Charles Kennedy

Liberal Democrats | Ross Skye & Lochaber

Kennedy: PM Must Put Citizens’ Liberties Before His Own Political Pride

Charles Kennedy, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, highlighted two issues of principle that he suggested could resolve the disagreement over the current anti-terrorist legislation: ‘that it’s the standard of proof that must be on the balance of probability - not just reasonable suspicion. And second, surely an individual always has the right to know what exactly are the charges against them when they are having their liberties withdrawn?’. And, on this matter, he asked the Prime Minister whether it was ‘time that he began to put the fundamental liberties of the British people before his own political pride?’

---

Transcript of exchange.

Mr Kennedy: Mr Speaker, if the Prime Minister is acknowledging his climb down over judicial scrutiny and saying it was never an issue of principle, can I remind him that when we had the discussion just three weeks ago, both he and the Home Secretary were making very clear to us that the issue of principle, for them, was that the executive should take the decision, not the judge [interference]. Can I ask him again why he now cannot acknowledge the two outstanding issues of principle that perhaps would resolve this matter. First of all, that it’s the standard of proof that must be on the balance of probability - not just reasonable suspicion. And second, surely an individual always has the right to know what exactly are the charges against them when they are having their liberties withdrawn?

Prime Minister: As I said earlier I do not accept the change to the burden of proof - I simply don't accept it. The advice we had on this is absolutely clear that it would be detrimental to our ability to have powers that are between the ability to survey people and to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. Now in our view the burden of proof is necessary as it is. And I once again say to the Right Honourable Gentleman and the House: the fact is we are debating these issues as we often are in circumstances where, very properly, people are concerned about civil liberties. Should any terrorist act occur there will not be any debate about civil liberties. There will be a debate about the advice to government received and whether they followed it. I’ve got the advice, I intend to follow it.

Mr Kennedy: Mr Speaker, surely the Prime Minister should not be ignoring the fact that the former Lord Chancellor, the former Master of the Rolls, the former Cabinet Secretary, the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police do not agree with the arguments that he is putting forward. And I do not think that they can be dismissed as irresponsible voices in the land. These are people of broad-based experience. Surely it’s time, Mr Speaker, that the Prime Minister did rediscover his reverse gear again on this matter. And isn’t it time that he began to put the fundamental liberties of the British people before his own political pride?

Prime Minister: [interference] condemn these people as irresponsible – of course I don’t at all - they genuinely take a different point of view. On the other hand, s/one like sjs, so on any of these issues there will be conflicting views I’m afraid. The question is; what is the right thing to do? Now he talked about the civil liberties of the subject: I think the civil liberties of the subject are extremely important. But I think there is one basic civil liberty which is the right to life. I think the freedom from terrorists is the most important consideration that we have to have uppermost in our minds. And for those reasons –I’m very sorry that his cannot support us in this – but for those reasons we will have to put forward this legislation and the House will have to make up its mind.