Tightening up on asylum

On 14 March 2004, Sir David Frost interviewed Lord Falconer, Constitutional Affairs Secretary

Please note "BBC Breakfast with Frost" must be credited if any part of this transcript is used.

Lord Falconer is looking to make the system work well

DAVID FROST: Inevitably, yesterday's key note speech by Tony Blair at his party's spring conference started on terrorism. The Prime Minister reiterated his determination that Britain would be unyielding in the way it confronted the threat posed by al-Qaeda. But does this mean our traditional liberties are in jeopardy? Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, the head of Britain's legal system, has a lot of controversial issues in his in-tray at the moment and, are we comfortable, for instance, that British citizens could be held for two years in extreme conditions then released without charge, because of their suspected involvement with terrorism? Do these issues mean that a fully independent judicial system is even more crucial? Lord Falconer, Charlie, good morning.

LORD FALCONER: Hello David.

DAVID FROST: You've lost weight.

LORD FALCONER: Thank you.

DAVID FROST: Yes. Yes definitely. Definitely. Just start with that - there's so many things to talk about - but just starting with that. Is it inevitable that there are certain freedoms that will need to be curtailed if we are to wage this battle to the full?

LORD FALCONER: Could I, before we start, just all of us, all our thoughts are with the victims and the families of the people in Madrid and with the people of Spain today in the light of what's happened, and we should never forget this involves individual people. As far as the question is concerned, as Tony said in his speech yesterday, we are profoundly threatened by terrorism at the moment and we can't ignore it, we've got to stand up to it, we've got to be clear that we're engaged in a fight against terrorism. What we are defending are our freedoms and as the Spanish Foreign Minister said very movingly earlier in your programme, we are defending the rule of law. We must address what we do in the context of principle, and the main principle must be defending our freedoms which depend upon the rule of law.

DAVID FROST: Talking of the rule of law, of course, one of the subjects that's come up this week is in connection with the Asylum Bill -

LORD FALCONER: Yes.

DAVID FROST: - is that people have said there that we're playing fast and loose with, in fact, the rule of law, because of the two things, the limited number of appeals and there's no appeals tribunal to act on the things. And people are saying that the rule of law - in fact Anthony ¿ went so far as to say the most formidable challenge to the rule of law since eight - 1660, not even 1860, 1660. Do you think those two things are a threat to the rule of law? I mean it's been said by Justice Woolfe and others, do you know what I mean.

LORD FALCONER: Yes, I know exactly what you're saying. What we're trying to do in the Asylum Bill is make the process by which claims are considered that it should be dealt with in a way that is reasonably speedy and make sure there's not scope for abuse. We've also got to ensure, however, that it's properly supervised by the courts in the way that this is done. Now I think a balance can be struck in making sure the system works speedily, works in a way that's not capable of being abused but is also properly supervised. Now, lots of suggestions have been made, we - and lots of concerns have been expressed along the lines that you've suggested - we need to be able to reflect those concerns. We've been listening, and I hope we will be able to reflect the concerns that have been expressed in the Bill that is currently going through Parliament.

DAVID FROST: And Derry Irvine's announced that he's going to attack the Asylum Bill - your predecessor is going to attack the Asylum Bill this week.

LORD FALCONER: Well I think he is among the people who have expressed concerns about the Bill. As I say, what we've got to seek to do is make the system work well, reduce the prospects for abuse, but also ensure that the process is properly supervised by the higher courts, and that's the balance we've to strike.

DAVID FROST: And do you think in fact there can be, when you say that there could be an accommodation, that there could be one or two changes that would make the Asylum Bill acceptable to all, or to most?

LORD FALCONER: I think, I think we need to look at changes that could be made in order to meet the aims that I've described. A speedy system, not capable of abuse, properly supervised by the higher courts, and I think we can do that.

DAVID FROST: And you debating with Derry Irvine is an interesting thought, isn't it?

LORD FALCONER: Well he's a very, very, formidable debater.

DAVID FROST: Constitutional reform, which got beaten earlier this week, the Prime Minister's office said "We have got very clear ideas on how to progress," and people obviously saying everything from on the one hand from the Parliament Act to giving up until after the election, or some compromise on keeping the select committee period down to three months and so on. Which of those is your very clear idea on the way to progress?

LORD FALCONER: Well I think we need to move forward with the Bill. The Bill provides a proper basis for constitutional reform, but a constitutional reform of this sort needs to be properly scrutinised by Parliament - that means both Houses of Parliament. If we can get to a point where it's scrutinised by the Lords, then goes to the Commons, that's obviously the best course. And I hope that means that we can go on with the Bill in Parliament now, with both houses scrutinising it.

DAVID FROST: Because, because they say that in fact if you had to go to the Parliament Act, that would mean that it wouldn't be through in time for a May 2005 election, if you wanted to have one.

LORD FALCONER: Well I think the right course is let's not talk about the Parliament Act, let's talk about Parliament scrutinising it in the normal way and that what we're looking for therefore is a process whereby it can cut, go through the Lords and come out of the Lords into the Commons.

DAVID FROST: So you would like this to go through before, before the next election?

LORD FALCONER: I would, yes.

DAVID FROST: And would you like the Lords reform on the hereditaries to go through before the next election?

LORD FALCONER: Well I would like to see reform of the House of Lords, precisely when will come forward the Bill, that's for another occasion, but constitutional reform to - for example reform the office I currently hold - I think is important because it will actually improve things like, for example, the way the courts are administered.

DAVID FROST: But at the moment the, in terms of Lords reform, obviously there is the basic problem of the Prime Minister wanting it all appointed, other people wanting it all elected, actually you're going to have, if you get this Bill through with the hereditaries, you will actually have an all appointed House of Lords, by accident, and probably there will never be another bill introduced. What about that?

LORD FALCONER: Well the purpose of the - the purpose of the proposals that we've made are to stabilise the current House, whilst looking for a consensus for a way forward at the next stage, because I don't think anybody would agree - I don't think anybody would disagree with the proposition, it's been very, very difficult to identify a consensus on the way forward in relation to Lords reform.

DAVID FROST: What about Guantanamo? I mean the question everybody asks - how is it that these five Brits could be detained for two years, and yet we're able to release them, one immediately, four within 24 hours or whatever, I mean there - how is those, how are those two things in sync?

LORD FALCONER: Well we, the British Government, have been saying that what should happen should be either they be subjected to a trial or returned - that's what's happened in relation to the five individuals. I can't comment on the detailed allegations or suggestions that have been made in the papers today, but what I can say is our position in the British Government has always been clear in relation to that and five of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay are now back.

DAVID FROST: But in that situation then, would you say then the fact that it took us 24 hours to release them, the fact that they were detained for two years was a miscarriage of justice or a human rights abuse?

LORD FALCONER: Well they were detained in the context of what happened at the end of the Afghanistan arrangements. The precise circumstances, I can't comment on. The fact they were interviewed for 24 hours after they got back here doesn't seem at all unsensible to me, but that's a decision for the police. They are now at liberty. We were pressing, as I say, all along for them either to come back or to be subjected to a trial in the United States in accordance with international standards and in relation to that five that's what's happened.

DAVID FROST: Do you think they would have a case for compensation from the US Government, the five who were ¿

LORD FALCONER: I, I would think that's extraordinarily - that's, that's for another day, that issue, it seems to me.

DAVID FROST: What day shall we do that?

LORD FALCONER: Well, I mean it seems to me -

DAVID FROST: Tuesday, how about Tuesday? Are you free on Tuesday?

LORD FALCONER: Well, as far as compensation is concerned, the precise detail of what happened, it's not really possible to comment on.

DAVID FROST: It's too sensitive with our allies?

LORD FALCONER: Well I don't know what happened, we've, we've got an account in the newspapers today, precisely what happened, we don't know.

DAVID FROST: No. And where some of them were saying they were maltreated, or claiming they were maltreated, alleging they were maltreated, I mean we don't know that either, do we?

LORD FALCONER: Well, as I say, we've got an account of it in the papers today, there will be other views relating to what happened. I don't feel able really to comment on precisely what happened.

DAVID FROST: When, with the four that are still there, do we know what is going to happen to them? They are going to be tried under the Guantanamo system?

LORD FALCONER: Discussions continue between the United States Government and the United Kingdom Government in relation to that. As I say, our position in relation to that remains they should have a trial in accordance with international law standards or come back.

DAVID FROST: And in fact, yes so they should - they could a trial - and, because David Blunkett said that the evidence against them is, the phrase he said "Is best used in the United States." I'm not sure what that means.

LORD FALCONER: Well I'm not going to comment on any of the evidence against them, that would be inappropriate for me to do.

DAVID FROST: Pardon.

LORD FALCONER: I'm not going to comment on the evidence against them because that would be inappropriate for me to do.

DAVID FROST: Right so we just wait, we wait and see what happens there.

LORD FALCONER: I think so, yes.

DAVID FROST: Do you think other nations will be inspired by our success in getting back five?

LORD FALCONER: Well there are a number of other nationals, not just UK nationals, that have come back. I think we've taken the right stand in relation to it. It's got to be looked at in the context of what happened immediately after Afghanistan. Our position is right, it's in accordance with the rule of law, but it's in the context also of the fight against terrorism.

DAVID FROST: Right, we'll just take the news headlines and then we'll come right back.

[NEWS]

DAVID FROST: So you think there will be movement between you and the opposition on constitutional reform, on Lords reform and on the Asylum Bill and that all three will get through in this parliament.

LORD FALCONER: I hope in relation to constitutional reform that we see a proper parliamentary process where they can all be considered.

DAVID FROST: And in terms of this weekend and you were up at the conference and so on.

LORD FALCONER: Yes.

DAVID FROST: Obviously, rousing phrases are more difficult after seven years. You could say time for a change, a new brush, a new broom, and now it's sort of give us a little longer to do the things you hoped we were going to do earlier or whatever - it's scarcely a sort of slogan. I mean did you, did you sense that the party is getting into shape and that you will be able to put Iraq behind you, or not?

LORD FALCONER: Well I sense there's a real sense that we've achieved a lot as a government, in relation to public service, in relation to the economy, in relation to employment, in relation to all of those issues that really matter to the public, and those achievements shouldn't be lost, but that we need to move forward and make it clear to people that further improvements will be coming.

DAVID FROST: Very good. We're at the end of our time, thank you very much. Thank you Charlie. Always a pleasure - we've covered the waterfront there I think.

INTERVIEW ENDS

---