§ 11. Vera Baird (Redcar) (Lab)What plans he has for changing the standards of (a) proof and (b) evidence in criminal cases believed to involve terrorism. [155754]
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. David Blunkett)On Wednesday, at 9 o'clock in the morning, so that right hon. and hon. Members will have the opportunity to read it before the debate, I intend to publish a discussion document on the challenges laid down by the Newton Committee, and the challenges that were posed to us when we, as a Parliament, originally passed the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
§ Vera BairdI acknowledge the difficult task that my right hon. Friend has in protecting the public from British people whom he believes to be a terrorist threat, when, almost by definition, the intelligence that informs him of that is not admissible in court, but I ask him to bear it in mind that there is a whole range of powers currently in statute that have not yet been brought into force, which could help, including in particular, in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the admissibility of hearsay, which can be second-hand, third-hand or written evidence from abroad. Using that provision could transform the picture. If what is said in the press this weekend is right, I encourage him enormously to pursue the course that he appears to have embarked on, and allow the admission of phone-tap material in court as quickly as possible.
§ Mr. BlunkettMy hon. and learned Friend is right, in that we want a sensible, balanced approach that protects the rights of the innocent and retains the long-standing presumption of innocence, acknowledging that all of us in the House are committed to maintaining those historic rights, while allowing us to admit evidence in a way that is acceptable. The current review of intercept is an important part of that debate. I appeal to everyone—and I will do so on Wednesday—to address these very difficult issues in a spirit that presumes that even the Home Secretary is innocent until proven guilty.
§ Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC)What the Home Secretary said about the presumption 14 of innocence is most welcome, but I urge him also not to interfere with the standard of proof, which would, unfortunately, undermine respect for the rule of law.
§ Mr. BlunkettIn the lecture that I gave to human rights lawyers and members of the supreme court in New Delhi, I did not suggest that we were intending to alter the standard of proof wholesale. I said, and my hon. and learned Friend has just said, that there are other ways forward. When I publish the paper, hon. Members will see that we are trying genuinely to find the right ways, with a lengthy consultation that will avoid anybody being bounced into any solution. All I want is that people come up with solutions, not with objections, because in the end the primary duty of Government is to protect our citizens from the undermining of their freedoms and democracy by those who know no bounds and have no understanding of the issues of punishment or prosecution when they take the lives of others through suicide bombing.
§ David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab)Is my right hon. Friend aware that the interpretation of his remarks was bound to cause concern that there could be a weakening of the rule of law? At the same time, will he accept that those who have concerns and reservations about what he said—or what he is alleged to have said—recognise that 9/11 was not meant to be a one-off in respect of attacks on western democracies and that this country is no less under attack than it was immediately after 9/11?
§ Mr. BlunkettIt is precisely for that reason that I am initiating this discussion, but I do not accept the first premise of my hon. Friend's question. I did not expect a noble Baroness or, for that matter, a solicitor whom I remember well from joining in battle with her when she was defending the Militant Tendency, to be the ones whose pronouncements were reflected on, rather than the speech I actually gave in New Delhi.
§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)May I remind the Home Secretary that one of the other purposes of the Home Secretary's office is to ensure that justice is done, and that many of us who are involved in the criminal courts are concerned with the proposition that, as regards the standard or burden of proof or the admissibility of evidence, those who are alleged to be guilty of terrorist offences should be treated differently from those alleged to be guilty of other serious offences?
§ Mr. BlunkettWhen we established the Special Immigration Appeals Commission as a superior court of record chaired by a High Court judge, we did so first because of the immigration rules under which we were unable to remove people from our country whom we intended to remove; and, secondly, in recognition of the difficulty of dealing with such cases through the normal criminal justice system. It must be clearly said, however, that we have dealt with very many cases through that system since 11 September 2001. The presumption, as during the debate at that time, is that we should continue to do so. I only ask right hon. and hon. Members to come up with their way of squaring the circle and making it possible to deal with people—on the evidence base and in the light of the difficulties that we face—through the normal courts.