Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL

Debate between Andrew Turner and Dominic Grieve

Friday 26th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Grieve]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend—that is precisely the point to which I was about to come.

I have not the slightest doubt that the legal framework exists to take action in support of the Iraqi Government, at their request, to deal with ISIL. I am clear that the legal base is present for that, and the House should not be concerned on that issue. Equally, so far as action in Syria is concerned, should the Government ever be minded to pursue that option and the House to debate it, the preconditions for action in Syria are also present: first, because of the right to self-defence of the Iraqi Government when some of the attacks are clearly coming across the Syrian border; and secondly, because of the doctrine of humanitarian necessity in terms of intervention to protect the population in northern Syria from ISIL’s attacks—something we have seen in recent days in the Kurdish villages by the Turkish border.

In his speech, the Leader of the Opposition rightly raised the question whether, on that latter point, there should be a resolution of the United Nations Security Council. There is no doubt that it has an important role to play in issues concerning humanitarian necessity, but the Government will at least have to consider whether any application, if it were to come, to the UN for such a resolution has any prospect of success. The ability to intervene, I have no doubt, exists, even if no such resolution is present.

However, the Leader of the Opposition’s comments and those of other Members highlight one of the really important challenges we face. The fact that the framework for legal intervention is present will not necessarily mean that the intervention that subsequently takes place meets the criteria of lawfulness. It has to be reasonable, necessary and proportionate to the aim that has to be achieved. In that, I can well understand the Government’s making a distinction between the situation in Syria and that in Iraq. Even in the context of Iraq, there are some pretty serious challenges. Some of our partners—including particularly the Iraqi Government—have a rather chequered human rights record. We must avoid being party to the ill treatment of prisoners, to the massacre of prisoners, or indeed to any action on the battlefield that could take place that we might facilitate by our aerial intervention. I trust that the Government have looked carefully at that in finding ways of co-operating.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Grieve]

I will not; I must finish.

The moment one looks at that issue, it becomes immediately apparent why the situation in Syria is likely to be so much more challenging. Having made those comments, I would like to emphasise that the fact that there are challenges—be they legal or ethical—is not a reason for doing nothing. Precisely because we have a tradition in this country of observing the rule of law and of maintaining human rights, even in a battlefield context, and because we have an interest in ensuring that civil society is facilitated in an area that has been so singularly deprived of it, we have a duty to take action. What this motion enables us to do is to give the Government the framework in which that can occur.

John Downey

Debate between Andrew Turner and Dominic Grieve

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the hurt of the relatives of victims and, indeed, if they survived, of the victims themselves is a matter of which the House should be well aware. I suspect that it is right to say that there are very few Members who do not know people personally who have been affected by the violence in Northern Ireland. I certainly do.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s other points, the best course of action, if I may recommend it to him, rather than asking me questions which, in truth, within my responsibility, I cannot answer, is to initiate the things he wishes. There is a wider review as to what has happened, but first he may wish to see what the police ombudsman has to say in the internal inquiry report. Then, of course, the House is a Chamber in which these matters may be debated.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Who approved the letter en bloc or individually?

[The Attorney-General]

I choose my words to my hon. Friend with care because, over time, the letters may have been approved in slightly different ways. Let us be quite clear: these letters were ultimately the responsibility of the Governments in office at the time at which they were sent. I will not accept the suggestion that it was otherwise. That is a completely distinct issue from that of where mistakes may have been made in the factual analysis before the letter was sent.

Voting by Prisoners

Debate between Andrew Turner and Dominic Grieve

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

Well, it was one of the reasons it took that view.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that we do not want a discriminatory rule on what we took a view on, but that they want an absolute rule?

[The Attorney-General]

I hope that I have understood my hon. Friend correctly. I do not think that the Court has suggested that there should be an absolute rule. In fact, it has made it quite clear in that and later judgments that there could be substantial flexibility for national legislatures to set their own criteria, which could be variable. For example, leaving a blanket prohibition to one side, it might be desired that a prohibition could be imposed after a particular period, so that someone could be banned from voting if sentenced to one, two, three or four years. The criteria could be different if the judiciary were given complete discretion over whether people should be banned and when such a ban should be applied. So there is a whole range of possible variants available to a legislature, if it were minded to consider them, that might well satisfy the Court’s concerns.

I am mindful of the strong views held in the House on this matter. On the maintenance of a blanket prohibition on all sentenced prisoners, the House should note that the Hirst case was followed by two other cases. This was the cause of my criticism of Labour’s dilatoriness on this matter. The first was Frodl v. Austria, in which the Court found that a ban on voting imposed on people sentenced to more than 12 months was wrong. The second case was Greens and M.T., in which the Court appeared to make it clear that it wanted the United Kingdom to enact some form of legislation.