Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I have one more technical question to ask the Minister; I have given him notice of it. His Amendment 14E starts by saying:

“Guidance issued under subsection (1) takes effect on whatever day the Secretary of State appoints”—

so it appears to start by saying that this is solely about the timing of when the guidance should be brought into effect. But the second part of the amendment is technical, stating:

“A statutory instrument containing regulations … may not be made unless”,

it is approved by both Houses.

That seems a very odd way to put the fact that the guidance is to be approved as to content as well as the timing of its coming into effect. It would have been much happier if the provision had said at the start explicitly that not only is the guidance taking effect on the day set out in the regulations, but that the content will be laid before Parliament.

One can erect a technical, logical argument that the content must be included within the timing, so to speak, but as this is so important, I would be most grateful if the Minister can confirm that Amendment 14E as drafted is intended to mean that both Houses of Parliament must affirmatively approve the content as well as the timing of the guidance.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief. We thank the Minister for the meetings we have had with him on the Prevent guidance, and also for his words about the important contribution of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon. We also thank the Government for responding positively to the arguments we and other noble Lords have made for the Prevent guidance and any future revisions to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Clearly the guidance will be crucial, and hopefully in drawing up that guidance following the conclusion of the consultation the Government will take full note of the views that have been expressed.

In Committee my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon asked what action was proposed to counter radicalism, recruitment and grooming online, and said that this did not seem to be catered for in the guidance which at that time was out for consultation. I ask the Minister if this issue of online radicalisation will be covered in the guidance.

Finally, the Government wish to extend the duty to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism so that it covers three and four year-olds in nurseries nationwide. Will the Government respond to another question put in Committee by my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, by at some stage providing information on how many nurseries, preschool providers and childminders had access to the Prevent guidance consultation document and were aware that they could respond? How many in this group did respond, and in what vein?

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, Amendments 2 and 55 provide for the new powers in the Bill to seize travel documents, including passports, from individuals thought to be leaving the country for purposes related to terrorism and the power to place an individual on a temporary exclusion order in order to provide for what the Government have described as a managed return to cease two years from the date that this Bill becomes an Act unless both Houses have passed affirmative resolutions providing for the powers to continue in force until a later date.

The powers in question in the Bill would enable immigration officers, customs officials, qualified officers and senior police officers to take a passport away from an individual and leave them in a situation where they were no longer a passport holder for a period of 14 days or, following a court review, 30 days. The powers in the Bill also provide for the Home Secretary to make whatever arrangements he or she thinks appropriate in relation to the individual concerned during the period when they have no passport or on that period coming to an end.

The temporary exclusion order requires an individual not to return to this country unless that return is in accordance with a permit issued by the Secretary of State prior to the commencement of the journey back or, alternatively, the return is the result of the individual’s deportation to this country. As the Bill says, the effect of the temporary exclusion order while it is in force is that the issue of a British passport to the excluded individual while he or she is outside the United Kingdom is not valid. These two measures in the Bill as it stands will be as permanent as any other legislation passed in this House which likewise does not contain a clause providing that it ceases to have effect on a certain date unless both Houses have passed resolutions before then providing for it to continue.

The reason for these new powers being sought is that the security situation has deteriorated, particularly as a result of some hundreds of people leaving this country, often at very short notice or unbeknown until a very late stage by family or friends, to join up with, or otherwise become involved with, terrorist organisations, not least in Syria and Iraq. The power to take away the passport and other travel documents is to give the authorities an opportunity to make inquiries about an individual in question and their intentions, and within 14 days or 30 days decide whether to return the passport or travel documents or take another course of action. The power to invalidate an individual’s British passport while a temporary exclusion order is in force is to enable that individual’s return to this country to be made subject to complying with terms determined by the Secretary of State.

It may be that it is the Government’s view that the worsening in the security situation as a result of individuals leaving the country to engage in terrorist activity, or subsequently seeking to return, is effectively a permanent development. If that is the case, it would be helpful if the Government said so. If it is not their view, there is a real danger that this measure, which, presumably, most if not all would prefer it had not become necessary to enact, will remain on the statute book long after it is really needed. Governments of all political colours and relevant authorities do not always willingly give up powers—in this case significant powers in relation to retention or invalidation of passports—which they might feel, even after the immediate need has passed, could still come in useful at some time in the future.

The purpose of our amendments is to ensure that there is a proper debate on the need for these powers to continue, in this case, beyond a period of two years from this Bill becoming an Act. The knowledge that Parliament has to agree will help concentrate minds on whether the case still exists, which it may well might, and will at least ensure that the measures which are being introduced in the light of a particular security development in respect of people from this country travelling to engage in terrorist activity or subsequently returning from such activity or involvement does not continue on our statute book longer than the national security situation demands. I beg to move.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendments 2, 3 and 4. The measures contained in the Bill are of fundamental importance, but they are extremely difficult to construct in a way which holds an appropriate balance between state security and individual liberty. The notion in the amendments that the outcome of what we are doing should be reviewed by the independent reviewer within two years and put to Parliament is eminently sound. My only query is whether or not the role of the independent reviewer in looking over the consequence of this part of the Bill might not be better addressed to the whole of it. There are other parts of the Bill whose outcomes are no less difficult and problematic to anticipate. I hope the Government will give a positive response to these amendments.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

I have no doubt that the views that I am expressing are not in line with those of a great many people, but perhaps they did not have to deal with the situation that we face today—the threat of acts of terrorism. I repeat that we regard this as a ministerial decision. It should be made by a Minister responsible for national security, accountable to Parliament and the electorate, and open to challenge in the media. Such a decision is subject to scrutiny by and in the courts but it is the Secretary of State who should make the decision. The Government, not the courts, will be held accountable for the top priority of protecting the public from terrorism. Governments, not judges, pay the price for failing to protect the nation from terrorism, and people look to their Government, not the courts, to protect them from acts of terrorism.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

The noble Lord has twice said that the Minister is answerable to the media. How can the Minister be answerable to the media for an order made in total secrecy?

[Lord Rosser]

I said “open to challenge in the media”; I am not sure that is the same as being accountable to the media. On this issue we continue to hold a very different view from that expressed by, among others, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and my noble friend Lord Morgan.

I appreciate that one of the arguments is that the very system of control orders that we have provokes people who might otherwise have been only minded to commit acts of terrorism actually to do so. I am not aware of the evidence that supports that contention but I am aware that acts of terrorism were committed when there were no control orders in existence and that control orders, which have affected a limited number of people, seem to have been in effect during a period when we have been afforded a fair degree of protection from acts of terrorism, despite the threat level having been either severe or substantial.

I also appreciate that there are concerns over human rights. However, I understand that it is being held that control orders are compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. As well as the rights of the individual, there are surely issues about the rights of innocent people to be protected from acts of terrorism. As the Minister said at Second Reading:

“It is clear that the current threat from terrorism remains serious and will not diminish in the foreseeable future. It is also clear that in this country there are, and will continue to be, a small number of people who pose a real and immediate terrorist threat but who cannot be successfully prosecuted or deported”.—[Official Report, 5/10/11; col. 1134.]

The current Secretary of State has been prepared to use control orders, including the relocation provision, and has received the clear backing of the courts.

We do not agree with much of this Bill, as we made clear at Second Reading. The Government have already made changes that weaken the current arrangements and risk having an adverse impact on the ability to protect the public from terrorism. We do not agree with these amendments that we are discussing, apart from the thrust of Amendments 42 and 43 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which is why we have given notice of our intention to oppose Clause 9. We wait to see whether the Minister will accept any or all of the amendments, which in our view water down the current arrangements even further.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Rosser

Monday 1st November 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I support both the amendments in my noble friend’s name in this group and the related Amendment 4, to which I am one of the signatories. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for also being a signatory to Amendment 4. On Second Reading, we heard the noble Earl’s views on the sense and convenience of continuing to use ID cards as travel documents in Europe, and he has re-emphasised those points today. We on these Benches share that view and the annoyance and frustration of those cardholders who, under the Bill, would be prevented from continuing to use their cards in this way. The amendments before us would enable existing ID cards to continue to be used as travel documents in Europe.

On Second Reading, having asserted that maintaining full-life validity of the existing ID cards would probably cost an extra £60 million to £80 million, which she considered to be unacceptably high, the Minister inferred that the alternative proposition of a refund of £30 to existing holders of the ID cards was unacceptable not because it was too much but because it was so trifling, since it was,

“rather less than probably most people pay for a monthly subscription to Sky”.—[Official Report, 18/10/2010; col. 742.]

That was an interesting phrase from the Minister, suggesting that Rupert Murdoch and his interests are never far from this Government’s thoughts.

ID cards were sold as documents that, among other things, would be valid as travel documents in Europe for 10 years. Those who bought the cards, planning to rely on them for future travel, will now have to spend additional money on obtaining a passport, or renewing it when it expires. Of the 12,000 to 13,000 individuals who bought ID cards, some did so because they only travel in Europe and never further afield, others because their passports were about to expire. Some bought ID cards because they were far more affordable than a full British passport. All these individuals have a right to feel cheated. They were sold a product—in this case, an identity card and its associated benefits—only to find, not that the terms of use are likely to be changed by the Government, but that the value and purpose of the document will be completely nullified without compensation. On the point of fairness, the Government's stance cannot be right. As the Minister, Mr Damian Green, eloquently put it in his impact assessment, there would be a reputational issue for the Government,

“in dealing with people who purchased a now-useless card in good faith”.

The Government's argument appears to be that because they said prior to the general election that they would scrap the ID card system, everyone should have known that, and it is their own fault if they bought one. However, the individuals concerned bought one from the Government.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Are we not now getting on to Amendment 3? The noble Lord seems to be talking entirely about compensation.