Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall speak to Amendments 2, 3, and 4, which are also in my name. I can give an assurance to the House that those are the only amendments on the Marshalled List. These are a small number of necessary technical amendments to the Bill, which fulfil commitments I gave at Report stage in relation to the transitional period. I shall briefly explain why we need to make these amendments.
Amendment 1 is consequential to the amendment that was passed at Report to the reporting measure in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1. Paragraph 10, as amended, provides that in addition to requiring the individual to report to a police station at specified times and in a specified manner, the Secretary of State may require the individual to comply with directions given by a police constable in relation to such reporting. This technical amendment is necessary to ensure that the definition of “TPIM decision” in Clause 17(3) includes a direction given by a constable in relation to a reporting measure.
Government Amendment 2 is, again, consequential to an amendment that was made to Schedule 1 at Report. Paragraph 1, as amended, provides that an individual subject to an overnight residence measure may be required to remain at, or within, their residence. This technical amendment makes an equivalent change in relation to a residence measure imposed on a person subject to an enhanced TPIM notice, imposed by virtue of a temporary enhanced TPIM order made under Clause 26 of the Bill.
Government Amendment 3, again, is necessary in consequence of an amendment made at Report. That amendment made it clear that an individual subject to a reporting measure under paragraph 10 may be required to comply with directions given by the police in relation to reporting. However, it introduced a small drafting inconsistency as it referred to directions given by a police officer rather than a constable, which is the term used elsewhere in the Bill. The two terms are intended to have the same meaning and the purpose of this amendment is to remove the inconsistency by substituting “constable” for “police officer”.
The final amendment, Amendment 4, returns to an issue on which I made an undertaking at Report. It will extend the transitional period provided by the Bill from 28 to 42 days. This is the period, following the coming into force of the Bill, during which the control orders in force immediately before commencement of the Bill will remain in force unless revoked or quashed before the end of that period. It is intended to ensure that there can be a safe, orderly and managed transition from the old to the new system. As the Government have consistently made clear, the police have confirmed that extensive preparations are being made and that arrangements will be in place effectively to manage the move from the control order system to the TPIM system. However, as I made clear at Report, we have received advice from the police that as the transitional period will fall over Christmas and new year, a small extension to that period is necessary. This will assist the effective management of the process of transition over the holiday period. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward his first three amendments. However, I want to raise a couple of points in relation to Amendment 4. Essentially, it is to put a straightforward question to the noble Lord as to whether the 42 days that his amendment would now give for the transition period is sufficient. I do so in view of reports today that senior police officers believe that they are not fully prepared for the introduction of the new law to replace control orders.
During the passage of this Bill, we have had quite a number of debates about the principle of control orders and I do not seek to open up that question, as the House’s view is very clear on that matter. I have always recognised that the use of control orders should be a last option because they impose intrusive restrictions on individuals who in most cases will not have been convicted of a terrorism offence. But the fact is that their use was endorsed by the senior police officer who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place. Twice in the past few months the Home Secretary has argued, first in the case of CD and then in the case of BM, that the use of control orders, particularly the relocation measures, was necessary.
The Government are saying that we can move on from the use of these control orders because alternative measures that are either in the Bill or will be put in place alongside the Bill, including much greater surveillance, will provide the reassurance that is required. That is a big ask of the police and security services. It is surely significant that the senior representative of the Metropolitan Police, in evidence to the Public Bill Committee, said earlier this year:
“To get the resources that we anticipate we need will take more than a year, in terms of being able to get people trained and to get the right equipment”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill Committee, 21/6/11; col. 9.]
It is fair to ask the Minister whether the police and security services are now completely satisfied that they are now able to provide the additional surveillance and other measures that would allow control orders, particularly the exclusion measures contained within the current legislation, to move into abeyance as a result of the Bill. The fact that the Minister is appearing before us today to increase the transition period from 28 days to 42 days is not without significance, and of course was done on the advice of the police and security forces.
The question before us and the Government is whether a two-week extension is sufficient. Given all the challenges that we face in the area of security and potential terrorism, and given the Olympic Games, I ask the Minister—I am sure that this will be raised in the other place when the Bill goes back there—whether, even at this late stage, we ought not to consider giving the police and security services some more time in order to ensure that sufficient resources, people and training are indeed in place.
The reports this morning appear to suggest that there are senior officers who do not believe that they are sufficiently ready. I ask the Minister to comment on that. Can he give me some assurance that the security of our country is not being put at risk? Again I ask: would the Government not be better advised, before the Bill goes back to the other place, to legislate for the option of keeping control orders until we are certain and confident that the surveillance measures are fully in place and that sufficient officers are appointed and trained to do the job that they will be required to do?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I find myself unable to support the argument that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Indeed, it seems to be very much a repetition, on a rather smaller scale, of an argument that we heard over and over again on Report, all based on the views of one particular senior police officer. I for my part am completely satisfied with the view that has been taken by the Government. My general view is that the sooner we get rid of the old legislation, the better.
I have one other problem, which I do not know whether the Minister will be able to answer. It turns on paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 combined with paragraph 7 of Schedule 8. As I understand it, paragraph 2 provides that the old law will continue to apply to those who are currently under control orders. Paragraph 8 says that that will be so even though the 2005 Act would have expired, quite apart from this Bill repealing it. Is that the position? If so, when do the new provisions begin to apply to those who are currently under control orders? Every controlee will ask himself, “Have I been affected by this Bill or not?”. In particular, he will ask himself when the two-year period under Clause 5 starts in his case. It seems that the control order will continue to apply, but it cannot be kept in place indefinitely under the provisions of an Act that we have repealed.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, I have made it clear that the sooner control orders end the better. Will the Minister confirm that the extension to 42 days is not a matter of giving the police another two weeks to get their arrangements in order but because it became clear that the period of commencement would be within the Christmas and new year holiday period, which was not wholly convenient? Forty-two days would take the period into the new year as a matter of convenience. That is what I understood to be the explanation when we heard about this last week.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I shall start with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. As always, my first advice to him would be not to believe everything that he reads in the papers. Having said that, I am grateful to him for raising the point. It is very important and it gives me the opportunity to explain why we are doing this. I set out what is behind Amendment 4 when I dealt with that.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked whether we were extending the detention period to 42 days just because the police asked for it or because the police asked for it because it was over Christmas and new year. I can assure her that that was the point that the police made to us: things will be slightly harder if this happens then than they would be if it happened on some other occasion.
The police service has worked very closely with both the Security Service and the Home Office throughout the legislative process to ensure that all the plans and preparations that are being made are tailored to the Bill in the appropriate manner and to ensure that everything is as it should be. The Metropolitan Police has also confirmed to the Home Secretary that it has put in place arrangements to manage that transition from control orders to TPIMs. Indeed, the Home Secretary received detailed briefing as recently as Monday from the Metropolitan Police on the transitional plans that had been drawn up. The Home Secretary is fully aware of what is going on. As I made clear on Report, we recently received advice from the Metropolitan Police that, in reviewing its plans as they were being developed, the extension of that period over Christmas and new year from 28 days to 42 days would be required to ensure that the necessary arrangements could be put in place. It is simply a safeguard to ensure that smooth transition.
In relation to paragraph 2 of Schedule 8, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked whether the controlees themselves would ask questions about how they were being affected. I would prefer to write to the noble and learned Lord, if I may, to make sure that I get that absolutely right.
I end by giving an absolute assurance to the noble and learned Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the entire House that all we are doing is absolutely necessary. Whatever happens, we will not put the security of the country at risk. We have taken advice from the police and the security services on this matter. It was suggested that we should make this extension from 28 days to 42 days. That is what we are doing.
Lord Henley
Lord Henley
Lord Henley