Interpol

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the first point I ought to make is that the United Kingdom will not arrest or extradite any person solely on the basis of a red notice. I cannot confirm or deny, in the particular case the noble and right reverend Lord referred to, whether Mr Benny Wenda has or has not received a red notice from the Indonesian Government through Interpol. I can confirm that there are arrangements in place whereby objections can be made to what Interpol have done. I referred in my opening answer to the Commission for the Control of Interpol’s Files. I would hope that those who are interested in this will take up those measures as is appropriate.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, will the Minister answer the more general point raised by the noble and right reverend Lord, of whether the Government will institute discussions with Interpol about whether, at the Interpol level, they can mitigate the use of red notices for political reasons? He has given some assurance to the House in regard to the specific case mentioned by the noble and right reverend Lord, but there is a much more general issue at stake here.

[Lord Henley]

I accept what the noble Lord says, and I will take note of that. He will know that Interpol’s constitution enshrines neutrality, and its Article 3 forbids Interpol’s involvement in political, military, religious and racial matters. The noble Lord will also know that all notices that are issued should be—I stress “should be”—checked by Interpol’s secretariat to ensure that they meet Interpol’s criteria for neutrality. Any that do not should not then be published. The wider point of whether the United Kingdom Government should take this up, or whether it should be taken up by Mr Benny Wenda or his friends, is another matter. However, there are two ways this can be done. First, member Governments can intercede with Interpol, and secondly, there is the procedure by which complaints can be made through the CCF, the Commission for Control of Interpol Files.

Police: Custody

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, again, that is something that I believe the police are managing to do in the 43 police forces up and down the country so that they better reflect the communities they serve. With the introduction of police commissioners, that, again, will be a matter that police forces will be able to continue to address in years to come.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that there is particular concern about deaths in police custody among members of black and minority ethnic communities. Often investigations fall to the IPCC to undertake. Can he tell me why, despite months of notice that a new chairman was required, the Government have yet to appoint a new chairman of the IPCC?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, again, I note the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. I join him in agreeing that every death in police custody is a tragedy. If he looks at the figures that the IPCC published, he will find that the deaths in custody—sad though every single one of them was—are generally proportionate to the ethnic make-up of the detainees as a whole. As regards the appointment of a new chairman to the IPCC, I hope that we will be able to make an announcement shortly.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[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.

Immigration: Students

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we accept that most of our universities are proper, reputable institutions, and that is why we have given universities additional flexibility in some matters. However, I will look at the specific point that my noble friend has raised. In the main, UK universities are fine on this; the abuse occurs elsewhere.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the new student visa rules have placed a further responsibility on the UK Border Agency at the same time as it has received a 20 per cent cut in its budget for a four-year period. Is the noble Lord confident that the UKBA has the resources to do the job that it has been given?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, yet again the noble Lord seems to be denying the need to make cuts as a result of the profligacy of the party opposite. Yes, we are confident that the UKBA has, and will continue to have, sufficient resources to deal with the job that it has. No doubt I shall be dealing with these matters later when the noble Lord raises a somewhat spurious amendment to the terrorism Bill.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

5: Schedule 1, page 22, line 5, at end insert—
“Residence measureA1 (1) The Secretary of State may impose restrictions on the individual in relation to the residence in which the individual resides.
(2) The Secretary of State may, in particular, impose any of the following—
(a) a requirement to reside at a specified residence;
(b) a requirement not to allow others to reside at that residence without the permission of the Secretary of State;
(c) a requirement, applicable between such hours as are specified, to remain at the specified residence.
(a) may be in any locality in the United Kingdom that appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate;
(b) may be a residence provided by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(a) the condition that the individual remains overnight at other agreed premises between such hours as the Secretary of State may require;
(b) the condition that the individual complies with such other restrictions in relation to the individual’s movements whilst away from the specified residence as may be so required.
(a) the generality of sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 14 (power to impose conditions when granting permission), or
(b) the power to impose further conditions under that sub-paragraph in connection with permission granted by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) of this paragraph.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group and I should like to start with Amendment 44A. At Questions, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, seemed to think that this was peripheral to our debates today but I do not think that it is. Surely the context in which we consider the Bill is in relation to the measures that are necessary to prevent terrorism. We were offered a Statement in lieu of a PNQ in the other place on the matter to which I am going to refer, but it is just as appropriate to discuss it here.

Amendment 44A essentially asks the Secretary of State to commission an independent review to report on the operational effectiveness of the terrorism prevention measures in place at our international borders. That is set in the context of serious concern about the operation and effectiveness of the terrorism prevention measures in place at our international borders and the Bill has to be seen in this context. Of course, one has to refer to the significant reduction in the levels of security in border checks at UK points of entry in the summer of 2011, which has been the subject of considerable parliamentary debate and concern over the past two to three weeks. The noble Lord will be aware that the Home Secretary has yet to answer some very serious questions, particularly in regard to the scale of the security breaches that have taken place.

The subject of the PNQ in the other place today concerned reports this morning that thousands of passengers arriving on private jets from all over the world were allowed into this country this summer without any passport checks as a matter of official policy, at least according to information that appears to have come from UK Border Agency e-mails. The internal UKBA documents show that immigration and customs staff were instructed not to meet passengers arriving on private charter flights, including executive jets, as part of a so-called light touch targeted approach to border checks that was adopted this summer without, as far as I am aware, the information being put into the public domain.

These e-mails from the UKBA also reveal the extent to which full passport checks on European passengers were scaled back under the limited pilot scheme authorised by the Home Secretary on 28 July. I have to say that this is a very worrying state of affairs. In the context of the cuts that have taken place in the UKBA budget, it suggests that the UKBA is having great difficulty in carrying out its functions effectively. Essentially, since the Government came to power, a number of additional responsibilities have been placed on the UKBA at the same time as the huge reduction in its budget. No wonder we have reached such a difficult situation. The point that I put to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is that this exposes general concerns about the operation and effectiveness of terrorism prevention measures, which is why I commend Amendment 44A to the House.

I return now to a group of amendments moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The noble Lord is not able to be with us this afternoon but I am grateful to him for putting his name to my amendments. Essentially, they propose keeping the existing control order provisions for relocation—which is the central point of many of our discussions on the Bill so far—until after the Olympic Games. From a chosen date after 1 January 2013, it would be open to the Government to come back to Parliament and replace the current relocation provisions with the provisions in the Bill, which would remove relocation subject to the emergency legislation that is also in the Bill.

The evidence given by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner to the Public Bill Committee in the other place was quite persuasive on the reason for and effectiveness of the use of control orders. The decision in the case of CD earlier this year was made after the Government argued, in the interest of national security, for a relocation component in CD’s control order. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, asked if the Government had changed their mind about CD and, if so, why. If they have not changed their mind, why are they bringing the Bill before us?

On timing, is it really sensible to remove the relocation provisions at the current time? The Olympics are almost upon us. The noble Lord will know of reports in the media of US concerns about Olympic security. I fully accept that the Government have stated that this has not been reported accurately, but there is no denying the challenge facing us. My amendment does not seek to detract from the essential point of this legislation. All it does is keep the existing exclusion order provisions until after the Olympics. At that point, if the Government are satisfied that they no longer need the provisions, they merely have to bring an order to Parliament and the provisions in the Bill will take over. If I may so, it is a pretty good offer. It allows the Government to continue with these provisions over a particularly challenging time but does not undermine what they are essentially seeking to do. The noble Lord was not very warm towards these amendments in Committee. Let us hope that he is a little warmer to them at Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick]

I support the Government in their decision not to include the relocation power in the Bill. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was notable for what he did not say about relocation powers. He did not mention the central feature of such a power, which makes it particularly intrusive and particularly damaging to the life of the individual who is the subject of it as well as to the lives of all members of their family. That is why such a measure should surely only be available if the Government conclude that it is truly necessary to protect national security. My understanding is that they do not, as the Minister made clear in Committee. I support them in that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

Given that the noble Lord is quite an experienced Member of this House, he will know that the grouping is not a matter, sadly, that the Government have any control over, and that it would be a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to decide that he wished to have this amendment grouped with the other amendments. Of course, the Government are more than happy to go along with that.

If I may, I will deal with that amendment very briefly. It is an amendment that asks for yet another report and I have to say that it is not necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, knows, there is ample provision already in place for independent review. We have the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism, currently David Anderson QC, and for 10 years before him we had my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, who did that job exceedingly well. The independent chief inspector of the United Kingdom Border Agency, currently John Vine, is also required to review the operation and effectiveness of the measures in place at our ports and airports. They both report annually to the Home Secretary and their findings and reports are laid in Parliament.

I will not go much further than that and I will not deal with the specific points that noble Lords have raised in relation to recent events, partly because John Vine has been asked by the Home Secretary to make a report into these matters. There are also two other internal reports that deal with these issues—again, which have been promised by my right honourable friend—that will be made available when they come out. It would therefore not be right or proper to deal with those matters.

Referring on to the question of private planes coming in and what controls we have there, as my honourable friend in another place, Damian Green, made clear, we have absolutely nothing to hide. We have in fact strengthened the procedures there compared to what they were pre-2010 and we have made sure that we prioritise and make appropriate risk-based assessments on any planes that come in. A Statement was offered to the party opposite but for reasons of its own it wished not to take it.

I turn to relocation. Again, I accept that this is an issue that has been debated extensively throughout the Bill’s passage both in this House and in another place. Obviously there are strong views on all sides. We accept that relocation has proved effective in disrupting terrorism-related activities, but it does, as my noble friend Lord Macdonald made clear, raise particularly difficult questions of proportionality. The question is therefore, as I put it at Second Reading and which I repeat now, one of balance. Our review of counter-terrorism acknowledged these difficult questions and considered them carefully. The review concluded that the best balance lies in a more focused use of the robust restrictions that will be available under the Bill together with the increased resources that will be available for covert investigation. It concluded that it will be possible to protect the public without the powers of relocation being routinely available.

We must always remember not to look at this Bill on its own. It is part of that wider package of changes, including those in the counterterrorism review, aimed at striking a better balance across the whole range of counterterrorism and security powers, and it will be complemented by the significantly increased funding that we are providing for those purposes. We have also published the Draft Enhanced TPIM Bill, which will be introduced if necessary, in exceptional circumstances, after some degree of prelegislative scrutiny, as is found appropriate by the authorities in this House and another place. It would provide more stringent restrictions, including that power of relocation, if necessary.

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has concerns over timing, particularly in relation to the Olympics. Again, he ought to listen to what my noble friend Lord Newton had to say about that, and possibly the Olympics is the one occasion when we would not want to be showcasing to the world the fact that we have measures of this sort. However, I take his concerns about the Olympics. The Government have made very clear that arrangements will be in place to manage effectively the transition from control orders to TPIM notices. Security arrangements for the Olympics are being planned on the basis that the TPIM Bill, and the powers available under it, will be in force. These plans are also proceeding on the basis that the additional powers contained in the Draft Enhanced TPIM Bill will, we hope, not be needed or be necessary. As is right and proper, our planning for the Olympics is both flexible and risk-based, and we will continue to monitor the threat to ensure that we adopt the most appropriate response, including keeping this issue under review as necessary in the light of developments.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Faulks raised a detailed and very important question about the transition period when this Bill comes in, which will be over Christmas. He asked whether I could provide some reassurance that the police would be able to manage this transition during that period. As the House will be aware, the Bill includes provision for a transition period during which control orders will remain in force to enable the necessary arrangements for TPIMs to be put in place where appropriate. The Christmas and New Year holidays are likely to fall within that period because we are approaching the time when the Bill will complete its passage through both Houses, assuming that the Bill receives Royal Assent before the Christmas period. We have recently received advice from the Metropolitan Police that while extensive preparations are being made for the transition to the new regime, an extension to the transition period from 28 days to 42 days would be required to ensure that operational risks are minimised over the holiday period. I give an assurance to the House and to my noble friend that I undertake to bring forward an amendment to the Bill at Third Reading that will make that necessary change in Schedule 8 to the Bill—I think it is more or less the last sentence of the Bill.

I hope that with those explanations, and stressing again the need for balance and proportionality, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, could not respond somewhat more positively to my Amendment 44A. My noble friend Lord Harris asked a number of pertinent questions. No doubt when the official inquiries report, we will get answers to them. There is an underlying concern about the security of our borders and the resources available to the UK Border Agency. I hope that we will have another opportunity to return to this in due course.

As for my other amendments, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that at Second Reading I recognised the exceptional and intrusive measures that control orders imply and I do not at all detract from that. I just happen to think that they are one of the tools that should be open to the Government, with ample judicial review where they happen to be used.

I very rarely disagree with my noble friend. I was surprised at what the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said. After all, if the Opposition had indeed voted with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, the Government would have been defeated. Government defeats are something that I usually rejoice in, but the fact is that I feel that it is right that we are consistent with the position that we took in Government and our view that, in the end, it is for the Home Secretary to make that judgment, rightly or wrongly. I do not think that it is a sad day for the Opposition. It would have been a sad day if we had taken an opportunist position.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, asked a very good question and I think that he got a very good answer. Forty-two days has a certain ring about it in the history of debating this legislation and I look forward to the debate at Third Reading when the noble Lord, Lord Henley, brings forward his amendment. At the end of the day, my noble friend Lord Harris and the noble Lord, Lord Bew, had it right: the amendments I am putting forward are modest ones. All they do is give the Government the opportunity to use exclusion orders for a very limited period to take us through a challenging period, with the option at the end—within just over a year—to come to this House with an order to remove those provisions from legislation and let this Bill follow its course. I still believe that that is, and would be, a sensible way forward, and I am disappointed that the Government are not going to take it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that we are either equipped or we are not equipped. That is the Government’s position, to be either equipped or not equipped. They have made a great song and dance of getting rid of exclusion orders but have then said, “Just in case, we will have emergency legislation up our sleeve, and, by the way, there are certain circumstances when Parliament cannot be recalled, so we had better have it in this Bill as well”. We can talk about being equipped or not equipped: it is absolutely clear that the Government know that they might need these provisions in the future. That is why they are legislating for them, either through the emergency legislation, which is going through pre-legislative scrutiny at some point, or in this Bill. They ought to have welcomed the flexibility that my amendments would give them.

However, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York has advised me not to move the amendment on this occasion. He was a wonderful Bishop of Birmingham when I first met him. In this case, I will take spiritual advice and will not seek to press the House on this any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has spoken with his usual clarity and force and that means I can be very brief. It was the issue of time limiting the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 that six years ago brought me into conflict with my then own—and then government—Front Bench. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has put his name to the amendment. I have to say, however, that like the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I was disappointed at his attitude on Amendment 1. He invoked the principle of consistency. I think he ought to be careful about that when we review this particular amendment, given that the Labour position then on time limiting was consistently to oppose any form of time limiting on the 2005 Act until two thumping defeats in this House and some fairly vigorous ping-pong.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am most grateful to my noble—and, dare I say, socialist—friend for raising that. The point I raised on our debate on the first amendment was consistency with the legislation, which we took through and which we were operating.

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, I have always felt that consistency was a dangerous principle for politicians to invoke. I make a serious point here. Of course there is a virtue in consistency, but there is also a Galbraithian view on thoughtless and mindless consistency. I have always felt that the overwhelming obligation for politicians was to be willing and able to justify their inconsistencies as well as to have underlying consistency of principle. However, this is all by way of an aside and I hope the House will at least feel that I am consistent in my view.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said, when we are departing from the normal procedures and principles of the criminal law—and there are reports of various committees, both Joint Committees and committees of your Lordships House about the exceptional nature of the provisions in the Bill—there is an obligation upon us as parliamentarians to keep that under review, and always be willing to reassess what we have done and how we have done it.

In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in our debate in Committee—I hope that I am not paraphrasing him—we have got it basically right in the Bill and there is no point in having an annual squabble about it. However, I do not see this as an annual squabble. I see it much more as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, did, as the opportunity to reassess both the need and the efficacy of what we have put in place. These are difficult balances to strike. We do not get them right and perfect every time. There is a discipline imposed by Ministers having to justify each year the continuation of provisions that all of us recognise as important and exceptional and departing from principles that are equally fundamental to how we conduct ourselves as a society.

I feel very strongly that it is not an overwhelming burden to put on Ministers to ask them to have the respect for Parliament and the recognition of the departure from the norm that the measures in this Bill contain once a year, to reassess and bring before Parliament a renewal order that asks whether we have got it as good as we can get it. Therefore, I hope that the House will support the amendment tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords—

[Lord Henley]

What I was saying, if the noble Lord will allow me to continue my argument before he intervenes, is that we do not think that an annual review of this by Parliament is necessary: once during each Parliament should be sufficient. However, as I made clear, other reports from the independent reviewer and from my right honourable friend will come before Parliament to inform debate on these matters.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

All I wanted to say to the Minister was that while he referred to a Henry VIII clause, he might also have reminded his noble and learned friend of the other Henry VIII clause, which allows the Home Secretary in certain circumstances to go back to control orders.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord said it for me. All I am saying is that the Bill can be withdrawn by my right honourable friend, should she so wish. Those powers are set out in the Bill.

UK Border Agency

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Home Secretary in the other place. The security of our borders is of paramount importance and must be one of the first duties of any Government. It is becoming abundantly clear that the Government are failing in their duty in their oversight and stewardship of the UK Border Agency. The services it is providing are falling far short of what they ought to be. The public are understandably shocked at reports of serious security and immigration lapses by the UK Border Agency over the summer. They are the most serious and pressing of a catalogue of failures on immigration and border enforcement over the past 18 months, which include a six-fold increase in untraceable asylum applicants placed in the controlled archive.

The establishment of an independent inquiry is extremely important and welcome, as it is clear that the two internal investigations instituted by the Home Office would not have been sufficient. The first and crucial step must be to ascertain the implications of the lapses in security and passport controls. In particular, we need to know whether anyone posing a threat to Britain’s national security was allowed to enter the UK during the period in which the decision of Ministers to relax passport checks was taken further than the Home Office said was ordered. It is vital that passenger records are reviewed and a swift investigation undertaken covering the period when the checks were cancelled. We need to know if someone on a watch list entered the UK during this time so that the police and security services can take the necessary steps to protect the public.

The Minister said that Ministers agreed to a pilot scheme to allow border force officers to target intelligence-led checks on higher-risk categories of travellers. However, UKBA officials—admittedly many of them anonymous—have been commenting across media outlets since the news broke. Essentially, they said that the length of queues and the lack of staff led to decisions in July to relax passport checks. Can the Minister confirm that Home Office Ministers asked officials to draw up a range of measures to cut queues at airports and ports during the summer holiday season because they were so concerned at the visible consequences of the cuts that they had made to the budget of the UK Border Agency?

The Statement emphasised that the measures agreed by the Home Secretary in July were subject to a risk-based assessment. Will the Minister give me an assurance that officials are not now being asked to carry the can for using the very discretion given to them by Ministers in July? The reality is that, instead of strengthening the checks year on year as all previous Ministers committed themselves to do, this Home Secretary decided to water them down as official government policy, even though Parliament had not been informed. Officials are now blamed for relaxing the checks further than the Home Secretary intended, but will the Minister confirm that it was the Home Secretary who gave the green light for weaker controls in the first place?

Will the Minister publish correspondence and papers from the Home Office and the UKBA around the decision that Ministers made in the summer and the effects that it had on border controls? The July guidance that relaxed passport controls should be published alongside any other memoranda explaining policy to UK Border Agency officials.

On the question of the independent inquiry, can I be assured that it will take into account the actions of Home Office Ministers and the effect of resource cuts on UKBA decision-making? To what extent have the state of affairs and the catalogue of errors at the UK Border Agency been a response to the budget cuts the agency has faced, including the reduction of thousands of staff and the pressure to cut queues during the summer period?

Since the Government came to power, they have piled new responsibilities on the UK Border Agency. We have debated the responsibilities on a number of occasions, not least in relation to the very misguided approach to the student visa programme. The UK Border Agency has had many responsibilities placed upon it at the same time as it has had to cut back drastically on its budget and on the number of staff that it has in place. Is that not what has now happened? The weakening of controls and the risk assessment are simply the clearest illustration of the failure of the Government to support the UK Border Agency effectively with resources, thereby putting the security of our nation at risk.

Police: Station Closures

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many police stations have been closed since May 2010.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, this information is not collected centrally. Decisions about resources are, rightly, matters for chief constables to take locally with their police authorities. What is important is how visible and available the police are. We want to see police officers on the streets, preventing and cutting crime, rather than behind their desks. Modern policing reaches people through many means, not just through police stations.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that illuminating Answer. Could it be that the Government do not collect this information centrally because the information is too embarrassing to them? Can the Minister confirm that the recent Sunday Times survey that showed 350 public counters due for closure in the next few months is accurate? Can he also confirm that his ministerial colleague in the Home Office, Lynne Featherstone, has been running a campaign in her constituency against police cuts and the closure of public counters? Does he agree that this is somewhat hypocritical, and does it not show that she knows that these cuts are going to have an impact on the police’s ability to fight crime?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am aware of the research in the Sunday Times to which the noble Lord refers. I am not sure it was conducted on the most scientific basis and therefore we will not take much notice of it. I am also aware of what my honourable friend Ms Featherstone had to say about issues in her own constituency. I understand her views were purely about her own constituency, and she is a very good constituency MP. I can assure the House that, like all government Ministers, she is fully committed to what the Government and the Home Office are doing to make the necessary savings—savings forced on us by the profligate manner in which the party opposite behaved when they were last in government.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

60: Clause 31, page 21, line 35, leave out from the first “on” to end and insert “such day that the Secretary of State may by order appoint, being a day after 1 January 2013”

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I shall also speak to my Amendment 61. The heart of the Opposition’s concern with the Bill is the worry that the Home Secretary’s powers to deal with these very difficult and potentially very damaging cases are being weakened. Nowhere is this more evident than the central issue of relocation without consent. Relocation powers have proved to be extremely useful in disrupting terrorist activity, as has been confirmed by the police on a number of occasions. Indeed, as we discussed on the first day in Committee, the Home Secretary herself argued in May of this year—just a few months ago—in the case of CD that he needed to be removed from Greater London to protect the public from a terrorist attack.

Ministers have claimed that we need not worry because they will put greater surveillance measures in place of the existing legislative provisions. I again remind the Minister that, in evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place, the senior representative of the Metropolitan Police said that to get the resources required so that there will be sufficient surveillance measures in place, to get people trained, and to get the right equipment would take more than a year. The point I put to the Minister is this: it is simply not credible that the security environment has changed so dramatically in the past three to five months that the powers needed then are not needed now.

With the Olympic year coming up, can the Minister honestly say that the powers are needed less in the coming months than they were needed by this Home Secretary, who has used those powers on five occasions? The Minister has argued that the public can be protected by a less intrusive and more targeted regime. He has talked about the need for this regime to be complemented by additional resources for the police and security services, allowing more surveillance, and it is acknowledged that it will take time for those measures to be put into place.

My amendment offers a very helpful way forward for the Government. I am suggesting that the new measures are not brought in until 1 January 2013. This will allow us to get through the Olympic year using current legislative provisions. I am also suggesting that Parliament has some reassurance from the terrorism co-ordinator that the additional resources have been provided and, overall, that there can be confidence that the new provisions of this Bill, if enacted, and the additional measures that will need to be brought in in relation to surveillance are fully in place. I think that that is a very good offer from the Opposition; it will allow the Government to reassure both the security services and the police and to ensure stability over the next 15 months. The Government will be able to implement the new measures from 1 January 2013. Surely it will be worth the Government pausing over the next year to get us through the Olympics and then move to the introduction of these provisions. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for that comment. Yes, we are satisfied and it would be very troubling if we were not. Perhaps I may also deal with the brief point made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about the terrorism co-ordinator. I am assuming that by that term used in the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, means a senior national co-ordinator for counterterrorism, but I shall let him address that in due course.

I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. She emphasised, first, the point of the role of Home Secretary and, secondly, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, himself addressed—that we should look not just at the Bill on its own but at the Bill plus the additional resources that have been promised. That is the most important matter before the House at this stage. It is not just the Bill that we are talking about, but the whole package that the Government have put forward.

I thank the noble Lord for his clear explanation of the concerns that lie behind his amendments. I appreciate that he raised the subject of relocation and the case of CD, in which, on that occasion, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary used relocation. However, as I have said, we must look at the package; and it is because the package will be in operation that we believe that relocation will not be so necessary in the future. As the House will be aware, there has been considerable debate over the past few weeks, here and in another place, about the arrangement for the transition from control orders to the new system of TPIMs. These amendments are an attempt to return to the issues raised by amendments tabled in another place and debated at some length on Commons Report.

The Opposition have been consistent in expressing their concern that the police and the Security Service may not be ready for the commencement of the Bill when the time comes. These amendments, in common with those tabled in another place, are intended to provide reassurance on that point by delaying commencement of the Bill or by making it subject to agreement with the police on the readiness of the significant additional resources that we are providing. However, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, that must, in the end, be a matter for the Home Secretary.

I accept that such concerns, particularly in the run-up to the Olympic Games, are well intended and are born of a concern to deal with matters that relate to the safety of the public. However, I am happy to confirm that I do not believe that they are necessary. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the public will be protected by the Bill because we are satisfied that there are sufficient resources available, including in relation to the date on which the Bill comes into force. We believe that the Bill plus the robust package provide the appropriate measures to protect the public, and alongside it there will be considerably increased resources to strengthen covert investigative capacity. We have repeatedly made it clear that for obvious reasons we are not able to provide details of that additional funding or its deployment, and that remains clear. However, we have also been clear—and I am pleased to confirm this again—that we have been in discussion with the police and the Security Service for some months on this matter, and arrangements will be in place to manage effectively the transition from control orders to TPIMs.

I hope that those assurances are sufficient for the noble Lord. If they are not, we will obviously come back to this matter on Report. However, I hope he will accept that we obviously cannot go into detail on what the resources are, and he would not expect me to do so. However, what I have said should be sufficient to allay his fears and I hope that he will therefore be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, although I am disappointed by his response. I just refer the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to the evidence given by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Osborne to the Public Bill Committee when he was asked about the effectiveness or not of relocation orders. He said:

“The relocation issue has been very useful for us being able to monitor and enforce at the current time. Without that relocation, and depending on where people choose to live, that could be significantly more difficult”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill Committee, 21/6/11; col. 5.]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that it is a question of the Bill plus resources. He said that he is confident that, alongside the provisions of the Bill, sufficient resources are being made available to the police and security forces. Of course, I can only accept the assurance that the noble Lord has given but I simply wonder whether he is wise to move to a new system within a very short period of the Olympics coming to this country. I wonder whether there is not a case for the implementation of this measure being delayed until after the Olympics. That really is the intention behind my amendment, which is meant to be helpful, and I hope that the Government will give it further consideration between now and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

Police: Stop and Account

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that this goes back to 1981, but the recording of stop and account came after the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. This Question is directly related to the fact that we will no longer make it compulsory to record stop and account, which I have explained. I do not have at my fingertips the figures that the noble Lord seeks, but I shall write to the noble Lord and make sure that he has them.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

The Minister has not answered my noble friend’s original Question, which is how the Government intend to meet the requirement for information from the UN committee. The Minister says that this is about reducing bureaucracy, but does he not agree that this is another signal of the Government seeking to abdicate from responsibility for policing? Since the number of police officers is going down and crime is going up, it is easy to see why the Government want to abdicate their responsibilities.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord is wrong and the UN committee is wrong. There is no need to record this activity, but we have left it open to local police forces to make the decision. There is a correct balance to be struck between accountability and bureaucracy. We do not want to overburden the police, as did the party opposite when it was in power, with excessive bureaucracy that prevents them doing the job that they are supposed to be doing.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I made clear that, as part of that review, we considered moving to that test. I was not in the Home Office at the time, so I do not know what precise consideration was given, but in the end the decision was taken that, yes, we will raise the standard from reasonable suspicion to reasonable belief, but that to take it beyond that would create risks. A decision had to be made on where the appropriate balance should be, and that is why we came down in favour of reasonable belief rather than a balance of probabilities.

I hope that the noble Lord can accept that, but I can see that it is a very difficult one and we will no doubt discuss it in later stages of the Bill. We believe that reasonable belief should deal with the questions raised by the noble Lord. The same applies to his Amendments 42 and 43 when talking about the decision being made by the Home Secretary herself. Again, I noted what my noble friend Lord Faulks had to say on that matter. Possibly they were better words for use with the Home Secretary’s decision rather than when talking about a judicial process. Again, we feel that we have the balance about right.

I turn now to the question raised on the full merits review in the noble Lord’s Amendments 42 and 43, which I mistakenly said were his amendments on the alternative, but that is covered by his Amendment 17, so I correct myself at this stage. His Amendment 42 specifies that a full court review of a TPIM notice under Clause 9 must be “on the merits” and would delete the subsection of that clause which specifies that,

“the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review”.

As the noble Lord explained, these amendments are designed to ensure that the review of an imposition of a TPIM notice provides a full merits review. He articulated the view of the Constitution Committee—yet another committee that has been looking at this—in its report on the Bill: that it should be clear, on its face, in cases concerning TPIM notices. The function of the court is not limited to ordinary judicial review. Such a constitutionally important matter should not be left for clarification in the Explanatory Notes. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made it clear that the purpose behind his intention to oppose the question that Clause 9 stand part of the Bill is to facilitate consideration of this same issue.

The Government have been clear that judicial oversight of the process of imposing measures must be a key feature of the new regime. The involvement of the courts is an important safeguard for the rights of the individual, and the Bill takes a comprehensive and multilayered approach to this. As the Explanatory Notes explain, the case law relating to control orders is subject to a particularly intense level of review by the High Court. It is absolutely the case that the Government intend for the same intense level of scrutiny to be applied in court reviews of TPIM notices under Clause 9. All noble Lords will be aware that the courts have not been slow in finding against Home Secretaries of whatever regime for many years in control order litigation, and have used their powers to quash control orders or to give directions to the Secretary of State as appropriate under the current system of judicial review principles, as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in the case of MB.

We are of the view that the courts will apply relevant case law to TPIM proceedings as appropriate. That will, of course, include the case law on the type of review undertaken by the courts in these kinds of cases. In summary, in relation to the full substantive review of each control order, the Court of Appeal ruled again in MB that the High Court must make a finding of fact as to whether the reasonable suspicion limb of the statutory test for imposing a control order is met, and must apply intense scrutiny to the Secretary of State’s decisions on the necessity of each of the obligations imposed under the control order while paying a degree of deference—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way because it enables me to anticipate the arguments we are going to have later, on whether Clause 9 should stand part of the Bill. He will know that the Opposition have concerns about the Bill, both because we think that it in some ways weakens our ability to prevent terrorism acts, and because we think that it weakens some of the safeguards. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on this. Given that the enhanced level of scrutiny has been one of the ways in which we have seen that the control order regime works effectively, I am surprised that the Government are not prepared to accept the spirit of what the Constitution Committee has put forward. I still do not understand why it is not possible to put this in the Bill.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I shall develop those arguments further when we get to Clause 9, which the noble Lord wishes to discuss. Late this evening though it might be, that might be the appropriate time, and I look forward to that in due course.

I shall now move on to the fourth point I want to deal with, which relates to the question of the time limit and how long a TPIM notice can have an effect. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, proposes changes to the provision relating to the period for which a TPIM notice can be served. In his model, as I understand it, there would be a requirement for new terrorism-related activity to have taken place while the TPIM notice was in force in order to allow the TPIM notice to be extended into its second year. Again, we do not think that this strikes the right balance—and again, it is “balance” that we want to stress—in the context of preventive orders of this kind. Indeed, it would undermine the Government’s ability to protect the people of this country from a risk of terrorism.

Although we have decided that extension of a TPIM notice for a further year should only be allowed on one occasion—after which new evidence would be required to impose a new TPIM notice—we do not believe that new terrorism-related activity should be required in order to extend the original TPIM notice for that first year. In other words, one could make the original notice for a year, then extend it; but if one wanted to extend it further than those two years, then there must be new activity.

An ongoing necessity for the notice can be made out on the basis of the original terrorism-related activity, particularly where that activity was very serious, suggesting that the individual’s mindset and intention to do serious harm will not have changed after just one year subject to whatever restrictive measures have been imposed in the TPIM order. Indeed, many court judgments in the context of control orders confirm that ongoing necessity, for the purposes of public protection, is not dependent on any new terrorism-related activity since the imposition of the control order.

Although the Government’s view is that TPIM notices should not be used simply to warehouse people for very long periods and should not be imposed indefinitely on the basis of the same evidence—as can happen with control orders at the moment, if the statutory test continues to be met—we do not think that a notice that can only last one year without evidence of new activity while subject to the measures will be sufficient to disrupt the threat posed by the individuals concerned in many cases. Therefore we believe that the right balance—again, I stress “balance”—is this “one year plus one year” approach. It is a balance between protecting the public from persons believed to be engaged in terrorism-related activity and protecting the civil liberties of those individuals. I hope that also answers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as to whether one could go beyond two years with a TPIM notice. What I want to stress is that, if one wants to go beyond two years, one has to find some other terrorism-related activity.

I hope that that has dealt with most of the points that have been made in the very useful debate we have had on this large group of amendments at the start of the Committee stage of this Bill. No doubt we will be coming back to all these matters at a later stage of the Bill, just as we will be coming back to them on Clause 9, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has assured us—possibly later on today. I hope that, as I have answered those points, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, will feel able to withdraw his amendment, and we can move on with the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, in tabling this amendment, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who has put his name to it. This group of amendments is about relocation, an issue we discussed at Second Reading. The first sentence of the executive summary of the Justice and Security Green Paper, published today by the Ministry of Justice, is:

“The first duty of government is to safeguard our national security. In delivering this duty, the Government produces and receives sensitive information”.

I do not want to repeat at great length the arguments on relocation presented at Second Reading. I simply want to reiterate that the sensitive information, the security that the Government have received, points to the need, for the time being at least, to continue as part of the main legislation the power to order relocation, used sparingly as it is and subject to the scrutiny of the courts.

I have drafted the amendment so as to keep the existing control order provisions for relocation until after the Olympic Games, choosing a date after 1 January 2013. At that point, it would be open—and I am completely open-minded about this—to the Government to come back to Parliament and to replace the relocation provisions with what is in the Bill, which would remove relocation subject to emergency legislation. All that would be required would be an affirmative resolution of both Houses. There would therefore be a debate in which the Government would pass to each House of Parliament the advice that they have received from the security services, including the sensitive information to which I referred earlier.

I can best make my argument for this group of amendments by asking the Minister a series of questions. First, is it correct that the National Security Council, which is made up of Ministers only, has been advised against the removal of relocation from the list of available powers? If the NSC was so advised, I suspect that the Minister will be driven to confirm that the removal of relocation is not as a result of a debate on the merits but as a result of political considerations founded on the manifestos of the two partners in the coalition. I am as enthusiastic about the coalition as most Liberal Democrats—well, nearly—but I am not enthusiastic about political considerations trumping national security, which is what I fear may have happened.

My second question is: have Her Majesty's Government received any advice from those who are currently operational in MI5, MI6, GCHQ or SO15, the counterterrorism command, that the relocation power has become an unnecessary component of national security for the time being? If they have, perhaps they will tell us what it is and whence it came, because my belief is that the advice will be eccentric and not in the mainstream.

My third question is: does any part of the informed security bodies—those with the information—support the removal of the relocation power before the Olympics and Paralympics, as opposed to after them? In other words, what consideration has been given to the pinch point that will be created by the Games? We should remember in this context that we are talking about the security not only of the Olympic Park and the other venues where Olympic and Paralympic events will take place. One effect of the Games on policing in this country will be that a large number of police officers will be removed from their normal duties up and down the country—dare I say to the Minister, in Cumbria for example? Those officers will find themselves in unfamiliar places in east London, protecting the Olympic Park. Perhaps not in Cumbria but in some of our bigger and more populous resorts during the summer, there will be an increased risk of terrorism events going undetected.

My fourth question, which is connected, is really a rhetorical question. Surely on the basis of the evidence the Government must accept that they would be fulfilling what the Green Paper describes as the first duty of government by retaining relocation until after the Olympics and Paralympics are over.

My fifth question relates to something that was raised at Second Reading: the case of CD and the judgment of Mr Justice Simon. When the CD case was heard earlier this year, did Her Majesty's Government consider it proportionate and in the interests of national security to request a relocation component in CD’s control order? If they did, I come to my final question: have they changed their mind about CD? If they have, why have they done so?

The decision in the case of CD was taken on the basis of arguments presented on behalf of the Government, with special counsel present, after the publication of the counterterrorism review that was independently and very capably scrutinised by my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. If the Government had decided that relocation was no longer necessary, it is surprising that they bothered to make the argument against CD. One should, after all, contrast it with the decision made in relation to Section 44 stop and search, which remained on the statute book long after the Home Secretary made the welcome announcement that it was in effect no longer to be used. I am driven to the conclusion that there was a merits argument in the Home Office about both these issues and that the decision that was taken on the merits was that Section 44 should no longer be used because we did not need it, but the decision that was taken on the merits in relation to relocation and CD was that it should continue to be used because we do need it. All that leads me very reluctantly to the conclusion that the removal of relocation has far less to do with the Government’s first duty than with meeting some arguments that have been made before this Government were formed and in a political context, including a very powerful argument made in a Times article by my noble friend Lord Macdonald before he was a Member of this House.

What I would ask the Minister to do is merely to confirm at this stage, because we will return to this later, that the Government are considering this matter and are now considering it on its merits. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and have added my name to his amendment. I really hope that the Minister will give this earnest consideration. He will know that I am highly critical of the Bill that he brings before us. It is clear that the exclusion provisions within control orders have proved to be highly effective. The evidence given by the deputy assistant commissioner to the Public Bill Committee in the other place was quite persuasive on that point. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has already referred to the case that the Home Secretary herself brought forward and argued for the use of such provisions. It is clear that the Government know that they may need these provisions in the future. That is why we have the enhanced TPIMs draft Bill for use if it were ever to be required.

We have the quite extraordinary provision in this Bill that if the enhanced provisions were to be required, and were to be required in the period between the Dissolution of Parliament and the first Queen’s Speech in the next Parliament, the Home Secretary is to be empowered by this Bill to use those provisions. If ever there were an admission that the Government know in their heart that they may need those provisions and, indeed, have used them in their period of office, there is the evidence.

We then come to the second issue that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has alluded to. It is whether it is right or sensible to remove those relocation provisions at the current time. We have the Olympics, and we also have the issue that, in lieu of the exclusion provisions, additional surveillance will have to be undertaken by the police at additional cost, with additional resources and using more people. The noble Lord will know that in the Public Bill Committee in the other place the deputy assistant commissioner expressed some concerns about the length of time that will be required by the police to put those measures into place.

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, quite brilliantly in my view, gets the Government off the hook for the period between the end of the Olympics and the beginning of 2013. It also says to the Government that, if at that time or beyond it they reach a conclusion that they do not need the exclusion provisions, they can simply bring an order before Parliament. No doubt Parliament would assent to that order, as it does assent to government orders. However, if the Government at that time are not so assured, they already have the provisions on the statute book with the benefit of them having gone through Parliament and being effectively scrutinised rather than using the very unsatisfactory approach of having an emergency Bill in the stocks ready for use.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, might be sympathetic to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. It is meant to be a constructive response to current circumstances. I certainly think that it warrants due consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Will the noble Lord address the evidence given by the deputy assistant commissioner, which I know he will have read, which pays tribute to the effectiveness of that exclusion order?

[Lord Pannick]

I am coming to that, but let us at the outset recognise the impact of a relocation measure. If one is going to adopt a measure or power of this sort, one needs to recognise the striking impact that it has on the spouse and the children. A measure that amounts to internal exile of a person needs a compelling justification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick]

The noble Lord can intervene as many times as he likes. I welcome his interventions. My answer to his point is twofold. We can always add more and more intrusive measures and protect ourselves more effectively from the perspective of national security. The question is: what is a fair balance? I am assuming that the Government, not just concerned about a particular individual case but looking at these issues as a whole, have concluded that relocation would undermine the fair balance because of its particularly intrusive nature and that the combination of the measures contained in the TPIM and the surveillance measures that can always be imposed on an individual who is not relocated will effectively protect the public. It is true that there is a financial cost, which is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Does the noble Lord wish to add to that?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

The noble Lord is being very kind in accepting all these interventions, but this is an important point. If the Government were really confident, they would not be producing a draft emergency Bill or having the provision in this Bill to allow the Home Secretary in an election to use the enhanced measures. I am afraid the fact is that in their heart, and particularly in the noble Lord’s own department, they know that the exclusion provisions are very important. I am sure that, in the future, they are going to have to use the emergency provisions if this Bill goes through. I do not think that the Government have that confidence, and that is the worry.

[Lord Pannick]

We will hear from the Minister in relation to that in a moment. I am satisfied that a sensible and fair way of dealing with what is a very difficult issue, because of the primacy of national security and the particularly intrusive nature of a relocation power, is for the Government to satisfy themselves, as I assume they have done, that relocation powers are not needed. However, given the importance of this power, they recognise that it is sensible to have reserve powers available which, God forbid they are ever needed, can be brought into force. I support the Government on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as someone who started his ministerial career some 20 years ago sitting at the feet of my noble friend Lord Newton, I am grateful to hear those remarks. I always knew that he was sound, loyal and supportive of the Government in every possible way.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was somewhat disparaging about the Enhanced TPIM Bill and asked why we have it. It obviously indicates that we believe there is a need for bringing in relocation because we have it in the Enhanced TPIM Bill. At Second Reading, I made it very clear that we hoped that we would never have to bring that Bill into force, but I also tried to point out how important it was that we should be able to debate it in a measured manner, which is what pre-legislative scrutiny will allow for, when the threat was not as high as it might be when and should we have to bring it in. That might be a better way to proceed than to debate it in moments of crisis and rush it straight off the shelves while minds are not necessarily as settled as they should be.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Does not the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, propose an even better way? Essentially, he is saying, first, let us get over the Olympic-year problem by allowing the Government to have use of this power in this Bill. We are able to scrutinise it properly and if at some point in the future the Government are able to conclude that they no longer need it they can bring an order before Parliament. If I were sitting in the Minister’s place, I would be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, because it is a very helpful amendment.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says, but I do not accept that. The power might be necessary in the future; that is why we have brought the Draft Enhanced TPIM Bill to the House and why the House will have its chance for pre-legislative scrutiny. We hope that we will not need to bring it into effect. However, we might have to bring it into effect at a time when Parliament is not sitting, which Clauses 26 and 27 allow us to do. As was made clear by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven and others, it is question of getting the balance right. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, repeatedly stressed the word “balance” because it is all about balance.

Perhaps I may say a little more about how we reached this decision and where we think we are. The Committee will be aware that relocation has been of particular interest during the passage of the Bill both in another place and here and strong views, as we have heard today, have been expressed on all sides. No one disputes the very powerful disruptive effect that relocation of an individual to another part of the country can have on their involvement in terrorism-related activity. Equally, as, again, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made clear, it can have a very powerful effect on the individual and his family likewise. So such a power raises very difficult questions of proportionality, including in relation to the impact that it can have both on the individual and their family. The counterterrorism and security powers review acknowledged these difficult questions and considered them very carefully.

As was made clear following that review, the Government concluded that it should not routinely be possible under the TPIM system to require an individual to relocate without consent to another part of the UK. Debates on the issue, as, again, has been made clear, frequently turn on that question of balance, specifically between protection of individual liberty and security for the wider population. Views on where the right balance might be understandably differ in different parts and, dare I say it, on all sides of the House—not many noble friends of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have intervened, but I am sure that he would find that there are one or two on the Benches behind him who do not agree with everything that the Opposition have had to say. As the noble Lord will be aware, the former Government took the view that compulsory relocation was necessary as one of the wide range of potential obligations under the control order provisions. That was a perfectly legitimate position, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has used the power to relocate on a number occasions when she has imposed control orders.

However, the coalition Government do not think that this is the only approach that can be taken. Our conclusion, as we made clear in January, is that a more focused use of the restrictions that will be available under the TPIM Bill, together with—it is important to remember this and I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminded us of it—the significantly increased funding that we are providing for covert investigation and other measures, will allow us effectively to protect the public without the need for this potentially very intrusive power to be routinely available. That is where our approach differs from that taken by both my noble friend and the Opposition in their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I hope I can give some reassurance to my noble friend on the issues that she has raised in her amendments today.

My noble friend’s first amendment relates to Clause 5 and the power to extend a TPIM notice for a further year. As Clause 5 makes clear, a TPIM notice can be extended only if conditions A, C and D are met at the time and the TPIM notice would otherwise expire. In particular, the notice and the measures specified in it must be considered necessary at that point. The Secretary of State cannot reasonably make a decision to extend until shortly before the notice would expire. If she attempted to do so, I am sure that the courts would not uphold her decision. My noble friend might also like to know that decisions on whether to renew control orders have been taken only relatively close to what would otherwise be the expiry date. However, I can also assure my noble friend that any subsequent change in relation to ongoing necessity will be reflected as soon as is practical, by either the relaxation of particular measures or the revocation of the notice as a whole. This is because necessity must continue to be made clear at all stages while the notice remains in place.

My noble friend has also tabled several amendments to Clause 6 and Schedule 1 in respect of the word “obviously”. These are Amendments 28, 30, 31 and 33 to 35. She seeks to clarify the word “obviously” and proposes deleting it from the phrase “obviously flawed” where it occurs. I can confirm that, in essence, this language is intended to mean much the same as prima facie in the context of what will normally be an ex parte application. In other words, her assumption on this matter is correct.

At the permission stage, the court will normally consider the application in the absence of the individual who is to have measures imposed on him. This is to ensure that the individual is not given advance warning that he is to be made the subject of a TPIM notice. The judge therefore undertakes an initial check at this early stage to ensure that there is nothing in the material presented to him to indicate that the Secretary of State is clearly wrong to think that the statutory test is satisfied, either in relation to having reasonable grounds to believe in terrorism-related activity or the need to impose a notice, or in relation to one or more of the proposed measures. It is a preliminary hearing that in essence ensures that the Secretary of State is not using her powers in an obviously inappropriate way, and therefore is very different to the further stages when the courts would review the actual decision.

The language of “obviously flawed” is well understood and applied by the courts as it is the language that is used in the control orders legislation—it is already there. The Government therefore consider that it is appropriate to continue to use this language. The full court review will, of course, be undertaken after the measures have been imposed. The procedures for that are set out in Clauses 8 and 9.

Finally, my noble friend’s other amendment in this group relates to what would happen in a circumstance where the court determined that only the Secretary of State’s conclusion that condition D is satisfied is obviously flawed—therefore, A and C had been met but D was flawed. This is likely to be where the court identifies that one or more of the individual measures specified in the proposed TPIM notice clearly does not meet the test that it is necessary for purposes connected with preventing or restricting the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity. In these circumstances the court may give permission to impose a TPIM notice, but may in doing so give directions to the Secretary of State in relation to the measures to be imposed.

The amendment would amplify Clause 6(9) by adding the words,

“including the variation or cancellation of specified measures”.

As my noble friend has explained, she is seeking an assurance from me that this is already the case. She is seeking further information than that which was provided during the passage of the Bill in another place. I can confirm that, as drafted, Clause 6(9) would allow the court to give directions in relation to the variation of the proposed measures set out in the draft TPIM notice. Equally, it would allow the court to direct that a particular measure should not be included in the notice. It should be noted that while the court may give directions in this regard, it will remain the duty of the Secretary of State actually to draft the terms of the measure as this role falls not to the court but to the Secretary of State, with her recognised expertise and responsibility in matters of national security and the measures that are required in order to protect the public. But when doing so following the directions of the court, she will clearly be very constrained in how she conducts that drafting exercise.

I hope that I have provided sufficient assurance to my noble friend and that she will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness agonises over whether she puts this to the vote, the final point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, about the Secretary of State’s responsibilities is well taken. I congratulate her on what is probably her first appearance at the Dispatch Box, certainly in this Committee stage.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, gets there before me.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 9 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I shall not detain the Committee long as we had a debate on this matter in the first grouping. Essentially, whatever our view of control orders, there is general agreement that the enhanced judicial scrutiny has been rigorous and the Government have said that such scrutiny will embrace the provisions in the Bill. The Constitution Committee has suggested that to put the matter beyond doubt, the Government should table an amendment to put the matter into the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, will no doubt have read today’s report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which endorses that point and says that the surest way to deliver the intense scrutiny that the Government say they intend is to write that explicitly into the Bill.

I doubt whether the noble Lord’s arguments have advanced considerably since he gave us the Government’s line about two hours ago, so I do not expect him to respond again to this point. All I would say is that I hope that between now and Report he might say that the Government will ponder this matter further.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I wish to make only one point. I said at the beginning of business that I had only recently seen the Joint Committee’s report, which was published at 11 am today, and I had not yet read it in detail. The noble Lord seemed to imply that I would have managed to read it during the course of this debate. For once, I thought it was more important to listen to the noble Lord, and other noble Lords, rather than reading the book. Of course, we will study the report in detail, and it might be that a further response can come between now and Report. I do not think that, as the noble Lord put it, our thoughts have advanced much during the previous two or three hours.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord, who manages to make marmalade as well as being a senior Minister in this Government, is clearly multitasked and multiskilled. I had thought he would easily have been able to read it while considering how to reply to noble Lords, and indeed noble and learned Lords, in our debate. That has been, as usual, an enlightening response from the noble Lord. I will not oppose that this clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I hope I can answer the noble Baroness’s three points on these three separate amendments, which we are taking together. I shall start with Amendment 47, which deals with Schedule 3. As the noble Baroness is aware, Schedule 3 provides that an individual who has been convicted of the offence contained in Clause 23 of the Bill—contravening, without reasonable excuse, a measure imposed under a terrorism prevention and investigation measures notice—has a right of appeal against that conviction if the notice or relevant measure is subsequently quashed, and if they could not have been convicted had the quashing occurred before they were prosecuted. Schedule 3 provides that the court must allow such appeals. This is obviously not a provision that we expect to be used on a frequent basis. However, its clear purpose is to provide an important safeguard, and to ensure that the person will be able to get a conviction overturned for contravening a measure that the court has subsequently quashed.

It is therefore important that the schedule be agreed to. I know that the noble Baroness is only suggesting removing paragraph 1, but that is the operative provision of the schedule, and without it the remainder of the provisions in the schedule are neutered. I hope she therefore accepts my explanation and can withdraw that particular amendment.

Amendment 48 deals with subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 18 and is really a question about why we are considering having appeals only on a point of law. We believe that the limitation is appropriate, because in cases such as this it is the court of first instance that is the appropriate fact-finding body. It is this court that has developed a particular expertise and body of knowledge in this area of national security, among a small and experienced body of judges who hear these cases. This makes it the right court to review all the material upon which the Secretary of State relies to make her decisions and make findings on that basis.

With regard to the appeal on a point of law, the noble Baroness asked us whether we thought proportionality would be a point of law. Dare I say it—I might have to be corrected—but I think she is probably correct, and it probably would be. If I am wrong, I will correct that in due course. I will certainly write to her and copy that letter to other noble Lords who have taken an interest in these matters.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 51, which deals with Clause 19. Clause 19, as the noble Baroness is well aware, places a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on a quarterly basis on the exercise of her powers under this Bill. These are specifically the powers to impose measures on a person by TPIM notice, extend a TPIM notice, vary the measures specified in a TPIM notice, and revoke or revive a TPIM notice.

Amendment 51 would amend Clause 19(2)(a) to add “and the measures imposed” at the end of the subsection. The relevant provision would thus state that the requirement was for the Secretary of State to report on her powers to impose measures on an individual via a TPIM notice under Section 2, and the measures imposed. As noble Lords will appreciate, the details of the operation of the system and the particular cases will necessarily be sensitive and could not be disclosed publicly. However, taken together, the list of matters on which the Secretary of State must report ensures that key information about the operation of the system will be in the public domain, and will be debated regularly. Crucially, this will include information about the extent of the Secretary of State’s use of her powers and the number of cases in which measures are imposed.

We understand that there is interest in as much information as possible being made available about the operation of the system and about the cases of those individuals subject to the measures. That has certainly been the case in relation to control orders and it is likely to continue in relation to TPIMs. Having that information available will help to ensure that any debate about the powers is as informed as possible.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Perhaps I may ask a question about that. The Minister said that the report laid by the Secretary of State would be as comprehensive as possible within the constraints of the information that she can make available. He then said that that could be regularly debated. As your Lordships know, there is a debate to be had next week on annual orders as opposed to a system of parliamentary scrutiny every five years. Does the Minister envisage other ways in which such information can be debated in Parliament?

[Lord Henley]

The ingenuity of the noble Lord and others will find ways in which this House, which seems to have a more liberal approach in these matters, can debate these quarterly reports. There are Questions, Questions for Short Debate and all range of things, but it is not necessarily for the Government to offer those. As regards the debate next week, I look forward to it.

I hope that that deals with the points made by my noble friend. If not, perhaps we can discuss it further in due course, but I hope that today she will feel able to withdraw her amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

I shall speak also to Amendment 53. This would be a new clause dealing with a matter that I regard as of the utmost seriousness. It is addressed in particular to mental health issues.

The proposed new clause is by no means an opposition to mechanisms for addressing protection of the public and the prevention of terrorism. It is a separate issue about how measures are applied in practice and about the impact of those measures. I have mentioned the matter already today but it is important to repeat it as the context for the provision. It concerns in particular tipping the individual, his family and members of his community into the precise action that we are seeking to avoid; to avoid tipping an individual into breach of the restrictions on him, which is a criminal offence and may turn into a criminal someone who is not a criminal and has no criminal record; and to avoid our failure to recognise that at the centre of all this is a human being.

The moment my new clause was published I saw a drafting error, but I will speak to it as I intended it to be. It would provide for an assessment to be made on the likely impact—my drafting error is that I failed to refer to the actual impact—of the imposition of measures, or the variation of them on the individual and his immediate family every three months, when measures expire or are repealed or revoked, and thereafter at intervals which the individual may request. The assessment I talk of would include an evaluation of the impact on mental health. It should be made by an independent person appointed by the Secretary of State but not only by that person. I suggest that of course the person should be appropriately qualified, but shall work in conjunction with the nominees of the individual who can make separate reports. That is an important point because it is all too easy and obvious that independent experts appointed by the Secretary of State, as has happened with control orders, are perceived as agents of the Secretary of State being there to gather evidence and information.

I have proposed the new clause for the reasons I have already given and because one needs to increase the opportunity for transparency around this whole area. I have said that the costs should be met by the Secretary of State because I thought that someone might ask about that. It seems to me that the numbers of cases we are talking about are small and this would be entirely proper given that the measures applied are potentially so very stringent. Amendment 53 would bring these assessments within the remit of the independent reviewer.

The experience of control orders has been not only that in some cases they are very damaging but that the controlee is essentially broken. I want quickly to share with the Committee the story I heard earlier this week of a controlee who had failed to report to the police on time. I asked how late he had been and was told that it was one hour. His control order of course required him to report at a particular time and having failed to be there on time he was charged with a breach of his order. He found himself in Pentonville. The shocking part of the story is not just that: it is that the individual will not apply for bail. For him, being in Pentonville is preferable to being under a control order. That is what the state has done to some individuals. If that is what we are going to do to them in order to protect the rest of society, we should know what the impact is.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I do not quite understand the noble Baroness. Presumably this person was in breach of the control order by not attending on time. I do not understand the issue.

[Baroness Hamwee]

The issue is that to this individual, being in prison is more acceptable than being in his place of residence under a control order, with the restrictions imposed by the system. I am sure that the noble Lord has heard, from people who had been under control orders that were quashed, the impact they had on them and their families. The interference with anything that any of us would recognise as a normal life has been literally intolerable. That is the point I make to the Committee. I beg to move.