Human Rights

I take on board the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Our view, and that of my colleague, the leader of the Conservative party, is that the constraints placed on our courts and our Ministers should not be placed on them. Those constraints result from the Chahal case and are reinforced by the Human Rights Act. I shall move on to the case of the Belmarsh detainees. There was no admissible evidence that those individuals, all foreign nationals, had committed a crime under British law for which they could be prosecuted. However, the Home Office made it clear that there was sufficient intelligence material relating to the danger that they posed to our security that a judge was persuaded, under the auspices of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, to detain them. Obviously, there was a strong case for deportation, but because of the Human Rights Act and the nature of our participation in the ECHR, that was not possible. In response to the case of the Belmarsh detainees, what did the Government do? They opted for an illiberal solution—control orders. This is an example of the Human Rights Act undermining existing legislation and of the Government going for an illiberal, draconian solution. There are many other examples of the Human Rights Act hindering the normal enforcement of law and hampering the punishment of criminals. The Minister mentioned the Barry Chambers case. He was the individual who went up on the roof and was brought Kentucky Fried Chicken and other food because if the police had not done so, in their view, they would not have been satisfying his human rights. The Minister may say that that was a stupid case where common sense was not applied, but it is an example of how police forces throughout the country feel that they have one hand tied behind their back because of the risk-averse culture and the need to focus in one direction, rather than concentrating on their job, sorting out law and order in this country and getting tough on criminals.