Proceeding contribution from Gordon Brown (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 25 July 2007. It occurred during Ministerial statement on National Security.
National Security
I admire the passion with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts his case for the defence of civil liberties in this country; it is what marks out our constitution, and has done for hundreds of years. Protection against arbitrary acts by Government, or any vested interest, must be central to the business of the House in making sure that such things do not happen in this country. I agree with him on the issue of principle. The question we have to deal with, however, relates to circumstances in which, in the last few months, six investigations led to 27 or 28 days. I can put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman figures that show the degree and scale of the evidence, the intercontinental nature, and the multiple passports, multiple identities and multiple addresses used by terrorist suspects or potential terrorists. The scale and complexity of the investigations that the police now have to conduct in relation to the specific issue of terrorism dwarf what came before. As the Leader of the Opposition—and also, I believe, the right hon. and learned Gentleman—recognises, we are in a very different situation from that of even 10 years ago in relation to terrorism. The question is: can we both ensure the security of the citizens of this country and protect the civil liberties of the individuals who live in this country? I believe that we can. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has interpreted our proposal for consultation as a threat to the relationship between the judiciary and Parliament. I do not believe that it is. I am suggesting that, as has been recognised by a number of people, there are circumstances in which it may be right to go beyond 28 days—unusual, rare and only in the instance of terrorism—and the question is how we can find a mechanism for dealing with those circumstances. One suggested mechanism is the declaration of a state of emergency and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly says, people question whether that is the right message to send out. However, if the Home Secretary were to notify Parliament that a case was going beyond 28 days, if at the same time the independent reviewer, whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman has agreed should play a role in reviewing all cases of between 14 and 28 days, was brought to bear so that they could look at the individual case, and if the option was left—after the report of the independent reviewer—that there could be a debate in Parliament on the issue, that is not a threat to the judiciary; it is parliamentary accountability working at its best. I hope he will understand that what I am trying to do in the proposal is to uphold the principle of independent judicial oversight, but saying at the same time that where issues of public interest are raised it is right that in certain circumstances they be debated here in the Chamber of the House of Commons. I hope that he will agree on reflection that this is a way forward. I agree that not only should we support the emergency services, the police and the security services, but that we should recognise their bravery, professionalism, vigilance and dedication to duty. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said today and I said yesterday, a way must be found in our honours system of both recognising and celebrating the work they do. I hope there will be agreement between the parties on the other matters we have discussed, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will use the summer and autumn period, when I invite him—[Laughter]—not to the usual talks that I have suggested, but to specific talks. As a protection, the Home Secretary will lead the talks this time. I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party to talk about the issues over the summer months to see whether, where I find that the independent reviewer, the Home Affairs Committee, the organisation Liberty and, today, the leader of the Conservative party, all recognise that there may be a case for going beyond 28 days in certain instances, there can be a way forward on which we can find agreement in the House. I hope we will work towards that agreement.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 463 c852-3
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Biometrics Bail Detainees Broadcasting Deportation Software Citizenship Borders Finance Electronic surveillance Evidence Intelligence services Identity cards Emergency powers Foreign nationals EU action Intelligence and Security Committee Identification of criminals National security Prisoners Passengers Proof of identity Terrorism Screening Security Travel restrictions Television Visas BBC World Service Iran Rendition al Qaeda INTERPOL Joint Intelligence Committee Overseas broadcasting National Security Committee Arabic
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:24:35 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_414261
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_414261
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_414261