|

Yesterday in Parliament: EU, Terrorism, proscribed organisations and Local development

Bob Spink (Castle Point) (UKIP): Article 6 of the European Union constitutional treaty states that following ratification:

“The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Government of the Italian Republic”

by each country. Does the Prime Minister intend, if Stuart Wheeler loses his case, to deposit the United Kingdom’s instrument of ratification in Rome—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we would hope to move forward, but we are confident that we will win the case in the courts. We believe that we have the right case and a good case. Let me clear up matters for the House. We wrote to the judge saying that we knew he was considering these matters and we wanted to proceed to ratification. He asked us if we would wait until he had given his judgment. We were happy to do so, and we now know that his judgment will come this week. What that judgment will be is of course a matter for the judge, but we believe that we have a good case, and after that we will proceed to ratification.

Bob says: “The Prime Minister, in responding ‘yes’ to my question, is betraying democracy. The treaty can not be implemented since all 27 countries have not ratified it. It should be left for dead; that is the law. Sending the UK’s ratification to the EU is a shameful act of betrayal of our democracy. This act of political arrogance, in defiance of the majority of British people, matches that of the Conservative, Liberal Labour Parties which each in their own way ratted on their manifesto promise to hold a referendum and to stop the constitutional treaty if British people did not want it.”

-------------------

23 Jun 2008 : Column 80

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (UKIP): I, too, apologise for not being present to hear the Minister’s earlier remarks.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, for raising the issue of intercept evidence, which is an important option that I encourage the Government to consider carefully for the future. Like every speaker so far, I support the motion. I do so because I feel I have a duty to support it.

I represent many thousands of constituents who work in London, which is on the front line of the world terrorist threat. Those people work to keep this country in the manner to which it has become accustomed and they put their lives on the line, so they must look to us in the House to give them the maximum possible protection from that terrorist threat. I would hate to send out a message to the world terrorist community that Great Britain has gone soft on terrorism or in its resolve to take every possible measure to counter terrorism.

All hon. and right hon. Members support the motion. Many of them supported the extension from 28 days’ detention to 42, but some, on principle, did not. Perhaps Front Benchers will use their winding-up speeches to explain why the extension by 14 days to 28 days without charge was right and a principled move, but the extension by 14 days to 42 days is somehow different and wrong in
23 Jun 2008 : Column 94
principle. I see the pragmatic differences, but I do not yet understand and no one has explained to me the difference in principle between those two extensions. I see advantages in the extensions, but I see no difference on principle. I would like an explanation of that.

Mr. Winnick: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not see any principle being involved. Does he not accept that in non-terrorist cases the longest period for which a person can be held—the maximum—is 96 hours, after which they must be released or charged? The increase for terror suspects, which in my view was necessary and justified up to 28 days, is one thing, but it baffles me when he says that going beyond 28 days, perhaps to any figure, makes no difference and that no principle is involved.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because he allows me to make my point again. I see that there is a principle involved, but I do not see the difference in principle in changing 96 hours to 28 days, and from 28 days to 42 days. I do not see the difference in principle in those extensions. That is the point I was making. If he thinks it right to detain people without charge for 28 days, but not for 42, I would like him to meet me afterwards to explain where the principle in that difference lies, because I just do not see it.

I believe that we must send a strong message to the international terrorist community that Britain is not opening its borders for business from those terrorists and that we are retaining our maximum vigilance and our maximum defence for all our constituents, particularly those who work in London and face that terrorist threat.

I would like two simple assurances from the Minister. If we ever see evidence that the 28-day measure, which we are extending tonight, is being abused, I would like the matter to be brought back before the House so we can deal with it. If and when the terrorist threat abates, I would like us to go back to the situation that endured before we introduced 28 days, or indeed 42. I am sure that he will be able to give me those assurances.

-----------

23 Jun 2008 : Column 98

The Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing (Mr. Tony McNulty): I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.

The People’s Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran, or PMOI, is opposed to the Iranian Government…

Bob Spink (Castle Point) (UKIP): The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case, but will he be a little more generous and accept that organisations and people’s views of them change over time? It is Nelson Mandela’s 90th birthday. He had form, according to some people, but went on to advance democracy, freedom and human rights in the way that the PMOI is in Iran. As times change, views can change.

Andrew Mackinlay: Absolutely. That was my case, the case of the other 34 Members of the House of the Commons and the House of Lords, and the case of the Iranian opposition in exile. Things do change, as history tells us. A year before Jomo Kenyatta was invited to Buckingham palace to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, he was described by the Crown’s representative as the prince of darkness and death. People change and get respect. [ Interruption.] Yes, there was also Archbishop Makarios. One day, the people who are in exile will be in government in Tehran and the British Government of the day will be trying to rewrite history, just as the right hon. Lady who led the Conservative party rewrote history when we welcomed Nelson Mandela in Westminster Hall. I have no illusions about this, but I welcome the fact that people change their minds. The
23 Jun 2008 : Column 109
British Government should have been more generous in acknowledging the change in attitude of the Iranian opposition in exile.

Note: Bob was one of the 35 MPs and Lords who have helped force the Government climb down on de-proscribing the PMOI.

-----------

petition
Planning and Development (Essex)
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (UKIP): I acknowledge the need for more housing to meet the uncontrolled immigration that flows from our membership of the costly European federal project, but we are under attack from inappropriate developments of flats without sufficient parking, which in this case will damage the very heart of our community—our ancient St. Mary’s conservation area. I hope that local councillors will accept that the purpose of the conservation area is to conserve it, and reject the application. I congratulate everyone who has signed this excellent petition—they are stars—and, of course, Brian Keeler and Mr. and Mrs. Patel, who organised it, are excellent leaders in our community, and they are to be roundly congratulated on their work and community-spirited actions.

The petition states:

The Petition of Brian Keeler, Mr and Mrs Patel, the residents of Castle Point and others,

Declares that they object to the proposed demolition of the two shops at 1 to 5 High Street Benfleet, to make way for a commercial development with seven 2 bed flats in an unsympathetic and unattractive 2 and 3 storey development above shops, with only seven parking spaces, putting unacceptable pressure on alternative local public parking facilities which are increasingly inadequate, that this development would further spoil the Conservation Area and create unacceptable stress on the existing infrastructure, including roads, schools, rail, doctors, dentists, etc. Further declares that they urge Councillors to reject this development for these and for many other valid planning reasons, and to ensure that this application is decided by Councillors rather than officers, given the importance to the wider community of protecting their unique Conservation Area.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to press Castle Point Borough Council, the three Boyce Ward Councillors and all mainland Councillors in particular, to reject this planning application and to substantially protect the unique St Mary’s Conservation Area.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

Bob also moved a number of motions and placed several Parliamentary questions yesterday.