Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
Lord Ashton of Hyde Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, I agree with my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the need for both broad scope and flexibility in powers for the independent reviewer. On Amendment 4, can the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, say whether there is any further detail on the requirement that:
“The Secretary of State shall publish figures on the usages of powers”?
What sort of degree of detail or scope was envisaged?
On Amendments 41 and 41A, it may just be that I am a little befuddled, coming back from much less complicated EU legislation to more complicated domestic legislation. However, as I read those amendments, they seem to refer only to a review of the arrangements for food and accommodation, because they are specifically inserted after paragraph 14 of Schedule 1. I am not sure that that refers to a review of the whole powers under Clause 1 and Schedule 1 because it seems to be rather specific about just the powers in paragraph 14. Indeed, the term “arrangements” seems to refer only to the arrangements appropriate for the person, which, according to the draft code of conduct, relate to food and accommodation, and so on. It may be that I am completely on the wrong track here; if so, I will be most grateful for the noble Lord’s clarification.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling these amendments, which cover issues concerning the oversight and accountability of officers who exercise the powers in Part 1.
Amendments 3 and 55A would require the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, to report annually on the exercise of powers contained in Part 1. I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this amendment because it allows us the opportunity to give due consideration and attention to a very important matter—that of ensuring that there are appropriate checks and balances and independent scrutiny of our counterterrorism powers, including those introduced in the Bill.
We have discussed at length the need for the measures contained in the Bill before us today, as the eight hours of debate in Second Reading amply demonstrated, but it is of course a cardinal principle that these important powers are subject to robust independent scrutiny. As most noble Lords have said, the recent report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the measures contained within this Bill included a recommendation that the remit of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation be extended to cover those areas of our domestic counterterrorism laws which are currently not subject to independent review. I think this, among other things, is recognition of the excellent job which David Anderson QC has done in his current role and the high regard in which he is held. I wanted to take the opportunity to make that point. I hope that virtually all noble Lords who spoke will be reassured that the Government are giving careful consideration to the points raised by the Joint Committee and, indeed, to David Anderson’s last annual report, which covered similar ground.
Another part of this Bill, Part 7, deals with the vital matter of checks and balances by providing for the creation of a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. I very much look forward to our consideration of that part of the Bill, which I know from the various contributions made at Second Reading and today will be of particular interest to a number of noble Lords. Clearly, there is more to be said about how the board will operate and how it will genuinely support and enhance the independent reviewer’s capacity. It is apparent that we cannot simply keep adding to the independent reviewer’s role. David Anderson has himself been clear that he is operating at the limit of his capacity, as my noble friend Lord Carlile mentioned, and that there is a need for reform of the independent reviewer role. I hope that our debate on Part 7 will allow us to explore these broader considerations.
However, we need to consider the whole question of oversight in the round. If I may say so, it seems a little premature to take this amendment in isolation ahead of the wider debate that I know we are going to have when we get to Part 7 of the Bill. So I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment today in the knowledge that we will certainly consider the issue which it raises during our deliberations of the broader issues about how our oversight arrangements for the use of counterterrorism powers should be structured and resourced, which we will be having next week. I refer, too, to my earlier remarks that we are giving consideration to the JCHR report as well as to the last annual report from David Anderson.
Amendments 4, 41, 41A and 50A introduce a requirement to publish statistics on the use of the passport seizure and temporary exclusion powers on an annual basis and introduce an annual review of the arrangements made by the Secretary of State under Paragraph 14 of Schedule 1, which allows the Secretary of State to make arrangements he or she thinks appropriate in relation to persons whose travel documents have been retained for the retention period. The Government are committed to increasing the appropriate transparency of the work of our intelligence, security and law enforcement agencies, but it is essential that this is done without damaging national security or effective law enforcement and, above all, public safety.
The Government have committed to publishing an annual report on disruptive and investigative powers. The first report, covering the operation of these powers in 2014, will be published shortly. We intend to cover the use of the new passport seizure power in future annual reports. This approach is consistent with our approach to similar disruptive and investigative powers, such as the exercise of the royal prerogative to cancel or refuse to issue a British passport, which are included in the annual transparency report. We will also include the exercise of the temporary exclusion power in these reports.
For the reasons I have given, I therefore hope that your Lordships will feel reassured about the exercise of these powers and, accordingly, I would be grateful if the noble Lord would withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
Once again, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I hope that if I have misunderstood, the Minister will immediately put me right, but, as I understand it, he is saying that the Government will look at the issue of independent review of these parts of the Bill, or how that might be done, as part of discussions we will have on a later section of the Bill. Have I understood that correctly, or have I misunderstood it?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Lord has understood it correctly. We will discuss these matters further in Part 7. I also said separately that we are considering the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for that clarification. Obviously, I am very grateful to him for his comments, which are extremely helpful. I will withdraw my amendment in a moment, not least in the light of his very helpful response.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, will not mind if I do not give a detailed response to her question. However, I will look at the issue she raised about some of the amendments that we have tabled. In the short time since she raised the point—obviously, I was trying to listen to what was said in the debate—I have not had a chance to do so. Clearly, if they are wrong, that has been a slip-up on our part. However, I will have a look at the wording to see whether I share her view that that may be the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, want to say a word about Amendment 7. I have some difficulty with the arguments being presented in favour of it. I accept that there is clearly a potential issue about humanitarian assistance in terms of other terrorist legislation, but Schedule 1 relates to, “Seizure of passports etc from persons suspected of involvement in terrorism”. The paragraph is referring to an individual at a port in Great Britain where a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that person of being involved in terrorism. To amend in terms of humanitarian support seems completely unnecessary. Surely, it is palpably obvious to a constable making this decision that this is not someone engaged in terrorist activity if what they are doing is humanitarian activities.
If, however, an exception is put in, which says that you except people who might be engaged in humanitarian activities, a situation would be created in which people will purport to have been providing humanitarian assistance rather than anything else. It seems to me that, although there is a genuine debate to be had about humanitarian activities and the extent to which crossing into various areas might be deemed to apply, this is a circumstance in which a constable is exercising a judgment about whether the individual in front of him is engaged in terrorist activities. If they are palpably humanitarian, there is no suspicion. If, however, they are given the option of pretending to be humanitarian so as to avoid the constable having the right, it seems to me that an additional problem is being created.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends for tabling more probing amendments. The Minister and I will be well and truly probed by the end of the Committee stage.
We have had an interesting debate, with arguments expressed on both sides. The definition of “involvement in terrorism-related activity” used in Schedule 1 is the same throughout the Bill. It may be helpful to explain to the Committee that this definition has already been changed from that which exists in previous legislation in line with the recommendation of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation that the definition of terrorism-related activity in the TPIMs Act should be narrowed.
The effect on the current Bill is that involvement in terrorism-related activity does not include conduct which gives support or assistance to individuals who are known or believed by the individual concerned to be involved in conduct which facilitates or gives encouragement to acts of terrorism, or which is intended to do so. David Anderson described these individuals as those who are at three stages removed from actually committing a terrorist act: the giving of support to someone who gives encouragement to someone who prepares an act of terrorism. This change in definition is consistent with the public protection to which the legislation is directed.
Amendments 6 and 7 would amend the definition of involvement in terrorism-related activity as it currently appears in the Bill. The provision to which Amendment 6 relates refers to,
“conduct that gives encouragement to the commission, preparation or instigation”,
of acts of terrorism, whether or not the conduct is intended to do so. The amendment would amend the definition to conduct that gives intentional or reckless encouragement. To answer my noble friend Lady Hamwee, we believe that reckless encouragement is included in the current definition and we believe that accidental or reckless encouragement should be captured when its consequence is to encourage the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
The provision to which Amendment 7 relates refers to,
“conduct that gives support or assistance to individuals who are known or believed by the person concerned to be involved in”,
the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. It is clear that the support or assistance which falls within that definition is that which supports or assists individuals with acts of terror. We do not want to specify explicitly—this point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey—that those providing humanitarian assistance, however defined, are excluded from the definition of involvement in terrorism-related activity. For example, as the noble Lord mentioned, it is possible that a person acting in a humanitarian capacity can also give support or assistance that would enable others to engage in terrorism.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked whether we have consulted NGOs or charities on this, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned its possible chilling effect on charities. We have not specifically consulted, but such organisations are capable of referring to the consultation. We would encourage them to do so and to reply to it.
I want to reassure your Lordships that support or assistance is, in this legislation, quite clearly that which supports or assists individuals with acts of terror and not any other legitimate activity.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Does the Minister appreciate the difficulty our witness was talking about of having to deal with people he described as “gatekeepers”? There is a risk of misunderstanding where someone is trying to get through the gate, as it were, into these difficult areas and is being told what to do, as a condition of getting through to provide the assistance, by the so-called “gatekeeper”, who may well be in a proscribed organisation. There is a considerable risk, so we are told, of being thought to be providing assistance to him because you are telling him what to do, whereas in fact what you are trying to do is to take the aid through to those who really need it. I appreciate the point that is being made, but I wonder whether the Minister will consult a little more carefully on this sensitive issue to see whether it is being accurately dealt with in sub-paragraph (10)(d) on page 27.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I take on board the point made by the noble and learned Lord. I will go back and make sure first of all that I have understood it correctly and then that we have looked at this, though I cannot give any guarantee as to the outcome.
On the basis I have outlined, I hope that noble Lords are reassured that this is specifically to do with acts of terror, and I invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Ludford
Just before my noble friend sits down, would he clarify whether I understood correctly that someone could be caught by sub-paragraph (10) if they had accidentally committed any of these activities of giving encouragement or offering assistance? Is this because of general principles of law or interpretation? Maybe I misheard him. Perhaps he could enlighten me.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I did say that we believe that accidental or reckless encouragement should be captured when its consequence is to encourage,
“the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.
Baroness Ludford
Is there not rather a difference between accidental and reckless?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I completely agree that there is a difference between those two words, but they are not mutually exclusive.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, of course there is a difference and it is not just about mutual exclusivity, but I do not wish to pursue that at this point.
On the second of the amendments in this group, one never knows where one’s probing is going to lead. Although the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, may disapprove of my drafting, I am glad that I raised it. I do not think that it will necessarily be palpably obvious to an immigration official why somebody is seeking to leave the country. I accept that the point is not confined just to this schedule and I think it is worth consideration. I would be grateful to have a conversation with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, as to whether we can use the opportunity of this legislation to try to deal with the point more widely. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Buscombe makes some incredibly important points, many of which I agree with. Like her I pay tribute to the huge work done by our intelligence services, which are overseen by a very thorough oversight process. Noble Lords will be aware that not all services are perfect and mistakes can be made and it is therefore important that all our services, including our intelligence services, work within parameters.
The lawyer in me always says when I look at legislation, “What is the mischief we are trying to fix?”. When we pass legislation it is important that we bear that in mind. While I accept that these are difficult times and it is important to make sure that we are protected, it is also important that we ensure that we do not make the challenges we face worse. Huge progress has been made under this Government with the reform to stop-and-search powers. There has been progress in the right direction with many communities that felt alienated by the use of such powers and felt that their co-operation with, for example, the police would have been so much better had the powers not been exercised in a way that led to profiling and discrimination. We are all aware of arrests made under terrorism legislation that did not lead to charge and charges that did not lead to convictions. The numbers were so overwhelming at one moment that it appeared the powers were being in used in a way that was doing more harm than good. In those circumstances it is important for us to ensure—not just because discrimination is wrong and we should fight it—that in exercising these powers we do not discriminate and make the problem worse. In those circumstances I support many of the comments made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. My noble friend Lady Buscombe pointed out the need to trust the authorities within reason. We accept that there should be proportionate oversight and controls. The issue in this area, as in so many areas of the Bill, is drawing the line correctly between civil liberties and the need that the authorities have to deal with the threat.
These amendments cover issues concerning the seizure of travel documents, the process to authorise the retention of travel documents and the code of practice. Amendment 9, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, seeks to amend the powers and conditions of seizure relating to travel documents, from the documents being in a person’s “possession” to them being,
“under his or her control”,
based on my noble friend’s experience of corporate law. As the Committee knows, this power disrupts an individual’s immediate travel by removing his or her passport while he or she is investigated. The police then have time to investigate the individual’s travel plans and their reasons for travelling, and to consider whether a longer-term disruptive measure is necessary.
Lord Harris of Haringey
That is more helpful than the noble Lord might have thought when he received that note. To put it in context, if 600 or so—different numbers have been bandied about—individuals have gone out to take part in activities overseas, are we talking about specifically targeting that sort of number or about a rather broader sweep? That is what I am trying to get at.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
We would obviously like to stop as many as we can from going, but I am reluctant to give the numbers, or even a broad indication of them, today. I will go back and find out how much we would be prepared to discuss numbers or even ranges but I would not like to commit myself now, if that is all right.
Lord Pannick
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, who has been very helpful. He referred, on several occasions, to the draft code of practice and to the consultation, which I understand will finish at the end of this month. The Bill comes back on Report only a week later. Are the Government going to be able to give the House their views on the consultation and what they are minded to do in relation to the code of practice at that stage? It is a very short period of time, but unless we know what the Government’s views are it is going to be very difficult to debate these issues.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
A lot depends, of course, on how many responses there are to the consultation. I am unable to make a firm commitment today but it will be as soon as possible and if I can get more and clearer information on the subject I will let the noble Lord know.
I hope noble Lords will feel some reassurance and I would be grateful if the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who made the points on equalities, discrimination, the perception of discrimination and so on far better than I did. There is, again, material to consider and perhaps I—and others—should be encouraging responses to the consultation on the draft code. The Government may not wholly welcome a shedload of comments but that is what consultation is about. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Sympathetic though one may be to how individual people may feel, perhaps I may respectfully say that my noble friend Lord Pannick is absolutely right.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate on this small group. I hope that I will be able to address most of the points raised by your Lordships.
Amendment 35 seeks to allow the court to direct that the Secretary of State should pay compensation to any person whose travel documents have been seized under Schedule 1. This is regardless of whether or not these travel documents have been retained. Protecting the public from terrorism is the central aim of this power. The power to seize and retain travel documents can play an important role in the detection and prevention of terrorism, and using the power fairly makes it more effective. The Government completely accept the dangers involved with minority groups, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lady Warsi in another debate, and the effect if this power is not used fairly.
However, if the power—this is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said—is exercised lawfully on the basis of reasonable suspicion, there is no legal requirement to pay compensation for any associated loss. This principle is consistent with the exercise of other police powers: if a power was exercised lawfully, there is no requirement to compensate the individual. I take completely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that this can have effects that have wider ramifications but, to use the noble Lord’s own words, that would open up a mare’s nest. Therefore, we do not agree that we should change precedent so that compensation is paid in these circumstances.
Complaints about the conduct of examining officers or the treatment of an individual during the seizure and retention of travel documents may be directed to either the police or the Border Force, depending on which officer seized and retained the travel documents. The draft code of practice explains how an individual may complain. If an individual wishes to challenge the police officer’s decision, she or he may seek redress—again, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to this—including compensation, from the courts. This is the appropriate avenue to challenge the police’s operation of this power and is in line with procedures in similar circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about travel costs and whether the Government would compensate. As with the compensation principle generally that I outlined, if it is exercised in good faith, this would not lead to a requirement to pay compensation. However, at present, if someone’s flight is disrupted due to the use of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act and the police judge that no further action is required, they will often work with the individual and the airline to help them get on another flight, which happens reasonably often. They would do the same with this power where reasonably practicable. Under this Bill, we could also provide assistance to individuals who have had their documents seized, are not resident in the UK and do not have any means to provide for their continuing stay in the UK.
Amendment 40 seeks to illustrate the type of arrangements that may be made by the Secretary of State in relation to a person whose travel documents are retained under Schedule 1. The illustrative examples provided are to include payment for accommodation and making alternative travel arrangements. The power to seize and retain travel documents can play an important role and using the power fairly makes it more effective. The Government are clear: the power in Schedule 1 must be used fairly and proportionately, with respect for the person to whom the power has been applied, and must be exercised in accordance with the prescribed procedures and without discrimination. A failure to use the power in the proper manner will reduce its effectiveness. Amendment 40 is superfluous, as the power under paragraph 14 in Schedule 1 is deliberately broadly framed and could include the Secretary of State making arrangements which include payment for accommodation and alternative travel arrangements for those whose travel documents have been retained.
Protecting the public from terrorism is the central aim of this power, but it is right that we make such provisions to meet our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, if necessary, an individual who has no means to provide for himself or herself would be provided with basic support for the period that his or her travel documents have been retained. This would involve basic temporary accommodation and subsistence if the individual has no other means to support themselves.
However, we assess that the use of this power against those who do not already reside in the UK will be infrequent. In other cases, where for instance a UK resident has had their travel disrupted, if the power is exercised lawfully on the basis of reasonable suspicion, there is no legal requirement to pay compensation for any associated loss, which is consistent with the exercise of other police powers. For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was exactly as I had understood the position to be. However, for the reasons covered by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, I felt that it was important that we set out during our proceedings the reasons for compensation not being payable. I took care to use the phrase “very exceptional”. Perhaps that was not quite strong enough. As to the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford about the possibility of an ex gratia payment, one would not presumably need statutory provision for that by definition. However, it is an interesting suggestion.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I apologise that I did not refer to that in my reply. There is no provision at the moment. We have not decided or made any provision to make ex gratia payments.
Baroness Hamwee
I was suggesting that it would not need provision by virtue of being ex gratia. After today, perhaps we can think about whether specific provision would be needed to allow an ex gratia payment to be made. The examples given in paragraph 14 are helpful and some of the examples given in response to Amendment 35 probably were at least equally applicable to that paragraph. However, we are at Committee stage and, as I keep saying—I hoped that I was being reassuring—all our amendments today are probing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Amendments 37, 38 and 39 are also amendments to paragraph 14. They are probing amendments as to what arrangements the Government might have in mind for the companions of an individual whose travel documents are seized. The Minister may feel that he has covered the ground in his answer to the previous group of amendments but, to put it briefly, if there is anything more that he can say to flesh out the provision, I am sure that the Committee will be glad to hear it. I beg to move.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, this will be a brief debate—in fact, hardly a debate.
The amendments in the names of my noble friends have allowed us to think about the implications of this power for the travelling companions of a person whose passport has been seized. Amendments 37 and 39 seek to extend the protections in paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 to any persons travelling with an individual whose travel documents have been retained. It would allow the Secretary of State to provide assistance to the accompanying persons during the retention period and would provide that his or her presence in the UK was not unlawful under the Immigration Act 1971 for the retention period.
As I previously set out, the police can exercise the power in Schedule 1 only based on reasonable suspicion. It is possible that the police may reasonably suspect the intentions of one person travelling in a family group but have no suspicions that the entire family is planning to travel overseas for the purpose of terrorism-related activity. In such a hypothetical circumstance, the accompanying family members may require means to lawfully remain in the UK with the stopped person while the police investigation was on-going and the person’s travel documents were retained. This may be particularly relevant if the power was exercised against a person who was under 18.
These amendments would also allow the Secretary of State to provide assistance to those accompanying an individual who had his or her documents seized, or were not resident in the UK and did not have any means to provide for their continued stay in the UK. I am grateful to my noble friends for shining a light on such a circumstance. However unlikely it may be to occur in reality, they have highlighted a potential gap in the current provisions and the Government are committed to considering this issue in greater detail.
Paragraph 14 provides protections to the individual that would apply during the period that his or her travel documents were retained and he or she was unable to leave the UK. Amendment 38 seeks to alter this to include where a person is “unable to make the journey to which the travel relates”. The additional wording is unnecessary, as being unable to make a journey to which the travel relates is captured in the current drafting, which is “unable to leave the United Kingdom”. However, as the amendment has raised some interesting points on how this provision could be applied, the Government are committed to considering this issue, too, in greater depth.
I hope that my brief reply has satisfied my noble friend and has done all that is required.
Baroness Hamwee
Yes, indeed. I wonder whether officials in the Home Office have been undertaking role-play as to all the different circumstances that might apply when these powers could be exercised, because, as I said, one of the concerns of the House is always about workability. I am grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I think what has come out of the last debate is that we are all trying to find our way through how the temporary exclusion order is going to work. I come back to the point I made at Second Reading about whether they should ever have been called temporary exclusion orders. I suspect they were named as such because of the Prime Minister’s statement that he was going to exclude people who had fought abroad as terrorists and prevent them from coming back to the UK, which of course is not what is being proposed. “Managed return” is a better description, but we need to understand exactly how that managed return will work in practice—a point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. This is a probing amendment, as is Amendment 59, which we will come on to later, to try to tease out some of the detail of how this will work in practice.
Amendment 49 leaves out the requirement that the Secretary of State “reasonably suspects” that the individual has been involved in “terrorism-related activity” outside the UK and inserts “has evidence”. In this amendment, we are trying to seek some further information on how the process of issuing the temporary exclusion order will be managed. It would be helpful if the Minister could give some information on the evidence threshold. What evidence would be required for the Home Secretary to reasonably suspect that condition A has been met and that someone is, or has recently been, involved in terrorism-related activity? As previously discussed, the imposition of such an order will have a similar legislative impact to a TPIM, and will restrict an individual’s movements over a period of time. There may be other obligations, either through TPIMs or, for example, to engage in perhaps the Prevent programme or Channel.
The Government’s fact sheet is very interesting. It states that MI5 would have to make an application to the Secretary of State for her to consider. Is that the only route to a TEO—for MI5 to apply to the Secretary of State with information and to ask her to consider it? The Bill states only that certain conditions have to be met; it is the fact sheet that refers to MI5. The fact sheet also refers to the threshold, where it merely repeats the “reasonably suspects” wording. I am seeking some clarity on the threshold and on the process. Will a TEO always, and in all circumstances, be considered only on evidence from MI5 or the wider security services? Are there any circumstances where a Home Secretary, or any other Minister including the Prime Minister, could initiate the process? Are there any circumstances in which a Home Secretary could issue a temporary exclusion order without, or against, the advice of MI5? That is what the fact sheet says but, again, it is woolly on the legislation.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned humanitarian support earlier. What if someone has left the country—for example, to go to Syria—to be involved in humanitarian support, and although it is quite likely that is what they have been doing there, there is not hard evidence to prove it but, equally, there is not hard evidence to say that they are engaged in terrorism? What, then, would fulfil the definition of reasonable suspicion? When the legislation is in place—and if the Government get their way and do not agree to a sunset clause—it will not just apply to current threats but this will be law for ever and in any circumstances in the future.
We have to ask whether there is a value judgment to be made as to how the UK views the cause on the side of which somebody goes to fight. I want to just explore this with the Minister. I wonder whether he can help me, as I genuinely do not know the answer and am trying to find a way through this. Let us take the case of somebody with dual nationality who travels abroad to fight on the side of a cause in their second country that the UK would support. It has not been unknown in history for us to change sides, but let us say they have gone to another country, we support the cause they are fighting for, and they have dual citizenship of that country and this one. What about the British-Iraqi Kurd who, on his own evidence, leaves to fight against ISIL and against extremism? Could they find themselves subject to a temporary exclusion order? I know that the noble Lord cannot comment on intelligence matters, but just for this amendment it would be helpful to have some clearer explanation of what the Government mean by “reasonably suspects”, and what the evidence threshold will be for imposing a TEO. I beg to move.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, this allows us to consider the legal threshold for issuing a temporary exclusion order. Before I get on to what our position is, I shall answer a couple of the noble Baroness’s questions.
She asked about the basis on which reasonable suspicion is used in the power to seize and retain travel documents at a port. The test uses the evidential standard of reasonable suspicion that is used in relation to many other police powers. What constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion will depend on the circumstances in each individual case. There must be an objective basis for the constable’s state of mind, based on facts. Such information must be specific to the conduct of the person. It can include observation of the person’s behaviour, information obtained from any other source or a combination of these. Reasonable suspicion cannot be formed on the basis of assumptions about the attitudes, beliefs or behaviour of persons who belong to particular groups or categories of people. To do that under Schedule 1 on this basis would be discriminatory.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the Home Secretary will make a TEO application only on the basis of an application from MI5. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide whether the tests are met. In practice, she would base her judgment on advice from the security services. The final decision will of course be hers, even though, in practice, she will generally require input from the security services to establish reasonable suspicion.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Perhaps I might press the noble Lord further on that point. The other purpose of my question was to ask whether the Secretary of State or any other Minister, including the Prime Minister, would be able to initiate the process. Would they ever be able to act against or without the advice of the security services in imposing a TEO?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I think it would be better if I clarified that and came back to the noble Baroness. I do not want to say something that is incorrect on the precise details of this. I could make a guess, but I would rather not.
The noble Baroness’s amendment would mean that the Home Secretary would be required to have evidence that an individual has engaged in terrorism-related activity abroad rather than having a reasonable suspicion. The reasonable suspicion may well be based on intelligence, which is clearly not always the same as evidence. This change would greatly reduce the number of individuals against whom the Home Secretary could use this power. The result of this would be that the Government would not be able to control the return of individuals suspected of fighting alongside terrorist groups and would have fewer tools available to manage the threat these individuals posed to the British public.
Furthermore, where there is clear evidence that an individual is engaged in terrorism-related activity, it is likely that we would be in a position to seek their prosecution, which would be preferable to placing them under the conditions of a temporary exclusion order. Such a high test would also bring them within scope of the much stronger TPIM regime. Given the less stringent obligations of a TEO compared with the other measures, the Government’s view is that such a test would be disproportionate. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend made those concluding remarks, referring particularly to prosecution where it is possible.
Should we be comforted by the distinction between the words in Condition A, “reasonably suspects”, with an emphasis on “suspects”—the noble Lord referred to “reasonable grounds for suspicion”, which we covered earlier today—as against, in Conditions B and C,
“the Secretary of State reasonably considers”?
That seems to require more of the Secretary of State. Conditions A to D must all be met, so we can look at them together and see an escalation of the seriousness of the Secretary of State’s views, if I may put it like that. I could understand the concerns of the noble Baroness if we were to look only at Condition A, but I do not think that we can look at it in isolation.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
Lord Ashton of Hyde Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Clause 4(3) provides that an individual’s,
“failure to comply with a specified condition has the effect of invalidating the permit to return”.
My amendment would confine that to a “material failure to comply”. A deliberately absurd example would be if the individual was 10 minutes late for an appointment. There must, presumably, be some de minimis provision around this and I would be grateful if the Minister could flesh this out. In my view, minor or trivial breaches should not invalidate the permit to return.
Amendment 60 is on similar lines. It is an amendment to Clause 5 under which, specifically, the Secretary of State can refuse the permit if the individual fails to attend an interview. Amendment 60 proposes that the individual’s failure to attend should be an unreasonable failure—the bus is late or whatever. I am picking trivial examples in order to point up what I think needs to be pinned down.
Finally, Amendment 61 would leave out subsection (3) of Clause 5 which provides that the,
“return time must fall within a reasonable period after the application is made”.
I can see that we would not want the individual roaming the world for a year and going off the radar, but I would like to probe how this would operate. I am concerned, as much as anything, with the workability of the provision. At the end of the day, it would be for a court, but how is “reasonable” to be determined and who determines it? I beg to move.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, this brief debate has discussed the permit to return which would be issued under a temporary exclusion order so that an individual can return to the UK. The amendments tabled by my noble friends seek to specify that a permit to return is invalidated only if the individual’s failure to comply with a specified condition is material and that the Secretary of State may not refuse to issue a permit to return for failure to attend an interview unless the individual unreasonably fails to attend that interview. I appreciate the rationale behind these probing amendments but I hope I can reassure my noble friends that they are not necessary in this instance.
Conditions will be put into a permit to return where the Secretary of State considers they are necessary in order to protect national security. Any failure to comply with a specified condition will therefore be material, on a common-sense definition of the word. Amendment 58 would have the effect of ensuring that a person is not criminalised by an inadvertent failure to comply, but this is already provided for by the “reasonable excuse” defence in Clause 9 and the amendment is therefore superfluous.
Amendment 60 seeks to provide that the Secretary of State may not refuse to issue a permit to return for failure to attend an interview unless the individual unreasonably fails to attend that interview. I can reassure your Lordships that, in such instances, the Government would exercise discretion on what constitutes a reasonable or unavoidable failure. The Bill already provides that the Secretary of State retains the ability to issue a permit to return even if she has required someone to attend an interview and the person has failed to do so. Clearly, in the case of a reasonable failure, the Secretary of State would be minded to allow the person to return in a controlled manner, which is, after all, the object of the exercise.
Finally, Amendment 61 seeks to probe the timeframe for return specified in a permit to return. The Bill provides that the return time specified in the permit must be within a reasonable period after the application is made. This is a key provision for the temporary exclusion power because it ensures that it meets our requirements under international law. What constitutes a reasonable period, which is what my noble friend Lady Hamwee asked, will of course be determined on a case-by-case basis, and it will need to take account of factors such as the frequency of flights to and from the country where the person subject to the order is.
On the basis of these explanations, I hope that my noble friend feels that I have addressed the issues being probed by these amendments. I invite her to withdraw Amendment 58.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, on the explanation about material failure and so on, it seems that there is a distinction between the consequences of failure under Clause 4, the situation under Clause 5, and the offences which are dealt with in Clause 9, to which the Minister pointed the Committee. There are other consequences to the failures which are the subject of my first two amendments. I would like to think about that a little further. I thought that I was going to get a reassurance based on case law as well as common sense, which do come together quite often. I had not quite expected to be pointed forward to Clause 9, so I will have a think about that after today. For now, certainly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.