Disturbances (London)

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have statements by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and a heavily subscribed Budget debate to follow, so there is pressure on time. Short questions and short answers are essential.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

It is incumbent on those of us willing to criticise the police when they make mistakes, as they did during the G20 protest, to step in and correct the record when inaccurate and unjust criticisms are made, as happened over the weekend. The simple fact is that few police forces in the world could have delivered the peaceful outcome for the vast majority of 200,000, 300,000, 400,000 or 500,000 demonstrators during a march in which none was harmed or hurt, and in which all were able to exercise their democratic right properly. Similarly, the police were able to use intelligence to make the arrests to which the Home Secretary referred. However, I hope she will not pay any attention to the sort of thing said in The Times this morning by a retired police officer, when he called on her to use “dawn raids” and “snatch squads”. That is the sort of thing we might expect in Tripoli, not London.

[Mrs May]

It is important that the police have the powers they need to deal with such violent incidents. Of course, however, a balance always needs to be struck to ensure that the powers that the police use do not inadvertently damage the civil liberties that we hold so dear in this country. It is right that the police have operational independence—that is crucial—but we need to set the right legal framework for them. My right hon. Friend is right. I thought that the way in which the police dealt with the demonstrations and the march on Saturday was a fine example of, and a tribute to, the British model of policing. We do indeed have the finest police force in the world.

Counter-terrorism Review

David Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I note the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made. On the issue of the admissibility of evidence in court, the Government will produce a Green Paper later this year—some time in the summer—that will deal with the whole question of the use of closed evidence in legal proceedings. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will look forward to that with great interest. On his first point, I merely say that both parties in the coalition Government went into the election absolutely committed to the need to rebalance our national security and our civil liberties. The package I have announced today does just that.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I welcome unreservedly the Home Secretary’s comments on the reduction of detention without charge, the curbing of the misuse of section 44 stop-and-search powers and, indeed, the reduction in local authority surveillance. On the contentious issue of control orders, she knows as well as I do that these have acted as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. Indeed, as Lord Macdonald said in his report:

“The evidence obtained by the Review has plainly demonstrated that the… control order regime acts as an impediment to prosecution.”

Can she therefore tell the House why she did not accept the proposal put to her of using police bail, which would have given her all the control she currently has—but within the judicial system rather than in denial of it?

[Mrs May]

I think that my right hon. Friend is aware that there are certain aspects of this on which he and I take a different view. I welcome his support for a number of the measures we have introduced today. On the issue of the impact of control orders, the aspects of the counter-terrorism legislation that led to most concern among communities were the 28 days’ pre-charge detention and the use of section 44 stop-and-search powers. In fact, it was the stop-and-search powers that many people in communities up and down country were most concerned about; and they were also concerned about the use of counter-terrorism legislation by local authorities in respect of matters that clearly had nothing to do with counter-terrorism, such as dog fouling and whether or not children had the right to go to a particular school in a particular catchment area. The package produced today and the measures introduced to replace control orders will, I believe, provide the necessary structure and powers to ensure that we are able to prevent and disrupt terrorist activity while at the same time ensuring that we put every effort into prosecuting individuals. As I said, prosecution must be the preferred option.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

David Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow both my right hon. and charming Friends, the Home Secretary and the deputy—sorry, shadow—Home Secretary. I am sorry; that was a Freudian slip, but almost a deliberate one.

Let me begin by wishing you a happy Bastille day, Mr Deputy Speaker. It seems appropriate, given the subject that we are discussing. I shall not recommend that we storm the barricades, but I do intend to divide the House on the motion. I tell Members that now, so that it is clear where we are going. We may not trouble the scorers greatly in the Lobby against the Government, but, given the historic role of the House in defending the liberties of our monarch’s subjects, I think it important that a policy which, whatever its rights and wrongs, has so far led to the imprisonment of three innocent people for 28 days is one on which the House should decide explicitly and not on the nod.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s intention to have a six-month review of counter-terrorism policy, but I say to her that, in my view, there is plenty of very clear evidence to demonstrate that 28 days is too many. I will also go through some of the points the shadow Home Secretary raised in his speech. These are not just matters of principle; they are matters of high principle and hard fact.

The shadow Home Secretary said he recognised that there are concerns that an authoritarian approach to counter-terrorism policy might have the deleterious effect of creating more radicalised Islamists—more potential terrorists—than a more traditional liberal British approach would. That is clearly the case. The hard fact supporting that assertion was given by the head of MI5 in his last speech to the country, when he said that there are 2,000 persons of interest—those are his words—to MI5, which is a 25% increase on the previous year’s figure. If the increase continues at that rate, no amount of security will defend us from the consequences of our own actions.

Radicalisation is, of course, created by more than just authoritarian policies, but such policies do drive it. Anybody who talks to the leaders of Muslim communities up and down the country will know that—they will pick that message up time and again. At the forefront of that trend is the 28-day policy. In relation to home-grown terrorism, detention without charge is the biggest recruiting sergeant for our opponents.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was interesting that the shadow Home Secretary did not choose to mention the threat we currently face from republican terrorism coming from the north of Ireland? In view of the fact that we are approaching the internment day anniversary of 8 August, would it not be an extremely powerful statement to reduce the detention period from 28 to 14 days now, rather than to wait until later?

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good case, and he knows Northern Ireland terrorism better than most people in this House. He also knows that internment was one of the best recruiting sergeants for the Provisional IRA and others in that period. So yes, he is right.

The second hard fact I want to draw on relates to the reasons given to me for 42 and 90 days by John Reid, the predecessor as Home Secretary of both my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State and my friend the shadow Secretary of State. When John Reid briefed me, as shadow Home Secretary, on his Government’s proposals for those periods of detention, the most telling argument he had—to be fair, it was telling—was the prospect of the British agencies being overwhelmed by multiple prospective attacks at the same time. The circumstances he listed were as follows: multiple plots against multiple targets at multiple locations, with not all the information involved being in our control—perhaps some of it was coming from foreign intelligence agencies such as the Pakistani service—and with the plot already starting to be carried out, so that it was necessary to move quickly.

That was the case the then Home Secretary made, and within a month or so of his briefing me on it we almost had a rehearsal in Operation Overt, the Heathrow plot, to which the shadow Home Secretary referred. It was thought at the time that 10 aircraft had been targeted, although it now turns out that the true number was seven, as well as multiple locations—there were many suspects at the beginning in at least three different locations. There were also concerns about gaining access to some of the houses and other places where evidence was thought to be located, and foreign evidence was involved, too. It was a facsimile of the case John Reid had described.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although we accept that radicalisation may not be created by one action or one piece of legislation, having pre-charge detention of 28 days compromises civil liberties and that, for some at least, it is one step towards radicalisation—as is the Prevent agenda’s national indicator 35, which targeted the Muslim community specifically? We need to make sure that we do not compromise the democratic process and that we engage all communities.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. This is the most symbolic of the restrictions of our civil rights, and the one seen by Muslim communities in this country as being targeted on them. It is not intended to be, but that is the way it is seen.

What actually happened as a result of Operation Overt and the Heathrow plot? As the shadow Home Secretary said, six people were held beyond 14 days; five people were held for 27 or 28 days, and at the end of that process it turned out that three were innocent. I used the word “innocent” when the previous Government were in power, and I was almost shouted down. I mean innocent: no control order, no surveillance, no open file—the police thought they were innocent. When I obtained that information I had with me as my witnesses my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and the Attorney-General. What was thought was therefore very plain.

[Alan Johnson]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very effective case. Can he explain why, in last year’s debate on this issue, he voted for the continuation of 28 days? His party abstained but he made the point in that debate that he could not accept 14 days, which he is now advocating, precisely because he knew inside details of Operation Overt and what happened at Heathrow. What changed his mind during the ensuing year?

[Mr Davis]

It took us time to get to the bottom of the facts. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman’s predecessor as Home Secretary to give us the information I am talking about, we were not given it. I asked for it three times, and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton was there on at least one or two of those occasions. This is one of the problems with the Home Office: it mouths the words “justice must be seen to be done”, but it does not live by them in terms of transparency.

Let me turn to the remaining two people who were detained, because some further facts have come to light. We were told at the time, “Here is a serious case and we have to go to 27 or 28 days—right to the edge—in order to bring a case against them.” However, we pressed the matter and asked when the evidence was obtained to charge those individuals. It was obtained not at 27 or 28 days, but before 14 days—if I remember correctly, on day three and day 12. It was perfectly possible to charge those people before the 14-day limit; now we find, however, that they were charged on day 28. They spent nine months in prison on remand, and even in that time not enough evidence was found to convict them. One of the cases was thrown out by the judge after hearing it—it did not even go to a jury. The other was rejected unanimously by the jury and the individual concerned was exonerated. It was not a soft jury: the same jury convicted three other terrorists in the same trial. So, we had five people, every single one of whom was innocent.

That is what our policy has done so far and why it is a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. It might not make somebody a terrorist, but it does make the communities concerned less likely to co-operate, less likely to provide information, and less likely to help us to prevent the next terrorist attack. That is why the policy is completely counter-productive.

Let me turn to hard fact No. 3: the simple list put out by the previous Government and the present Government showing why we need this provision for another six months. We are told how difficult terrorist cases are. What did we do when we were trying to be consensual with the previous Government? Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats agreed with—in fact, we thought up—the idea of acts preparatory to terrorism. We supported the idea of terrorist training being an offence, so we made matters easier in that regard.

The next argument was, “We have lots of evidence and it might be encrypted—it might be in code.” We had to remind the previous Government that when they passed the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, they made it an offence to withhold the encryption key, so if the evidence is in code, belongs to the suspect and he does not provide the key, we have got him for five years anyway. Therefore, that argument went out the window.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that in cases involving encrypted data, 28 days, six months or even a year would not necessarily be long enough if there were no access to encryption codes, so such a detention period would not help anyway.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend—I suppose he is my hon. Friend—is exactly right. When we heard those arguments, we thought that, with the prospect of the terrorism levels being, as the shadow Home Secretary says, very high, the then Government would have acted quickly. What was worrying was that that RIPA requirement, passed in 2000, was not brought into effect until 2007—two years after the 7/7 bombings. So we did not even give what was already on the statute book as a weapon for the police to use.

The other thing the then Government said to us was, “If you charge people, you cannot interview them after charge.” In 2005, we volunteered to amend that, but the Government did not make that change in the 2006 legislation. They put the provision in the 2008 legislation, which is not even in force yet. If we are serious about taking this on, we should deal with the things that actually attack the problems that we are trying to address. We should not create other problems for ourselves.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the recent statements by the Lord Chief Justice on such matters? He has been very clear about the need to protect the common law, so the whole issue of habeas corpus, which is an integral part of this, needs to be reinforced. What we need is fair trials, due process and habeas corpus, irrespective of the Human Rights Act 1998.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend goes, as usual, right to the core of the issue. This is about habeas corpus; it is about the most fundamental British freedom there is.

When we have got through all the things I have mentioned, we come to what happens on day 28. I want to be helpful to the police. They might say, “I have somebody in my control who I am sure is a terrorist. I know that from everything I know. I can’t quite prove it, but I think I will get the evidence if I have got him for another few days.” What do we do then? We actually have something that we do then—it is called the threshold test. The test for charging somebody is allowable—we are allowed to charge them if we are convinced that they are guilty and that we will find the information shortly.

I am not going to name the individual, but at one point in this process I asked to see the head of counter-terrorism and I talked to him about that. What shocked me was that he did not even understand the threshold test. Again, I cite my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton as a witness, because he was at that same meeting. It is terrifying that our own forces did not know the weapons that they had at their command.

Right across the board, every piece of evidence to support the case for the provision falls down. The most fundamental one, which has been mentioned, although it was rather mocked by the shadow Home Secretary, is the approach of other countries. None of the problems that I have described as the case in support of 28 days is faced by us alone; every other common law authority has the same problems. Yet America charges in two days and indicts in 10, Canada does that in one day, New Zealand does it in two days and South Africa does it in two days. The nearest arrangement to ours is indicative, because it is Australia, which does it in 12 days. Its 12-day provision was a mistake, but 12 days is what it was. However, as we stand here, its Senate is taking through a law to reduce that to eight days, and the only controversy in Australia is about whether it should be lower, not about whether it should be higher.

The simple fact is that our policy is built on political machismo, not on effectiveness. What we have to do is recognise what all the other civilised countries in the world are doing and go in the right direction, which is to cut 28 days.

Counter-terrorism and Security Powers

David Davis Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Of all the things that I have seen in the couple of months since I became Home Secretary, the thing that has most struck me and surprised me has been the complete unwillingness of the Labour party to recognise what much of the counter-terrorism legislation that it introduced, and on occasions the misuse of that legislation, have done to civil liberties in this country. It has surprised me because I hoped that, in opposition, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and his colleagues would have taken the opportunity to sit back and look at their records in government and wonder why in the past few years so many people, including the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, have been raising questions about the counter-terrorism legislation that the previous Government introduced. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to use the time in opposition so far to undertake that exercise.

In the counter-terrorism review, we are looking at precisely the balance that the right hon. Gentleman talks about between collective security and individual freedom. We want to ensure that we strike the right balance between collective security and individual freedom and not the wrong balance that we believe the previous Government introduced in a number of areas.

The right hon. Gentleman asked for some statistics. I can tell him that 235 people were convicted of terrorism-related offences between 11 September 2001 and 31 December 2009, and a further 22 defendants were awaiting trial as at 31 December 2009. For the 28 terrorism-related trials completed in the 12 months to the end of last year, 93% were convicted, with just over half pleading guilty, and convictions included six life sentences. At the end of December 2009, 131 people were in prison for terrorism, extremist offences or charges relating to terrorism or extremism.

I am certainly not making light of the threat that exists in this country and, as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, nor did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he came to the House to make his statement on detainees and the publication of guidance to our security services. We recognise the level of threat in the United Kingdom, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman and members of the Labour party that our fight against those threats is not aided by legislation that is misused or that people feel encroaches on civil liberties.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I could suggest legislation in which the Labour Government had ridden roughshod over civil liberties and then said they had not done so in relation to the detention of terror suspects before charging. I have to say to him that trying to introduce 90 days of pre-charge detention was indeed riding roughshod over our civil liberties. The review will look to ensure that our counter-terrorism legislation is appropriate to the level of threat and provides our police and our security and intelligence agencies with the powers that they need to combat that threat, while ensuring that we can enjoy our ancient civil liberties.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I welcome the review unreservedly and in particular the appointment of Lord Macdonald to assist with it. That is a very good sign indeed.

However, may I raise with my right hon. Friend two questions that arise from what she has just said? First, she listed the six items that will be reviewed and I hope that at some point someone will look in aggregate at the overall effect of an authoritarian approach to terrorism, which itself creates a response in terms of radicalisation. Secondly, on a more tactical basis, my right hon. Friend said that she wants the review to be open and transparent and that she wants to involve Liberty. At least one organisation has approached me to say that it has been unable to find out from the Home Office how it can make submissions to the review. Will she make sure that that is dealt with promptly?

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments about the review. I will of course ensure that information is available from the Home Office as to how organisations and others can make comments as part of their submissions to the review.

I take the point that it is important to look at the collective impact of legislation. We will be looking at the six individual areas, but as part of that process we shall look at the overall impact of legislation. It is that balance that is so important for us to achieve—ensuring that the legislation is not brought into disrepute because of the overall impact or because it is felt that it encroaches on important liberties.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Section 44)

David Davis Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

First, may I echo the comments that the shadow Home Secretary has made about the important work that is done by the police and by our security services? That, of course, was made absolutely clear by the Prime Minister in the statement in relation to detainees that he made in the House earlier in the week, and I echo those comments. Our police forces do sterling work for us and they go out there every day, dealing with difficult circumstances and are—we should never forget this—prepared to put their lives on the line for our safety.

Yes, I can confirm that the number of stop and searches made under the section 44 and section 43 powers has reduced significantly over time. That should not, though, leave us under any illusion that there are not still concerns, not just in relation to the European Court judgment but concerns more generally in the UK about the use of those powers; that is why, as a coalition Government, we were committed to reviewing those powers in any case in our review of counter-terrorism legislation. I believe it is absolutely right to do so.

The shadow Home Secretary asked about other options that were being looked at. Those will be considered within the counter-terrorism review. The purpose of making this statement today was to ensure that police forces have the operational guidance that they obviously need, so that they know what they should be doing now given the European Court judgment. I remind the shadow Home Secretary that I have responded to that judgment, which is clear about the two points—that these powers should be used only when they are necessary rather than expedient, and that there should be a degree of suspicion in order for the powers to be used. It is exactly that which I am now implementing in the statement and in the changes that are being made.

The shadow Home Secretary asks about restricting the use of section 44 to vehicles rather than individuals. Section 43 allows for the stop and search of individuals already with the reasonable suspicion attached to it. He mentioned Northern Ireland. I certainly do not in any way underestimate the importance of these powers in relation to Northern Ireland. I have been in contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and consultations have taken place in Northern Ireland on the use of these powers, but I remind the shadow Home Secretary that there are various other powers that can be used, as set out in the Northern Ireland-specific legislation. For example, under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, the PSNI can stop and question individuals to ascertain identity and movements, and can stop and search people in vehicles for munitions and transmitters, and there are a variety of other powers that can be used by the PSNI.

Finally, the shadow Home Secretary said to me that I, as Home Secretary, need to understand. I think what the shadow Home Secretary needs to understand is the degree of concern that there has been about the use of these section 44 powers under the Terrorism Act 2000—the degree of concern that did arise, not just initially from the way in which they were being used by the police, but a continuing concern about the impact on our civil liberties. I make no apology for the fact—[Interruption.] I believe the shadow Home Secretary was looking at a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and muttering about “their obsession”. I have to say to the shadow Home Secretary that a desire to protect our civil liberties is not an obsession; it is something that we throughout this House should want to do, regardless of political party. I believe it is the duty of Government to balance the need to give the police the powers they need to protect us, with the need to defend our civil liberties, and I believe that is what the statement does.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

May I commend the Home Secretary for coming to the House to say what she has said today and particularly for her decision to adopt a necessary, rather than expedient, use of these powers? This is a reflection of the excessive use of counter-terrorism powers by a number of forces throughout the country. In her review of these powers, will she look at their different use in various parts of the country? We know from the London and Glasgow bombings that terrorism is not confined to England, yet the number of uses of the power in England and Wales was well over 100,000 in the past calendar year; in Scotland, it was under 100.

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments on the statement and for his suggestion, which I am certainly happy to consider. He is absolutely right: the use of the powers among forces has been quite different—not just among England and Wales and Scotland, but between police forces in England and Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Davis Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

4. Whether she plans to renew the legislation which permits terrorist suspects to be detained for 28 days without charge.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

6. Whether she plans to renew the legislation which permits terrorist suspects to be detained for 28 days without charge.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Government laid an order last Thursday to renew the existing 28-day maximum period for pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects for six months, while we conduct a review of counter-terrorism measures and programmes, including pre-charge detention. Both coalition parties are clear that the 28-day period should be a temporary measure, and one that we shall be looking to reduce over time.

[Mrs May]

I am sure that my hon. Friend has followed the old adage about not asking a question to which one does not know the answer. The answer is that, since 2007, no one has been detained for 28 days. Before that date, a number of people were detained for periods of between 14 and 28 days. As I made clear in my opening answer, we see the 28-day period as a temporary measure, and we are committed to reducing it over time.

[Mr Davis]

I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. Will she give the House an undertaking that the deferral of the decision on 28 days does not indicate any weakening of her determination to constrain not only the excessive length of detention without charge but the other excesses introduced by the Labour Government—namely, house arrest, internal exile, secret trials and all the other issues associated with control orders?

[Mrs May]

Of course, my right hon. Friend has a distinguished record of fighting for these civil liberties issues. I can assure him that one of the key reasons for introducing the 28-days order for six months was that it would enable us to look at the pre-charge detention period alongside a number of other issues relating to counter-terrorism legislation that we wish to consider. These include control orders, and stop-and-search procedures under section 44. We want to review the various measures and look at them in the round.

Identity Documents Bill

David Davis Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Alan Johnson]

The TUC is a lot of things, but it is not a paymaster. I was not aware that Brendan Barber had said that, but if that is his view he is perfectly entitled to express it. I am setting out the views of the current Home Secretary and the Conservative party on Second Reading on 20 December 2004 of the Bill whose measures they now seek to repeal. Indeed, they are not just seeking to repeal that legislation, but describing in extraordinarily derogatory terms anyone who supported it.

I quoted our precise manifesto commitment in 2005. We were in the course of carrying out that commitment, and everyone recognised that it would be a long process, but it began with the Tories’ enthusiastic support at the 2005 general election, and ended with their bitter opposition. How do we explain the Conservative party’s change from hard-headed pragmatists to the political wing of Liberty? In respect of the issues that galvanised the Conservatives to act in the 1996 Queen’s Speech and support the Identity Cards Bill on Second Reading in 2004, the only change is that the problems that they sought to address have become more acute.

The mantra of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats is civil liberties, but the Home Secretary should remember that when we talk about civil liberties—our basic freedoms—we are not talking solely about the rights of individuals but about the rights of society as a whole. We are talking about the right to be able to travel freely, the right to have access to efficient and effective public services, and the right to live our lives free from crime. ID cards, biometric passports and the national identity register that supported them were designed precisely to protect those freedoms, but at the same time to help to increase security—the security of each individual’s identity, the security of our borders and, yes, an added layer of security in the fight against terrorism.

The Home Secretary might like to be aware, because she mentioned it, that it was not me who first pointed out the link with terrorism—it was the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is, I confess, not normally guilty of any inconsistency. During the Second Reading debate in 2004, he said, as shadow Home Secretary at this very Dispatch Box:

“I would not have countenanced ID cards before 11 September. After that, however, I accept that we must consider them. After 11 September, it is incumbent on all of us to examine carefully any measures that might enhance the nation’s security. Identity cards introduced properly and effectively may help to do that.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 1953.]

That is what he said as shadow Home Secretary.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend—I will call him that, because he knows our relationship—is carefully not quoting the rest of the speech or saying what actually happened. What we did at that time was to give the Government of the day the benefit of the doubt because there had just been some terrorist events that obviously brought the country into some risk. We therefore said, “We will support the Government on this, under five tests”—they were very fond of five tests in those days. The five tests were that the Government could control the cost of the programme, which they did not; protect the privacy of the individual, which they did not; manage it competently, which they did not; protect the security of the data, which they did not; and show its effectiveness against terrorism and crime, which they did not. That is why we opposed it.

[Alan Johnson]

rose—