world, do we?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
Who are the senior police officers who disagree with Blair and Quick?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
So it is just an assertion on your part?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
You made it very clear that senior police officers object in terms to what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the most senior anti-terrorism officer in the country said, but you cannot remember their names.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
With respect, he made it very clear that the cabinet and council of the Association of Chief Police Officers were at one regarding the proposals made by ACPO-TAM, which he chairs. This is not a deliberative Parliament. They come to a position and they agree it.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
That aside, you have invoked senior police officers and you cannot even name them.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
So you read it in the paper?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
You read in the paper that there were senior police officers against it, and that is the sum of your evidence. When were you given an intelligence brief on Forest Gate and what that entailed?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
When were you given an intelligence brief by the authorities on what they went into Forest Gate anticipating?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
Okay. You have just said that the ultimate answer to all these issues is a threshold test. Is that right?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
In every circumstance?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
Do you think you can use threshold tests to charge someone simply on the basis of intelligence?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
Do you think that intelligence, as we commonly accept it, is sufficient to arrest someone on the threshold test?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
So, there might be at least an element of time? I think that you agreed earlier that turning intelligence into admissible evidence is part of the police investigation.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
Surely some, but you will not be able to charge purely on intelligence. What admissible evidence was there against Dhiren Barot when he was arrested?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
Peter Clarke has made it very clear that there was none, and that it took the Metropolitan police the full 14 days to secure sufficient admissible evidence to charge him.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
Only the say-so of the most senior police officer in counter-terrorism in this country, who has just retired.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
So you are happy to invoke the Dhiren Barot case in terms of complexity, in the quote referred to earlier at page 15, but have no understanding of the fact that with Dhiren Barot—one of the most serious cases we have had over the past couple of years—there was no evidence when he was arrested. You rather conveniently do not take the word of the most senior police officer in counter-terrorism, probably because you have not read it in The Guardian .
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
We will discuss Ken MacDonald this afternoon. This is my last point, I think. In your world, the threat has not changed since 2000 in any circumstance at all.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
It is clearly what you said. You made it very clear that since al-Qaeda’s existence came to light in 2000, in substance the threat has not changed at all.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
With respect, you said that, at the time of the parliamentary debate about going from seven to 14 days, the threat was no better, no higher or no worse than currently.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
So, to repeat, in your world, it is seven days and that is it. Why not 48 hours? Why does Liberty somehow accept that public safety for the rest of us matters in going from 48 hours to seven days, but not when going from seven to 14 or to 28?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
I am asking you, with respect.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
Are you seriously contending that since 2000, nothing that you understand or know about the threat in terms of its complexity internationally and all of the other dimensions would persuade you to go beyond seven days?
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
And end up at the same point, clearly.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
We are very clear that everything that we do is ECHR compatible. I am very pleased that we have sought to get the balance right between the rights of the individual and the rights of the wider community to public safety. You can quite happily live in your own skin with the smugness and complacency that you have shown today, but I am afraid that we cannot afford to.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Dr. Metcalfe, you are most welcome to answer that last question from Tony and we will then proceed to other questioners.
Tony McNulty (Labour, Harrow East)
The freedom of information request will be treated in the appropriate fashion, but I assure you and the Committee that seven, 14, 28 days and these proposals are entirely ECHR compatible. [ Interruption. ] The giggles from the lawyers from the Opposition party aside, it is.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
I am grateful to Tony and to our witness. Just before I bring in Kali, Jamie and Adrian, I ask Dominic Grieve to come in.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
My concern was that it was being suggested to this witness that it had been stated that there was unanimity in ACPO in making this recommendation. As that was plainly not the evidence of Mr. Quick—utterly to the contrary—it is slightly sterile to open up this issue with another witness, so I will refrain from doing so. Forgive me, Mr. Bercow, if I say that I sometimes find myself sitting in these Committees thinking that if this were a court of law, some of the questions that are being asked would not get beyond the starting point. [ Interruption. ]
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Order. With the understanding of the Committee, I will take that as an observation and not as a question.
Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)
One of the five objections that you outlined a while ago was the process for judicial oversight. Could you outline exactly what your objections are?
Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)
Am I to understand, therefore, that, if we were to ask you, you would give us some proposals on how you would accept judicial oversight of further proceedings?
Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)
Are you saying, therefore, that over the seven days you would introduce new legislation for oversight of the current situation?
Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)
If you think that the process would be acceptable for seven days, I find it difficult to understand why it would not be acceptable for 14 days, 21 days, 40 days, or any other number of days.
Kali Mountford (Labour, Colne Valley)
Introducing a quasi-court.
Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)
You said earlier, and I agree with you 100 per cent., that the public had the right to protection from terrorist atrocity in the same way that they had the right to protection from the intrusion of the Executive. Do you believe that they are equivalent threats?
Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)
I am pleased to hear that. In principle, do you believe that it is right for those bodies charged with the protection of the public and public safety to change legislation in the face of rising threats to public safety?
Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)
That is not the answer to the question that I asked. The question is: in principle, do you think that it is right for Parliament to change law to improve measures to cater for public safety in the face of overwhelming evidence that suggests that the threat to public safety is rising?
Jamie Reed (Labour, Copeland)
In response to questions asked by Mr. Holloway, you candidly showed some insight into and support for the position of chief police officers in responding to these threats. Does the logic of that argument and of your position in regard to those answers not defeat your opposition to this legislation?
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
May I just go back to some points that were made earlier?
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
We have under four minutes, I am afraid.
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
Okay, I shall make this quick. First, in the discussion on the charging that took place between the 14 and 28-day period, you implied, if I understood you, that those charges could have been brought before the 14-day period. I should like to know on what basis you say that.
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
So you are making an assumption.
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
You are taking a public position on a matter of vital importance in this country just on the basis that you have not had contrary information to contradict your position.
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
With respect, you are here to put your case for your position, not our position. We have responsibilities as well.
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
Earlier, you said that you thought that the Crown Prosecution Service was more closely involved with these processes than Sir Ian Blair was prepared to admit.
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
Would you not agree that, in respect of these cases, had your position been substantiated the Crown Prosecution Service, which has, if you like, the responsibility to make that judgment, would have intervened at the 14-day period rather than later?
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
That rather contradicts your earlier assertions about the role of the CPS.
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
You said that it was more closely involved. If they are that closely involved, the police can withhold information from it.
Adrian Bailey (Labour, West Bromwich West)
I think you are going round in circles.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Order. Thank you very much indeed. I am required to bring this session to an end. I thank Dr Eric Metcalfe for his time, expertise and interest. The Committee Room will be locked until 4 o’clock, so if hon. Members wish to leave their papers here they can safely do so.
Written evidence to be reported to the House
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
I begin by warmly welcoming colleagues, our expert witnesses and external observers. For the next session we have up to 50 minutes but not a moment longer. I begin by asking our witnesses, for the record, formally to introduce themselves.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you very much indeed. Based on our experience in the second evidence session this morning, I have suggested to colleagues that we start with questions on matters other than pre-charge detention without trial. When those questions are exhausted, we will naturally move on to that very important matter. Without further ado, let us get the questions underway.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
Good afternoon. May I turn first to the issue of post-charge questioning? I notice, Sir Ken, that when you gave evidence before the Home Affairs Committee back in November, there was a general agreement on the desirability of post-charge questioning, but you highlighted the issue of safeguards on how it operates. If one looks at the Bill, one sees that there is no judicial authorisation for post-charge questioning. Although it is suggested that there should be amendments to a new PACE code—we obviously do not have that at the moment—in order to regulate it, no judicial element is introduced. From your point of view as prosecutors, do you think that that is a satisfactory state of affairs? Would it be better if there were a degree of judicial authorisation to ensure that there are not subsequent arguments in court about whether behaviour has been oppressive in any way to those who are being interviewed, over what could of course be a prolonged period between charge and trial?
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
May I turn briefly to data sharing, before we move on to what is probably the main issue? Are you happy with the provisions for extensive data sharing? While acknowledging that there is an obvious need to be able to share data, particularly to prevent terrorism, does the scope provided for in the legislation go further than is necessary simply to deal with terrorist cases? It seems to extend into a wider area, particularly when it comes to material that might have been collected by the security services.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
May I ask a third question, this time on aggravated offences? When you gave evidence back in November, there was agreement that aggravated offences had a role, but you had some slight reservations about the extent to which they could sometimes complicate matters, particularly because they require areas of proof that might not otherwise be required. Having seen the Bill, are you happy with the way in which that measure has been formulated?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
Sir Ken and Sue Hemming, I am pleased that you were able to join us today. I want to ask you about the use of intercept evidence. I note, Sir Ken, that you have been a strong proponent of that. We heard from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner this morning that in his view, even if progress were to be made in that area, it is inconceivable that arrangements could be brought into practical effect for a period of some years, and that it is not therefore a relevant consideration for this Committee? Do you agree with that assessment?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
This is a general question, and will have a bearing on what we discuss later in terms of pre-charge detention. Again in the evidence from the police this morning, Mr. Quick, who gave evidence on behalf of ACPO, gave the impression—I do not want to put words into his mouth—that he felt that the prosecuting authorities were involved only at a late stage in the investigation process, and might not be aware of the complexities that the investigating officers had to face in trying to produce sufficient evidence to put before a court. Do you, as prosecutors involved from the early stages, share that characterisation?
David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)
That is as I had understood it. Thank you.
John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)
Thank you. Sue Hemming, please feel free to come in whenever you want to. I appreciate that you and Sir Ken are appearing together, but we want to hear from both of you.
Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)
Sir Ken, just for the record, because some of my colleagues may not have heard you, did you say that you are proponent?
Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)
It would have screwed up my questions completely if it was the other way round, so thank you for clarifying that.
Sir Ken, you gave very helpful evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into intercept evidence, if I may remind you of it. In our report, we said:
“We found the DPP’s clarification of the problems surrounding disclosure very helpful: if the Crown Prosecution Service has already rowed back from a misinterpretation of the extent of disclosure required under 1996 legislation, then it should be possible to cope with the amount of transcription that the defence could legally require.”
The obstacles that the police appear to be putting in the way of, or the arguments that they are advancing against, the use of intercept evidence appear to be twofold: first, the potential disclosure of intelligence sources and, secondly, the bureaucracy involved in transcription. You clarified that for the Home Affairs Committee, and it would be very helpful to us if you could clarify your view about why that transcription is logistically possible and, indeed, how it works to the advantage of your counterparts in other jurisdictions.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
I want to ask two questions. The first follows on from the previous question about interception. When you say that you are a proponent of interception and the use of intercepts, is that as defined under the Terrorism Act 2000, covering post, e-mail and telephone, but not surveillance? There is often a misconception that bugs in rooms, listening devices or cameras are in fact not considered intercept as defined in previous law. Or are you saying that both surveillance and intercept should be admissible?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
Secondly, on the post-charge interview, in your experience, in how many cases has a lot of the evidence hinged on forensic evidence rather than cross-examinations of suspects? We heard from the police this morning that in 90 per cent. of the interviews that they conduct, the suspect does not say anything.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
If the Bill were passed and you were in a situation where you had a post-charge questioning facility, would you be more likely to allow a charge against a suspect to go ahead, given that you had the new power? This is going slightly into the pre-trial detention issue, but you could lay a charge. I suppose that the threshold would not be as high with the new power.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Lancaster and Wyre)
This question is on an entirely different part of the Bill and is about territorial extent. From lessons from around the world, we know that specialist prosecutors are more successful in dealing with this type of crime. I suppose that that is why you invested in your specialist unit. The argument that is proposed by the Scottish Law Society is to keep a separation, or at least to have a requirement for a certain number of hurdles to be overcome before you could take control of a case that may have implications in Scotland. In your experience, would the Bill make things easier? Does it remove some of the barriers that existed in the recent case of the London and Glasgow bomb plots? Does the Bill remove barriers or unnecessary bureaucracy?
Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)
Sir Ken, I omitted this point earlier, but I know that clause 60 will amend section 18 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to enable the disclosure of intercepted communications in asset freezing proceedings. Does not it strike you as slightly strange—in my view it is slightly barmy—that the Bill proposes the use of intercept evidence to freeze a suspect’s assets but not to secure a conviction in a terrorist case? Could you clarify that for me?
Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)
No, obviously not.
Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West)
Thank you. We will leave it on the table.
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
Although I do not wish to conflate the two, were the period of pre-charge detention to be extended beyond 28 days, there might be certain parallels with what happened during internment in Northern Ireland. I would like to hear your views on that. First, what would be the reaction of the vulnerable communities to an extension beyond 28 days, most particularly the Muslim community? Secondly, what would be the effect on intelligence sources who are currently talking to us? Thirdly, what do you feel would be the effect on terrorist recruiting?
Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)
I absolutely accept that and do not wish to conflate the two, but our enemies will.