Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 14th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]]

My Lord, I welcome Commons Amendment 2, designating the NCA in statute for essentially the reasons that the Minister has just given. On Commons Amendments 1 and 5, as a practitioner with a particular interest in terrorism, I know how slow and imperfect the old extradition arrangements were within Europe and how much better things became with the advent of the European arrest warrant, not least by taking the sting out of our sometimes politically fraught extradition relationship with Ireland. That ship has sailed, so it seems that the best we can hope for now is an arrangement modelled on the Norway/Iceland relationship with the EU. These amendments acknowledge that even this modest goal may not be achievable. Their purpose, as I understand it from the Minister, is to offer a marginal improvement to the third-best solution with which we would then be left. So it is depressing that these amendments have been thought necessary, but prudent in the circumstances that they have been put forward. For that reason, not without sadness, I support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]]

I supported both the amendments to which the response of the Commons is considered in this grouping. Indeed, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, I put my name to the “one at a time” amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which Commons Amendment 4 would remove.

I described that amendment at Report as a sensible and practical safety valve. Given the unamendable nature of statutory instruments, it would have made it possible, at least in theory, for your Lordships to vote down the proposed addition to Schedule A1 of an unacceptable country without jeopardising the desirable inclusion of other countries proposed at the same time. As such, it would have been a contribution—a tiny contribution, I acknowledge—to the solution of a much larger and increasingly pressing problem: the need for some sort of practical and meaningful parliamentary control over the content of statutory instruments laid before us.

The Minister is right to say that the issue raised by the amendment has been properly debated in the Commons; the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has, I am sure, borne that in mind, together with whatever prospect her amendment may have of succeeding today, in deciding to put it to the vote. If she persists in that course I shall, because I still support the principle of her amendment, vote for it.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, this is an important and well-prepared Bill, but not a perfect one. On Part 1, I respectfully adopt the points of sentencing so authoritatively made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. On Part 2, I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friends Lord Ramsbotham and Lady Prashar, and the concerns expressed by my successor-but-one as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, regarding the removal of Parole Board discretion. If the possibility of early release can encourage good behaviour and reform, we should think carefully indeed before discarding it.

I will focus on the changes to TPIMs, the successors to Labour’s control order regime of 2005 to 2011, proposed in Part 3 of the Bill. For six years, I closely monitored the operation of TPIMs. Like the Government, I believe they are unfortunate necessities for a small number of dangerous terrorists who cannot be detained for long periods under criminal investigation, as in some continental legal systems, and who cannot be placed on trial or convicted, because the intelligence that identified their plotting is insufficient to meet the criminal standard or cannot be publicly disclosed without endangering a human source or vital investigation technique.

TPIMs are severe measures and are designed to be so. They are imposed by the Home Secretary, who, in contrast to a criminal court, is not constrained as to the nature of the intelligence material she may take into account. Measures may include, among many, compulsory relocation to towns or cities far distant from the subject’s home. Relocation is harsh but effective. Removed by the coalition in 2011, it was reintroduced, on my recommendation, in 2015.

Any breach of any restriction, which would include, under Clauses 41 and 43, polygraph measures and drug-testing measures, can result in imprisonment for up to five years. Judicial review of TPIMs takes many months to come on, and since the intelligence relied on can often not be disclosed, it requires the subject to defend himself, without knowledge of the detailed case against him, through a special advocate who cannot take instructions from him.

That severity has, until now, been mitigated by two factors introduced by the coalition Government in 2011. First, TPIMs have a maximum duration of two years, save in exceptional cases—a limitation originally recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in a report of February 2008. Secondly, the Home Secretary is required to have not just a “reasonable suspicion” of involvement in terrorism but “reasonable belief”, on the balance of probability, as it is now expressed.

The two-year limit is a reminder that executive constraints of this kind can be no substitute for the criminal process and no long-term solution, even if, as I said in 2013, echoing the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, five years earlier, it is tempting to wish for longer in the most serious cases. Each of those mitigating factors, as has been said, would be reversed by this Bill.

Let me offer a comparator, which, while not exact, may be illuminating: the reasonable suspicion required of the Home Secretary by Clause 37, is the same standard that must be reached by a police officer to justify an arrest. Yet arrest without charge, even in a terrorist case, is tolerated in this country for only four days, extendable to a maximum of 14 days by repeated permission of the court. Noble Lords will remember unsuccessful attempts to increase that maximum to 90 and then 42 days. Yet under this Bill, the reasonable suspicions of the Home Secretary would be sufficient if she judged it necessary for the protection of the public—a judgment unlikely to be effectively reviewable in any court— to justify a form of house arrest that can persist for many years.

The Government now have huge experience with these orders, including their possible imposition on more than 400 people having returned from Syria to this country. So, it is significant that the Minister Chris Philp candidly accepted on Report in the other place, consistent with evidence given by Assistant Chief Constable Tim Jacques in Committee, that

“there has not been an occasion on which the security services wanted to give a TPIM but could not do so because of the burden of proof.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/20; col. 2093.]

We should investigate whether there is a better balance to be struck consistent with the enhanced public protection that the Bill aims to provide. Options, as the independent reviewer has suggested, include an upper limit in excess of two years and the retention of the current standard of proof, if not in all cases then at least beyond the initial period, which would take care of any valid concerns there may be about urgent cases.

I hope that the collective wisdom of the House will be brought to bear on the Bill in this respect.

Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 15th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, and I agree completely with the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. The trouble with an amendment of this simplicity is that all one can do is repeat the arguments in a slightly different way.

It makes complete sense that Parliament should have the ability to consider each country on its merits in this case, as it is so obviously open to abuse, and the regulations that allow additions are not amendable. Echoing the views of my noble friend Lady Ludford, I think that, our having left the European Union, future Governments will be keener than ever to secure trade deals with other countries, for example. It may be that those other countries demand, quid pro quo, that we accede to their extradition requests, even though there may be reservations about a country’s criminal justice process. This amendment is necessary, and I support it.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]]

My Lords, in Committee, my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead said of this amendment that it meets the problem of the non-amendable instrument, without at the same time creating an insuperable difficulty for the Government, and that it enables a debate to take place that would have a real point to it. The fact that there may be precedents in other Acts of Parliament for lumping countries together in statutory instruments seems to be neither here nor there.

This amendment ought really to be welcomed by the Government. It removes the possibility that acceptable countries will be excluded because they have been yoked together with a country that Parliament finds unacceptable. The amendment is a sensible and practical safety valve, which is why I put my name to a previous edition. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, decides to test the opinion of the House, I shall vote for the amendment.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, the simpler the amendment, the more repetitious we become. But I want to go back to 2003, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in the debate on the previous amendment, and to the Act that I piloted through, with the support of an excellent Home Office team. The noble Baroness called it a “mighty beast”, which it was; it was extremely difficult, as were other mighty beasts of that year, including the Criminal Justice Act, the Proceeds of Crime Act, the Sexual Offences Act, and the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act. When I look back on those days, I wonder when any of us slept. We were, quite rightly, taken to task: we leaned on legislation too quickly.

However, in a simple amendment such as this one, we have clarity of thinking, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, indicated, and as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, reinforced. There is a simple, clear reason why, 17 years on from the original Extradition Act, we should take this sensible step, which avoids the Government not being able to carry an order for countries with which we would be extremely pleased to have extradition arrangements because another country listed is unacceptable to us. Turning it on its head, on the danger of agreeing a country that we do not wish to have an extradition agreement with, and being unable to get Parliament to agree to an order that it would otherwise want to go along with, it makes absolute sense for the Government simply to concede.

I repeat what I said last week: I have a great deal of respect for the Minister. I hope that, even at this late stage, texts might be going from her staff to the Home Secretary to say, “Please give permission to concede on this, because we oppose it for no good reason whatever”.

Metropolitan Police: Live Facial Recognition

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, in her annual report of 25 February, the Forensic Science Regulator described the biometric oversight board, relied on in the High Court judgment that the Minister mentioned, as having made

“no substantive progress towards establishing an effective governance and oversight framework for police use of facial recognition or other biometrics.”

The role of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner is coming to an end in June, with no future plans announced. There is, to coin a phrase, a question of trust. Does the Minister agree that overt surveillance and biometric uses such as live facial recognition need to be properly regulated by statute, or at least until then by a revised code, and that the office of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner would be the appropriate body to take this on?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As the noble Lord will know, we engage with both the ICO and the Surveillance Camera Commissioner. I totally get his point about the term of office being up in June and I know that we will have further discussions about how best to deploy the governance of this very exciting but potentially risky technology.