Recent parliamentary activity

Speeches

November 20, 2008: Fisheries | Business of the House | Commons debates

I am grateful to the Minister. A good many constituency interests are represented here today, and he is being most generous. As the subject of the east coast of Scotland has been raised, may I draw to his attention—perhaps unnecessarily—the village-based fishing industry in Pittenweem in my constituency, which is based substantially on nephrops? Will he take account of not only the effect of some reduction in what is available to be caught, but the effect of displacement of effort if other fisheries elsewhere are curtailed? There is real anxiety among those who fish in Pittenweem that they may find themselves subject to—if the Minister will forgive the inelegance of the phrase—something of a double whammy.

November 20, 2008: Fisheries | Business of the House | Commons debates

rose—

June 11, 2008: "Part IV - Bail | Orders of the Day | Commons debates

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; indeed, the Home Secretary gave the game away earlier today when she said, "Trust me." Of course one starts with a presumption in favour of trusting the Home Secretary, but such trust has not always been justified in every Home Secretary who has occupied that Front-Bench post since I first entered this House, and it is not likely to be justified on every future case. Parliament can exercise an informed judgment only if the information is put before it. If the information is put before Parliament in sufficient quantity, and it is of sufficient quality to enable it to exercise that judgment, that raises precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman makes: that the prejudice to the individual may be overwhelming.

Once freedoms of the kind that we are debating are removed or even diminished, they are not easily recovered. We should never imagine that what we now take for granted was handed out by benevolent monarchs or by altruistic Governments. They were won. Sometimes they had to be seized physically, and sometimes they could be seized by political or other methods. But they had to be acquired, because the natural acquisitiveness of the Executive means that they take power to themselves as often as they can. If we give the power back, how difficult will it be to restore the freedoms and the personal liberty that we regard as so important?

It is not right to legislate on the basis of what might be. It is much less right to legislate on the basis of what might be when that involves an attack on freedom and liberty. The reason why I was a little disparaging about Stevens, Falconer, Goldsmith and Carlile was that we should not be moved by the opinions of others. On an issue of this kind, we should be moved by our own judgment, and that is why I will vote against the Government.

June 11, 2008: "Part IV - Bail | Orders of the Day | Commons debates

Of course, and that point has been made by some of those who have been cited in the debate as having experience, and as therefore being people to whom we should pay attention. If we want to defeat the terrorists, we have to defeat not only their wish to blow up buildings, but their wish to damage and undermine the very freedoms upon which our system is based.

June 11, 2008: "Part IV - Bail | Orders of the Day | Commons debates

I regret to say that I do not share the conclusion drawn by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden). I shall vote against the Government—not because I am soft on terror or because I fail to recognise the seriousness of the threat, but because I believe that the Government's proposals are profoundly mistaken, and that they are wrong in both principle and practice.

Much of what I might have said has already been eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). In approaching this matter, we all have a responsibility to show independent judgment, and we must exercise that judgment in striking a balance between the competing interests of security and individual freedom. If I have a criticism of the debate so far, it is that the second of these interests has formed a smaller part of our proceedings than I would have wished.

When I look across at the Labour Benches, I am reminded that for a long time Labour Members voted against the renewal of prevention of terrorism legislation so far as it applied to Northern Ireland. In 1987, after I was elected, I participated in the votes on that. In those days, Labour voted against, but then, lo, there came out of the north-east a new young shadow Home Secretary from the constituency of Sedgefield, and he persuaded his party that instead of voting against, abstention would be sufficient. My point is that Labour Members did all that through exercising their independent judgment, and we too must exercise that when the matter under discussion goes to the vote. My objection to the Government position has been echoed by many Members in our debate: they have simply failed to prove the case at this time for the extension of the period of detention that they seek.

I do not rely on the judgments of others. That is a kind of political card game: "You play your Lord Stevens, and I'll play my Lord Falconer, and what did Lord Goldsmith have to say about this?"—or Lord Carlile, for that matter. Such judgments may be persuasive, but they are by no means determinative of the positions we must take.

I would have had more respect for the Government if they had been willing to put their case simply, frankly and bluntly. I am not against consultation, but the scurrying around of the last few days and weeks has been demeaning to the Government, and also to Parliament. Compensation for miners is, no doubt, an extremely important issue, as is raising the economic blockade of Cuba, but what the devil have they got to do with the prevention of terrorism in the United Kingdom? Also, from where have come the allegations of Danegeld for the Democratic Unionist party? I hope that none of these stories is true; I hope that they are all the product of fevered imaginations. However, if they are part of what is necessary for the Government to have their legislation, I suspect that they are not a price worth paying.

I will vote against the Government because any time any Government seek to diminish the freedoms that are the cornerstone of our system, it is our duty collectively and individually to hold that Government to account and to subject them to the most rigorous scrutiny. That duty transcends all our other responsibilities; it is our primary duty. It is the constitutional reason why we are sent to this place, and, if I may be excused sounding somewhat flippant, I should say that it has nothing to do with the communications allowance, nothing to do with how many prepaid envelopes we use, and nothing to do with seeking to be regarded as the constituency MP of the year. Our job is to hold the Government to account and to scrutinise them as rigorously as we can. When what they are seeking to do interferes with the liberty of the citizen, that duty is even more important than it normally is.

That duty transcends the credibility, and even the survival, of the Prime Minister. This debate and the vote that we will have in due course should not be about whether he is strengthened or weakened, because the issue is whether the rights of our citizens are strengthened or weakened by what we do in this place. I shall vote against the Government, because I think that the so-called concessions are—to use less elegant language than the Joint Committee on Human Rights did—political boiler plate.

The concessions leave far too much to the discretion of the Home Secretary, they are—as the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has pointed out in several telling interventions—complicated to the point of incomprehensibility and ambiguity, and they blur the distinction between the responsibility of Parliament and the administration of justice. If we make a judgment that it is necessary to introduce the reserve power, and if that judgment is based on the circumstances surrounding an individual case, we inevitably become engaged in the administration of justice. The inferences that may be drawn from either a willingness or an unwillingness to accept the Government's case could be substantial in the subsequent disposal of the case against that person. I have searched my memory, and searched elsewhere, but I can think of no other instance when the House of the Commons has been called on to pass legislation based on individual circumstances after criminal proceedings have been commenced against an individual. If that is not a novel constitutional doctrine, I do not know what is.

May 21, 2008: [Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair] - Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Industrial Relations) | Westminster Hall debates

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I have been trying to visit Fifeness coastguard station in my constituency for some time, but I am told that I can visit only in the presence of a senior civil servant. Quite why that is necessary, I am not sure.

May I underline the point that my hon. Friend has made about recreational use and add to it a point about those constituencies in which the fishing industry is based? The reliance that the fishing industry is able to place on the coastguard system is fundamental to the success of fishing activity. Any departure from the usual high standards and the 365-day availability is a matter of considerable concern to fishermen.

April 2, 2008: Zimbabwe | Oral Answers to Questions - Prime Minister | Commons debates

They were queuing.

April 2, 2008: Zimbabwe | Oral Answers to Questions - Prime Minister | Commons debates

I commend the Foreign Secretary for his restraint. Does he accept that although we here may feel a sense of responsibility, the harsh truth is that our influence is necessarily limited by the fact that we are the former colonial power? Is it not therefore the case that these events are a test for Zimbabwe and its people, but that, in a political sense, they are a real test for the countries of southern Africa—in particular, South Africa? Will he assure us that he has taken every opportunity to communicate our views to the Government of that country and, in particular, to Mr. Mbeki?

April 1, 2008: Iraq | Oral Answers to Questions - Communities and Local Government | Commons debates

May I press the Secretary of State again regarding overwatch? Surveillance, fast jets, helicopters, food and water, ammunition, medical care, tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery are evidence not of overwatch but of active participation, which, if allowed to get out of control, could easily result in our being engaged in a civil war.

March 25, 2008: Iraq Inquiry | Opposition Day - [8th Allotted Day] | Commons debates

I have listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary's speech. Does he understand that the impression that he is giving is less a concern about the effectiveness of British operations in Basra and much more a determination to try to protect the Government from embarrassment in relation to the decision to go to war?

March 25, 2008: Iraq Inquiry | Opposition Day - [8th Allotted Day] | Commons debates

rose—

February 21, 2008: Terrorist Suspects (Renditions) | Business of the House | Commons debates

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to make a statement.

May I take up with the Foreign Secretary the question of belief? In December 2005, I believed his predecessor, and his predecessor believed the American Government, but both of us have been proved wrong. Is it any wonder, then, that there is some scepticism about the extent to which we can believe information that is now being put before us? The issue here is not met by expressions of disappointment. The truth is that this is a gross embarrassment for the British Government, in spite of their good faith, involving as it does a breach of our moral obligations and possibly of our legal responsibilities as well, which the Foreign Secretary hinted at in his statement when he referred to the fact that there have been consultations between legal teams of the United Kingdom and the United States.

In the further investigation that is to take place, will the Foreign Secretary ensure that particular attention is paid to the airports at Stornoway, Campbeltown and Prestwick, because of their convenience for transatlantic refuelling?

Does not all this reveal that as far as Diego Garcia is concerned, we have absolutely no effective control over what happens there? For how long is that sustainable? If the roles were reversed, is it conceivable that the American Government, or indeed the American Congress, would tolerate such a set of circumstances?

October 10, 2007: Engagements | Oral Answers to Questions - Prime Minister | Commons debates

Let us remember that the Prime Minister's cut in the basic rate is at the expense of some of the poorest people in the country. Was not the most glaring omission in yesterday's pre-Budget report statement the absence of any proposals for reform of the unfair council tax? Council tax is set to rise by twice the rate of inflation. How fair is that for low and middle-income families?

October 10, 2007: Engagements | Oral Answers to Questions - Prime Minister | Commons debates

As the Prime Minister has stolen Liberal Democrat policies in order to help the better-off, will he also steal Liberal Democrat policies in order to assist lower and middle-income families, and cut the basic rate of income tax to 16p in the pound?

October 8, 2007: Iraq | Oral Answers to Questions - Leader of the House | Commons debates

The Prime Minister began with a tribute to those who have died and been injured. Let me, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, associate myself with that tribute. Let me, too, as he did, salute the professionalism and bravery of our armed forces—something that is too often taken for granted. The truth is, though, that they were given an impossible task in Iraq. Who now in the Government takes the blame for what the Chief of the Defence Staff called the "false and inflated expectations" of what they could achieve in Iraq?

Obviously, we welcome the Government's change of heart in relation to interpreters and other civilians, but we are entitled to ask why it has taken so long and precisely how generous the terms will be. What is the Government's estimate of the number of people who will be entitled to take advantage of that change of policy?

The Prime Minister has mentioned the target of 2,500 by next spring, but that is well below the figure that is thought appropriate for force protection. That has certainly been said by Ministers in recent times. In addition, from what the Prime Minister says, at 2,500, he does not anticipate any intervention taking place. If that is so, the question that immediately arises is what purpose will those troops serve.

The harsh truth is that Britain's involvement in Iraq has been a catastrophe. We have paid dearly in lives, resources and reputation. Is it not time to acknowledge that the presence of British troops in Iraq no longer serves any realistic military or political purpose. Is it not time, too, to acknowledge that, after four and a half years, Britain has more than fulfilled any moral obligation to the people of Iraq and that our obligation now is to our young men and women in our armed forces? Is it not time to acknowledge that the deployment in Iraq, where little more can be done, is prejudicial to our efforts in Afghanistan, where success is still possible? Is it not time now to set a framework and a programme for the complete withdrawal of all our forces from Iraq?

July 25, 2007: National Security | Oral Answers to Questions - Prime Minister | Commons debates

The Prime Minister was right to begin with a tribute to those who had a hand in thwarting the terrorist efforts of 29 and 30 June. He might also have mentioned the members of the public who behaved with conspicuous gallantry, especially at Glasgow airport. I hope that there may some way to recognise their bravery formally, in a way to which we are accustomed.

The Prime Minister's statement contained a great deal of detail, and we shall obviously consider it very carefully indeed. We have heard some of what has been said today before, but some of it is undoubtedly new. One thing that should be welcomed unequivocally is the rearrangement of responsibilities with regard to the Joint Intelligence Committee. If the JIC had been dealt with previously in the way that has now been set out, perhaps the misuse of intelligence in September 2002 would not have occurred.

The Government have acknowledged the case for post-charge questioning and for telephone intercept evidence, and that is plainly something that we welcome. Those are the sort of proposals that offer the best approach to terrorism, as they are practical measures that would assist successful prosecution, rather than complex measures designed to circumvent the principles of the criminal justice system.

In due course, we shall be asked to make judgments about how best to defeat terrorism in all its guises. The Prime Minister has asked for consensus, as he is entitled to, but I have to tell him that for many of us, consensus cannot be achieved at the expense of principle. The essential test for any proposed new power must always be whether it is necessary, not whether it is desirable or convenient.

Of course the public have a right to security, but they also have a right to security against the power of the state. We know that it is in the nature of the police to ask for more powers—for the best of motives but often for the worst of reasons. It is in the nature of Government to grant such powers, and it should be in the nature of Parliament to resist them.

Key questions have to be asked. What has changed in the past 18 months that merits asking Members of Parliament to change their minds about detention without charge? Which investigations in that period have been hampered by the absence of a 90-day limit, or of a limit greater than 28 days? Where is the conclusive evidence that an extension to the 28-day period is required, and what assessment has been made of the risk of fanning extremism with a detention policy that will act as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism, just as internment did for the IRA? Why does Britain require greater powers of detention than other comparable democracies, including Australia?

The Prime Minister dealt in his statement with the question of emergency under the Civil Contingencies Act, and he supplemented his position in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition. It would be extraordinary if one single terrorist made it necessary to declare a state of emergency for the whole country. To that extent, I agree with the scepticism expressed by the Prime Minister, but it would be a most curious constitutional development if the alternative was that the matter should be brought before Parliament. I suppose that this is the high court of Parliament, but the suggestion that reports should be made to Parliament, followed by later parliamentary debate, seems to stand the normal provisions of our constitution—and the separation of powers—very much on their head.

Let me make it clear that we will fulfil our responsibilities, as I have no doubt will every other Member of this House, but it is worth pointing out that there are other things that the Government might have done. For example, why are there no measures to make it easier to charge people with a lower threshold offence at an earlier stage in investigations, when a prime facie case for a charge can be established? Finally, why is there no reference in the statement to the possibility of a more extensive use of plea bargaining, so that those on the periphery of conspiracies may be used as credible witnesses against those who are the principals in terrorist activity?

There is a balance to be struck— [ Interruption. ] I heard a Labour Member say, "Oh dear!" But he is talking about the rights and privileges of all the people whom he represents here, and we can be pretty certain that the first time one of his constituents finds himself or herself the subject of some of these provisions, he will be here to make the case that something should be done to alleviate the consequences. When we make judgments of this kind we make judgments that affect the very fabric of the society we live in. That is why those judgments have to be based on principle and not expediency.

July 25, 2007: Engagements | Oral Answers to Questions - Prime Minister | Commons debates

The Prime Minister was responsible for the establishment of the Stern review, which he will recall pointed out the severe economic consequences of climate change. Is it not clear from the events of the past few weeks that we cannot afford not to take the necessary steps, or, indeed, not to spend the necessary money, to mitigate the effects of climate change?

July 25, 2007: Engagements | Oral Answers to Questions - Prime Minister | Commons debates

Once again, I associate myself with the expressions of condolence and sympathy that we have just heard from the Prime Minister, and like him, I wish to pay tribute to the local authorities, the armed services and the emergency services, some of whose work I have seen for myself.

The Prime Minister acknowledged the importance of infrastructure, particularly water treatment plants and power stations. In the review to which he has referred, set up by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will there be a detailed assessment of the precautions available to all such infrastructural facilities throughout the country, and not just those in the areas affected during the past few weeks?

July 18, 2007: Engagements | Oral Answers to Questions - Prime Minister | Commons debates

There are people earning less than £18,500 who now pay more tax as a result of the Prime Minister's last Budget. Why does not he close the loophole for the very rich that he has created and use that money to cut tax for low and middle-income families? Why not legislate for the many, not the few?

July 18, 2007: Engagements | Oral Answers to Questions - Prime Minister | Commons debates

May I associate myself with the Prime Minister's expression of sympathy and condolence?

Yesterday's Rowntree report confirmed that the gap between the rich and the poor is as wide as it has been for 40 years. How does the Prime Minister propose to deal with that unfairness?

Written questions

Source: TheyWorkForYou.com