“I thank him for his passionate defence of our company and staff, and especially his astute counsel during the Leveson Inquiry.” said Rupert Murdoch of Richard Caseby – DWP’s new Director of Comms
Richard Caseby: Is this man David Cameron’s perfect appointment to handle the media at the Department for Work and Pensions?
There are Twitter reports coming out of India that a TV station called “Headlines Today” is claiming the SAS advised the Gandhi government to kidnap Jarnail Bhindranwale. They claim SAS officers trained Indian Special Forces in techniques that would assist in the plan to raid the Golden Temple and extract their target.
This is obviously an emerging story but one thing is for sure: we shouldn’t be hearing about it first on Twitter and the Internet. The government has had plenty of time to review documents, talk to ministers from the Thatcher government and examine SAS reports. We should have heard this in a Statement to the UK Parliament not through social media.
If this story is in anyway true, I expect the government to give a Statement to the House of Commons first thing on Monday.
The minister responsible for the parliamentary timetable has not been able to confirm whether there will be a Statement on the Amritsar massacre next week.
A couple of weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) raised with the Prime Minister in the Chamber concerns about British involvement in the bloody assault nearly 30 years ago on the Sikh Golden Temple in Amritsar. Will the Leader of the House update us on the progress of the consequent inquiry? Will it report next week, and will he arrange for a statement either by the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary?
I regret that I cannot advise the right hon. Gentleman and the House on the timing of the completion of that inquiry, although it is being proceeded with as a matter of urgency. As I have said, for that reason I cannot advise the House about the character of the statement that will then be made.
Yvette Cooper has managed to move a “manuscript amendment”. This is a device where tabled legislation can be amended at very short notice. This definitely applies to Theresa May’s New Clause 18.
The new amendment significantly improves Theresa May’s proposal. The effect of this amendment is that the Home Secretary has to go to court, and that’s the key point. My personal view is that there is no need for s3(a) . There’s no need to tie a court’s hands in the way s3(a) dictates and it does’t seem fit properly with rest of the section, yet given the timing I’m not going to make a fuss.
This is what happens when you make legislation on the hoof, at the last minute.
I have no idea if Theresa May will accept the amendment. It’s the least she should do under the circumstances.
The manuscript amendment is this:
Mr David Hanson
(a) As an amendment to Secretary Theresa May’s proposed new Clause (Deprivation of citizenship: conduct seriously prejudicial to vital interests of the UK):
Line 12, at and insert: ‘and
(c) the court gives the Secretary of State permission under subsection (4B).
(4B) (1) This sub-section applies if the Secretary of State:
(a) makes the relevant decisions in relation to an individual in a case which falls within subsection (4A)
(b) makes an application to the court for permission to make an order.
(2) The application must set out how the deprivation is conducive to the public good and how the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted himself or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, and of the islands, or any British overseas territory.
(3) The function of the court on the application is:
(a) to determine whether the relevant decision of the Secretary of State is obviously flawed, and
(b) to determine whether to give permission to deprive a person of citizenship in a case which falls within subsection (4A)
(4) In determining the application, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.
(5) In a case where the court determines that a decision of the Secretary of State in relation to the conditions set out in subsection (4A)(b) is obviously flawed, the court may not give permission under this section.
(6) In any other case, the court may give permission under this section.’.
Mr David Hanson
(b) As an amendment to Secretary Theresa May’s proposed new Clause (Deprivation of citizenship: conduct seriously prejudicial to vital interests of the UK):
Line 16, at end add:
‘(3) The court is the appropriate tribunal for the purposes of section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998.’.