Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nicholas Dakin and Rupa Huq
Tuesday 22nd April 2025

(6 days, 11 hours ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicholas Dakin Portrait Sir Nicholas Dakin
- View Speech - Hansard - -

I very much praise the work that Unlocked Graduates has done over many years. Unfortunately, when the contract was let previously, Unlocked Graduates was unhappy to progress with the contract. That is the situation. Obviously, these things are very difficult, but I am very happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss matters further.

Rupa Huq Portrait Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

18. What steps she is taking to increase the provision of legal aid services.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Nicholas Dakin and Rupa Huq
Rupa Huq Portrait Dr Huq
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Q I am surprised nobody in this room has heard of that case, because it was on the TV news at the time. It was at the Old Bailey and was overturned by the Court of Appeal.

My question is about to what extent you think that clause 3 could risk criminalising thought without action—people may not have to do anything. That is what that case hinged on.

Richard Atkinson: If I am honest, I am not sure I have a view on that at the moment. I think that is the most honest answer I can give.

Nicholas Dakin Portrait Nic Dakin
- Hansard - -

Q The provisions under clause 17 and schedule 2 will bring terrorism offences under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in line with those under the Terrorism Act 2000, in relation to biometric data. To what extent do you think it is necessary and proportionate to retain biometric data for individuals who are arrested for terrorist offences but not charged?

Richard Atkinson: It is an area of concern for us because, clearly, it is right that individuals’ data is not routinely withheld, and we have looked at that in the past. I do not think I am qualified to answer on the need to extend the period, but your question very much enunciates our position, which is that any extension of time periods needs to be justified by objective evidence. I know the Committee were asking for examples of that from the two earlier witnesses. Before one could be satisfied of the need to extend periods of retention of biometric data, there would need to be a case made out. I certainly have not seen it. It was not something that could readily be articulated this morning, and great caution needs to be expressed before extending the periods of the retention of that data without an evidential base.