Prorogation (Disclosure of Communications)

Debate between David Hanson and Dominic Grieve

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Grieve]

If I may say to my right hon. Friend, last week, at Prime Minister’s questions, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke) and I asked questions of the Prime Minister seeking to elicit an answer about his motive and state of knowledge, and I was rather struck by the fact that he avoided answering both questions completely. He made not a single attempt—my right hon. Friend should look at Hansard—to answer the question. I am afraid I do not have much confidence that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has the capacity—frankly—to answer questions of this kind, because he does not appear to understand how serious they are and appears to treat them with a high level of flippancy.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Prorogation this evening will deny the Liaison Committee a three-hour session with the Prime Minister this Wednesday—a session the Prime Minister agreed to on 14 August.

[Mr Grieve]

Yes, indeed, and of course that might have provided another opportunity to ask questions.

I appreciate that this House can sometimes be difficult and irksome to Prime Ministers and Governments, but that is our job. We are here precisely to provide scrutiny and to hold to account. For those reasons, I do not think it would be unreasonable of us to proceed to ask for these documents. I believe and hope that this has been drafted in a way that is sufficiently focused that we can come swiftly to a conclusion by Wednesday as to whether there is anything that should be causing the public disquiet.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between David Hanson and Dominic Grieve

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

That is reassuring. I will look forward to my hon. Friend’s support post-May in the happy event of my standing at the Government Dispatch Box arguing for the Government of the day. I am sure that we will continue to have the same level of support that he has given to those on the Labour Front Bench over many years in this House.

I hope that I have made the case sufficiently for the Government to consider the issue now and to give us some indication in this regard, saving us the potential difficulty of ping-pong, further discussion and further debate between both Houses in the short period before the measure reaches the statute book. I want to ensure that the Government are subject to that judicial oversight. It would not in any way impact on the ability of the Minister to make decisions effectively on intelligence about who needed to have a temporary exclusion order placed on them, but it would reassure the community in which we also serve. It would also ensure that the Home Secretary’s decisions were subject to some checks and it would, I think, help to enhance our international reputation in dealing with these issues. I commend the new clauses to the House.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I was reflecting as I listened to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) putting the case for the Opposition that, when I first came to the House, it was suggested in a maiden speech by a then Labour Member that we should concertina the consideration of Bills because it was quite clear that the overwhelming majority on the Labour Benches at that time would have meant that they had to go through anyway. All I can say is that I am very grateful that we have not taken up that option.

The process on which we have embarked—in a sense, this leads me to try to avoid repeating the speech I made on Second Reading and again in Committee—enables us to go over the same ground again but, each time, to examine it from a slightly different angle. The issue being debated this afternoon, of which new clause 3 constitutes the kernel, is in fact quite narrow. There seems to be general agreement that it is necessary to have a process of managed return, and it is perhaps slightly unfortunate that we started off the process with statements that suggested that we were embarking not on a process of managed return, but on a process of excluding people for ever who had gone abroad and were suspected of having committed terrorist offences but were in fact British-born nationals. That was very properly abandoned and the Home Secretary has now proposed a perfectly sensible package, endorsed by David Anderson, the terrorism reviewer, that will be useful in enabling us to meet this undoubtedly real problem.

The question is therefore about the detail. In this case, that means the difference between the Home Secretary’s taking an executive and administrative act, then allowing it to be judicially reviewed if there is disagreement with it by the individual concerned, and having some kind of judicial oversight. Scrutiny, except in exceptional cases in which there has to be rapid administrative action, would normally be triggered by going to a court and getting a judge’s permission in the same way as we do with TPIMs.

Throughout this process, I have favoured the principle of judicial oversight. I appreciate that the granting of a passport to an individual is an act of the royal prerogative and therefore one that is normally carried out by the Executive. For that reason, the Home Secretary has been able, in some exceptional circumstances, to withdraw and remove the passports of nationals abroad who are also dual nationals and subsequently to have that challenged through a review process.

It is worth bearing in mind that passports have taken on a rather different significance from 101 years ago when, effectively, the vast majority of British nationals travelling abroad did so without passports at all. Indeed, a passport was an exceptional document that one was granted for the purpose of having one’s bona fides attested to by the state. Nowadays, a passport is a pretty essential tool not only for travelling in and out of this country but for travelling when abroad and avoiding some of the problems that might beset someone whose passport is deemed invalid.

For those reasons, although I understand where my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is coming from when she wishes to preserve the principle that this is a prerogative power and that the removal of the passport and its cancellation when the individual is abroad should be subject to judicial review, the power is so exceptional that that judicial oversight is by far the most prudent course. It is not just by far the most prudent course and helpful for the individual concerned but, ultimately, helpful to my right hon. Friend as that would give it the validity it needs to be effective, without which I fear that we might well end up in rather more complex and lengthy litigation and, above all, with a sense of grievance sometimes creeping in for people who consider that they have been treated unfairly.

I appreciate that the subject is emotive. Indeed, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) makes clear and highlights the anxiety, which is, I am sure, shared across the House, that people should behave in a way that is utterly incompatible with their British citizenship, in some cases going abroad and openly proclaiming both their renunciation of allegiance in some form and their allegiance to a power that appears to us to be utterly repugnant in its behaviour. Those feelings are understandable and very strong.

At the same time, however, it is right that there are essential principles of our common law that individuals enjoy the benefit of the presumption of innocence and that free-born British subjects may come and go without let or hindrance in their own homeland. If they have committed serious offences while abroad, including treason, they should be brought to justice here on their return. We do not have the principle of excluding people from their own land, quite apart from the breaches of international law that that would involve.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between David Hanson and Dominic Grieve

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

This is a very strong and effective power, which the Opposition support as it will ensure that measures are taken against individuals who might go abroad for terrorist purposes, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that one of the balances of strong powers is the right to strong redress. It might only be for 14 days, as he says, or it might be for only 30 in due course, but that could mean losing a £5,000 or £6,000 holiday with no compensation, missing a family wedding or a person’s own wedding or losing a job opportunity for what could be a case of mistaken identity.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Hanson]

I will let the right hon. and learned Gentleman intervene, because I know that he has expressed concerns about the power. In a very helpful article in The Guardian on 3 September, he said:

“Allowing police to confiscate passports at the UK border to prevent an aspiring young jihadi from leaving for Syria via Istanbul may be justifiable on good intelligence…But unless there is some rapid means of review there must be the likelihood that mistakes will occur as the use of this administrative power increases and perfectly innocent…people will find their travel plans wrecked.”

I agree with him and that is why, even given the 14-day period, I think that we should consider the proposal in amendment 17. I hope that the Minister will do so.

[Mr Grieve]

I expressed that concern and it remains a concern, but the interesting point about amendment 17 is that if we were to allow an appeal, as the right hon. Gentleman describes it, how quickly could such an appeal be heard and would it have a significant impact on the shortness of time in which a passport might be capable of being returned, given that we now know that there will be two weeks, or 14 days, for that return to take place? I listened carefully to what he has to say and it seems to me that he is making a good point, but I would also be interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister and from the right hon. Gentleman how such a system could be made to work in reality.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Gary Streeter)]

Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, let me say that interventions should be slightly briefer than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise, Mr Streeter, for taking up too much time. I shall be brief and make more frequent interventions, if I am allowed them. It seemed to me when I made that point back in September that a particular concern was somebody who might be prevented from going away for a wedding or for employment reasons and who wanted a rapid review, but I am also realistic about whether such a rapid review can be made available in practice. That was why I raised at a subsequent date the other question of whether we should consider compensation if somebody were disadvantaged.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that point and we probably agree on the principle. The purpose of amendment 17 is to give the Minister the opportunity to tease out the practicalities of deliverability for any form of appeal. I take the view—it may be old-fashioned, but that is not for me to say—that if someone is effectively charged with involvement in terrorism, which is why a passport will be removed, that is a serious initial action by the state against an individual. The individual might be the subject of mistaken identity or factually wrong information might have been given, whether maliciously or not. They might be travelling for perfectly legitimate purposes, as I have said. In each of those cases, they should ultimately have the right to say to a third party, “I appreciate that these facts have been put before the passport remover, but they are fundamentally wrong and I demand my passport back.” That must be possible in a more speedy and effective way than is the case under the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

I should like to speak to the amendments and new clauses standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her explanation of the measures in the Bill, which are worthy of discussion today. We have tabled new clauses 4 and 5 to provide a supportive narrative to the one that the Home Secretary has put forward. The new clauses and amendments taken together form some of the options that could support the control of terror suspects who are at our border in the UK rather than at a foreign port. They provide a mechanism for the issuing of a notification and managed return order, which would be similar to the measure proposed by the Home Secretary but with a slightly different emphasis.

It is important that we recognise the threat posed by British citizens travelling abroad to participate in terror camps or to join the fight with ISIS in the middle east. The threat from ISIS is serious, and the Government need to do more to prevent young people from being groomed and radicalised to go and fight, and, using the measure in clause 1, to deal with such people when they try to return, having left the country to take part in such activity.

That threat is still live. On 21 October, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, was quoted as saying that five Britons were travelling to Iraq and Syria to join ISIS every week. The Government’s own information states that more than 500 Britons have travelled to Syria and that as many as 250 are now seeking to return. Self-evidently, we need a mechanism to protect the British citizen and to deal with those who wish to return. It is also vital that we are able to deal with people we know to be involved in these activities but who are unaware that we know about them. There is a synergy between what we are trying to achieve and what the Government are proposing. We particularly think there may be practical difficulties with the Bill in relation to individuals at foreign ports returning to the UK, and I would welcome the Home Secretary’s view.

The blanket exile proposal—I know the Home Secretary has not used that phrase—was referred to by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, as an

“announcement waiting for a policy”

when it was made. He was worried, and still has some worries, about whether it is legally and practically workable. We now have plans before us that, at first sight, appear closer to managed return than exile, but I wonder how they work in practice. If the aim of the policy is to keep dangerous individuals out of the country and then, ultimately, to manage their return, we need to explore real issues about that, not least what happens when individuals do not choose to apply for consent to come back—or indeed when they do choose to do that. The Home Secretary has touched on this, but what happens to individuals in particular countries? Would Turkey be happy to detain, potentially for months on end, a Briton suspected of illegally fighting for a terrorist organisation if he or she turned up at Ankara airport but was banned from departing to the UK? What options are in place for that? It is not clear whether the British Government have negotiated agreements with particular countries and whether they intend to do that on a case-by-case basis. What provision is in place—if it is not detention—to stop an individual who finds themselves faced with an order at the airport taking an alternative course of action, either returning to the host country in a different way, or returning and leaving for another country, not the UK? There is a practical argument as to what happens under the Bill to individuals in whom the Government have an interest.

Our new clause 4 seeks to examine an alternative model, which could work in parallel with the Government’s proposals but gives an opportunity for a managed return. We have tabled new clauses 4, 5 and 6, and the consequential amendments, which we are happy to look at and to reflect on, given what the Home Secretary has said about them. There is an argument to be made that the Government’s measure is too blunt a tool, in that it either prevents people from coming back or allows them to return. A more graduated response would give the security services and the Government much greater choice in how they want to approach each individual. Our notification and managed return orders proposal provides an alternative that gives security to the Government and takes effective action against individuals in whom the Government have an interest, but does so by allowing them to return to the UK and be managed in the UK, as opposed to leaving us facing some practical difficulties elsewhere.

Our approach would require carriers to provide advance notice of travel bookings for certain named individuals in whom the Government have an interest, and that is well and good. It would allow the British authorities to have advance knowledge and notice of suspects’ travel plans so that arrangements could be made for police interview or arrest at the port or border immediately on their return to the UK. If that model were used as well, it would in part transfer the procedure that the Government are trying to achieve in a foreign port to a UK port. At that point, interviews could be undertaken and action could be taken against an individual, and we could also ensure that we had dealt with an individual of interest to the UK Government in the UK That could be an alternative model.

[Mr Grieve]

Is not one potential problem with the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal, which is in many ways perfectly reasonable in structure, that it does not prevent the individual from continuing to travel abroad between third countries? If the UK Government reasonably suspect that somebody is involved in terrorism, ensuring that person’s managed return—an act of a responsible Government—to this country is perhaps a priority. Is there not a danger that the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal would enable such a person to continue using their passport abroad, because the carrier would have no responsibility to give notification of travel between different countries?

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, which touches on one reason why we are presenting alternative, parallel models. I am not saying that the provisions in new clause 4 would be appropriate in every circumstance, but I do not believe—if the Home Secretary can convince me otherwise, we will look at that—that provision is in place for a formal managed return, as under our proposals; we simply have the Home Secretary’s proposals for a request to come back or for detention at a foreign port of entry to prevent someone from returning. We are seeking to give her a menu of options, and our approach could be a better way of managing individuals. Judgments will be made by Ministers and the security services as to how this could be managed, but the concerns expressed by David Anderson QC and by Liberty, which I thank for its assistance in helping us to table these provisions, give rise to a potential alternative that could be examined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

It is still a big deal to refuse a British passport holder access to the United Kingdom. It is a very big step to take. I am not saying that it is the wrong step to take, but it is a big step. The powers under current TPIMs and, potentially, under the revised TPIMs, involve restrictions on movement and contact. The Bill as proposed could involve detention in a foreign country, pending return to the United Kingdom under a managed process. Charges may not have been made. A person could be held simply on the basis of evidence that has been gathered by the security services. Although those measures are not the same, an element of judicial oversight is something to which we should aspire. As a fair man, I am tabling these issues so that the Home Secretary can reflect on them because I am aware of the concerns that exist outside and inside this House. Undoubtedly, there will be heavy scrutiny of these sections of the Bill and their implications when the Bill reaches the House of Lords. It is important that we flag them up here to say that we should have in place a mechanism whereby the Home Secretary has to make her case to a relatively small cohort of individuals in order to progress the matter. I do not want to have the Home Secretary tied into a long-winded or unresponsive channel for application. I do not want the Home Secretary to have a slower processing ability that means she cannot enable counter-terrorism activity to take place in a speedy and effective manner.

However, if the Government believe that the TPIM regime is not unduly cumbersome when trying to control terror suspects in this country, there seems little reason why it should not be appropriate for use on individuals in other countries, particularly as the Home Secretary will often know who they are and have a close interest in them. The current stipulation is that the Home Secretary simply has to reasonably consider whether someone is involved in terror-related activity. That is a very low bar, and one that I think should be subject to judicial oversight.

In conclusion, I think that the Government should at least look at the alternative model set out in new clause 4, which has widespread support. I would also genuinely like to hear from the Home Secretary why she feels—she has already indicated as much—that the arrangements for TPIMs are not appropriate for what is still a severe restriction on liberty, which might be the right thing to do, under the proposed TEO notice. I look forward to hearing other Members’ contributions.

[Mr Grieve]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who has put forward some alternative proposals, by way of probing amendments, on how this matter might be approached. Having listened to the comments from both sides of the Committee, it seems to me that there is actually a substantial measure of agreement that it is proper for the Government to take action to deal with the question of the managed return of individuals who have gone abroad from this country and whom the Home Secretary reasonably considered might be involved in terrorism.

It is slightly unfortunate that we have become mired in the title of temporary exclusion orders, because it seems to me, having read the Bill, that what we are really talking about is managed returns and how that process is properly to be done. In that context, the approach adopted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary seems perfectly logical. As I pointed out in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Delyn, one of the problems with his proposals is that as the passport remains with the individual whom the Home Secretary reasonably considers to have committed an offence, that individual could use the passport to travel between third countries at will. If the United Kingdom wishes to act responsibly, particularly as we currently have a system whereby we remove passports from individuals trying to travel abroad in some circumstances, it seems rather odd that we should preserve that mechanism.

On the other hand, there is an issue that I think the Committee has to consider. A point was made earlier about how notification of the removal or revocation of a passport might take place. In some cases it might prove impossible in practice to communicate the revocation to the individual concerned and to indicate that a managed return must take place, because the temporary exclusion order is now in place, through the person contacting the consulate. That raises the prospect of an individual turning up at an airport, having purchased a ticket, only to be turned away at security. I might be wrong about that, in which case it would be useful to know how the Home Office envisages that working in practice. That in itself might not matter at all. If we are dealing with a country that is a trusted partner—my right hon. Friend indicated that there were discussions with France and Turkey—that might not be a problem. The individual’s return might simply be delayed until they have gone to see the British consulate and been interviewed.

However, the proportionality test that has to be applied to these cases means that my right hon. Friend will have to assess whether an individual—notwithstanding the fact that she might reasonably consider them to have been involved in terrorism—might be put at serious risk of having their human rights infringed, for example by being detained or tortured, if revocation of their passport would lead to their being exposed as a person who could be viewed as a terrorist in circumstances in which the Government would feel unable to share that information with the Government of that country because they were concerned about the risks that would be attendant on their arrest.

There is an issue of practice and practicality that needs to be thought through, and I hope that as a result of this debate my right hon. Friend and the Home Office may be in a position to provide reassurance as the Bill goes through the House that they have that subject very much in mind. Having listened to my right hon. Friend talk about proportionality, I am reassured that this is a matter of which she is well aware, as I know from the experience of working with her as a colleague; she knows it can sometimes be an issue. Subject to that, the process that she has adopted, which requires the individual to go to the consulate and get, in essence, a one-way ticket back to this country so that we know when the individual is returning, seems perfectly proper as long as the delay period is not too long, and as long as there is not some subtext intention of causing that individual problems in the country in which they happen to be located—a point that I made earlier.

That brings me to a further point raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn, which is about judicial process. I raised on Second Reading and again subsequently my question why it is so difficult to have a system in which there is not a judicial process to initiate it. I appreciate that there is a difference between a TPIM and the temporary exclusion order proposed—a difference in terms of the restrictions that may be placed on the individual when they return, which are capable of being challenged by judicial review anyway, and because the revocation of a passport is an exercise of the royal prerogative, which is different in nature and quality from a TPIM. It is nevertheless a draconian sanction.

As my right hon. Friend will confirm, removing passports from individuals in this fashion is not a process that has previously been carried out, certainly not in circumstances where the individual when they are abroad does not have the possibility of accessing a different nationality, for example. I continue to wonder whether a judicial process might be valuable. My right hon. Friend may have powerful arguments to make against that, but I have not yet had explained to me in quite the detail I would wish the Government’s reasoning on this point. The point has been made that a temporary exclusion order may have to be issued as an emergency or rather quickly. The current TPIM system allows for a TPIM to be issued without a judge’s sanction—an imprimatur—if necessary, so that could be included in this process.

However, it strikes me—perhaps I am wrong, and I am always prepared to be persuaded that I am wrong—that in this process there is likely to be a slightly more leisurely approach anyway, because the Government will know that an individual is abroad and likely to come back to the United Kingdom, and unless that return is likely to happen very quickly, I would have thought it might normally be possible to apply ex parte to a court for the order to be sanctioned and for some scrutiny to be carried out as to the reasons why it is to take place. If that were to happen, it would also allow for a measure of judicial scrutiny as to whether the issue of the temporary exclusion order might endanger a person’s fundamental rights because it would expose them to risk in their present location.

Those are my thoughts on this matter. I should make it clear that I put them forward in an entirely probing spirit because the principle of what my right hon. Friend is doing seems to me, as I indicated earlier, to be utterly unexceptionable, even though it is an unusual power. However, in the context of the risk and threat that the United Kingdom faces which, as I have said on several occasions, I believe to be a real threat, this is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to a legitimate goal that the Government are trying to achieve. I hope that as the Bill goes through the House we will have an opportunity to examine the proposal, which will enable us to get the right outcome on the provision. If we get the right outcome, history has shown that it will cause my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary far less trouble with court challenges thereafter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Hanson and Dominic Grieve

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I am always happy to see Members of Parliament. As for meeting with delegations, the hon. Lady will appreciate that one feature of my work is that I must take it independently. If there is a good reason for meeting people, I am certainly always happy to do so, but she will appreciate that I have already undertaken to consult representatives of the families. We will do that as a formal process, and I would obviously wish to avoid something that does not appear sufficiently structured.

[Mr Hanson]

I genuinely thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his announcement, which will be of great comfort to my constituents whose family members died at Hillsborough, and particularly to the families of those who died after the 3.15 pm cut-off. Will he indicate whether he expects the Director of Public Prosecutions’ potential consideration of criminal charges to have any impact on the timing of the inquest?

[The Attorney-General]

Clearly, the consideration of charges is done independently by the DPP and I have no role in it. It is perhaps trite to say—I think I have said this before—but were there to be criminal proceedings, that could undoubtedly impact on when an inquest could take place. However, I do not think that it has any impact on the timing of my making an application to the Court for it to order inquests to take place if it is so minded.

Phone Hacking

Debate between David Hanson and Dominic Grieve

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that he knows all this. He might know all of it, but it is worth reminding the House of some of the salient facts of the inquiry if we are to have an informed debate. I apologise to him if he feels that it is otiose.

In those circumstances, the arrests of Glenn Mulcaire and Clive Goodman took place in August 2006 for unlawful interception of phone messages. Searching Mulcaire’s business premises, police uncovered further evidence of interception relating to a number of other individuals not related to the royal household. As the hon. Member for Rhondda, if not the House, will be aware, Mulcaire and Goodman pleaded guilty— Goodman only to the charges relating to the royal family and Mulcaire to five further counts relating to individuals in the public eye—and were sentenced in January 2007 to four months and six months in prison respectively. It is worth bearing in mind that although I know of the hon. Gentleman’s interest in the matter, after January 2007 matters remained essentially quiet until July 2009, when the media reported fresh allegations relating to further cases of phone hacking.

The Crown Prosecution Service reviewed the material provided to it by the police in order to satisfy itself that appropriate actions had been taken in respect of the material. The CPS was satisfied that the prosecution approach to charging and prosecution was proper and that it would not be appropriate to reopen the cases against Mr Goodman and Mr Mulcaire. It also concluded that any new information should be reported to the police for further investigation.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It has been reported in the news this afternoon that the former Director of Public Prosecutions, the noble Lord Macdonald, has been appointed by News International to advise it on its dealings with the police at this time. Does the Attorney-General think that that is appropriate, and has he any thoughts from the Government on that development?

[The Attorney-General]

As I am not sure that what the right hon. Gentleman says is correct, I am not minded to comment on it. My understanding of the matter was that Lord Macdonald had been appointed by News of the World to help with the disclosure process to the police. That is a matter for Lord Macdonald in accordance with the professional code of conduct of the Bar. [Interruption.] I can assure the House that I do not think the notes I have just received are necessarily of particular help to me in answering the right hon. Gentleman’s question. He raises a perfectly legitimate point, but without knowing—which I do not—the circumstances in which Lord Macdonald might or might not be involved with advising News of the World in this matter, I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment further.

[Mr Hanson]

Will the Attorney-General give me an assurance that he will look into this matter when he leaves the Chamber today? I, as the then Police Minister, made comments in good faith on 14 July of that year about the DPP’s approach to the case. It is important that there should be clarity on all issues when we consider such matters.

[The Attorney-General]

I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says and I am happy to go away and consider it. As I have said, a lawyer’s involvement in any matter must ultimately be reconciled with the professional code of conduct and the question of whether any conflict of interest exists. Beyond that, I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman when I have had an opportunity to consider the matter.

Before we were diverted by the subject of Lord Macdonald, I was mentioning the fact that the media reported fresh allegations in 2009. In November 2010, the Metropolitan police approached the CPS for advice about the prospects of bringing further charges. Owing to the non-co-operation of witnesses and the lack of further evidence, however, criminal charges could not be brought. The Metropolitan police asked the News of the World for any new material in January of this year.

Following developments in the civil courts, the CPS then agreed to review everything the Metropolitan police have in their possession to ascertain whether there was any material that could form evidence in any future criminal prosecution for phone hacking. On 26 January this year, in view of the seriousness of the allegations and the fresh information that had come to light, the Metropolitan police announced a new investigation. That investigation, Operation Weeting, is led by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers of the specialist crime directorate, which is an entirely different unit within the Metropolitan police from that which carried out the original investigation in 2006.

The Metropolitan police now have 45 experienced police officers working on the case, which illustrates how seriously they are taking this new investigation. It is precisely because of the new investigation that new information is progressively coming to light that is the subject on which the debate requested by the hon. Member for Rhondda has been based. As the Prime Minister has said, the police must be allowed to pursue their criminal investigation in the most vigorous way they can to get to the truth. I simply say to the House that that is one reason why Ministers will not be making pronouncements in detail on some of the matters that the hon. Member for Rhondda has raised.

It is right to point out, as the hon. Gentleman has done, that quite a large number of inquiries have been taking place. We have a CPS review, we have the police pursuing their investigations, we have had a number of activities by the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges and we have also had work done by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I hope that the House may derive from all that some reassurance that the issues surrounding these allegations are being taken very seriously. I take them very seriously and it is essential that no stone should be left unturned in ensuring that anyone who is guilty of any criminal offence is brought to justice and that the public are provided, at the end of day, with the truth about has happened and about the lessons needed to ensure that there is no repetition in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Hanson and Dominic Grieve

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

3. What the outcomes were of the Crown Prosecution Service’s review of its violence against women strategy.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The Crown Prosecution Service’s violence against women strategy, 2008 to 2011, was published in June 2008. No review has been carried out to date. Quarterly assurance is provided by the voluntary sector, and annual reports are published. The assessment of the benefits of the strategy on violence against women prosecutions will be made in 2011.

[Mr Hanson]

I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister accept that the concerted effort of the previous, Labour Government led to a 64% reduction in the incidence of domestic violence according to the British crime survey? Will he therefore ensure that potential cuts of 25% in CPS funding and his Department will not lead to a lesser focus on domestic violence issues, which are important not just to women, but to the whole community?

[The Attorney-General]

I have no reason to disagree in any way with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He is right that, for example, successful prosecutions from charge to conviction have significantly increased, from 65% in 2006-07 to 72% in 2009-10, against an increasing volume of such prosecutions. The number of discontinued cases has fallen, from 26% in 2006-07 to 21% in 2009-10. Similar statistics apply to rape cases. Although there will clearly be financial constraints on all Departments, let me reassure him that it is certainly my intention and that of the Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure that the CPS can maintain its record of momentum and good progress in this area.