Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend will know that the Russell Group of universities, of which Edinburgh is a member, has seen a 30% increase in the number of applications from overseas students since 2010, showing that studying in the United Kingdom is an attractive offer to students. There is no cap on the number of students who can stay in the UK after completing their degree, provided they have a graduate-level job, get an internship or become a graduate entrepreneur.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Minister will have seen the Scottish Government’s post-study work working group, which recommends that a post-work study visa is reinstated for a wide range of people, including businesses, education and student representatives. Will the Minister consider that or will she ignore it again? What can the Scottish people do to progress that agenda and ensure that our economy and higher education institutions benefit?

[Karen Bradley]

What the Scottish people can do is clear: stay part of the Union. I repeat that there is no cap on the number of graduates who can stay on after their studies, provided they have a graduate job, an internship or a graduate entrepreneurship.

Counter-terrorism and Security Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

On the day the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill was last considered by this House, news of the appalling events in Paris and the brutal murders at the office of Charlie Hebdo were still unfolding. What followed was a two-day manhunt for those responsible, a horrific attack on a Jewish supermarket and further murders of innocent people. Those attacks were yet another reminder of the very grave threat we face from terrorism, a threat that we have discussed in this House on many occasions. I am certain that everyone in this House is committed to ensuring that the police, MI5 and others have the powers and capabilities they need to keep the public safe. That is why we brought forward the Bill and sought its swift progress through Parliament.

Since the Bill was sent to another place, it has been the subject of robust scrutiny. A number of substantial amendments have been made to ensure that these new powers will deliver the optimum capability for our agencies, and to reassure the public that they will be used appropriately and proportionately. They were all Government amendments, which were broadly welcomed by their lordships, and I hope and expect that they will find similar favour in this House. I will now turn to the amendments themselves.

Two amendments were tabled by the Government to part 1 chapter 1 of the Bill, which concerns the temporary seizure of travel documents from individuals reasonably suspected of wishing to travel overseas to engage in terrorism-related activity. Amendments 1 and 2 make provision for civil legal aid to be made available where appropriate at the hearings of applications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to extend the 14-day time period in which an individual’s travel documents may be retained. This is an issue in which the Joint Committee on Human Rights took considerable interest. Legal aid is already available for judicial review proceedings in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland, subject to individuals’ meeting the statutory means and merits tests.

Turning to temporary exclusion, as I have made clear to this House at earlier stages, the Government are absolutely committed to the appropriate and proportionate use of this power. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration indicated on Report, we carefully considered the constructive suggestions from David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, on the matter of judicial oversight, and following that consideration, we tabled amendments to introduce oversight of the power in line with his recommendations. Specifically, the amendments propose the creation of a permission stage, before the imposition of a temporary exclusion order, and a statutory judicial review mechanism to consider the imposition of the order and any specific in-country requirements.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way so early, but is not consideration of these issues the job of elected Members—those who bothered to go to the electorate—not that affront to democracy down the corridor whose Members have taken it upon themselves to form Government business?

[Mrs May]

The very reason we are debating the amendments is that the House has an opportunity to consider them, so the hon. Gentleman’s argument is completely false.

During the permission stage, the court would have the power to refuse permission for the order where prior permission was being sought, and in retrospective review cases, it would have the power to quash the order. During the statutory judicial review, the court would have the power not only to consider in detail and quash the specific in-country requirements placed on an individual, but to consider whether the relevant conditions for imposing the temporary exclusion order were and continued to be met. It could quash the whole order or direct that the Secretary of State revoke it. The amendments will ensure effective judicial scrutiny of the power, and I trust they provide sufficient reassurance to the House on this important issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I agree. Freedom of expression and speech is a fundamental British value, but if taken advantage of by extremists, it can cause fear and set communities against each other. It is absolutely right that we expect people to respect each other’s faiths. There are people of many faiths in this country, and we want to see respect for those different faiths. That is crucial. I think that we should speak out for our values against those who would sow the seeds of hatred, intolerance and prejudice.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Surely the best response to the events in Paris is a considered, proportionate response. We must do nothing that would further compromise our civil liberties or the freedoms that we enjoy in this democracy. Will the Home Secretary listen to the many voices that have expressed concern about her counter-terrorism Bill, and ensure that that we do nothing—nothing at all—to question further the civil liberties that we enjoy in this country?

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

It is very nice that the Government have tabled amendment 12, as it is effectively the same amendment that the Opposition tabled in Committee to ensure that there is proper consultation with the devolved Administrations if the Home Secretary introduces changes. We are pleased that the Government have seen the sense of what Labour suggested, and that we can claim a victory on ensuring that there is full consultation. I am happy not to press amendment 1, because Government amendment 12 is exactly what we were trying to achieve.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

As we discuss counter-terrorism for a fifth day, our thoughts are very much on the appalling murders in Paris today. It was not only an appalling attack on journalists and a newspaper office but an attack on free speech, and today all of us can say, “Je suis Charlie”. Given those sickening events, it is pretty hard to discuss counter-terror measures today, but we live in a democracy and we will discuss them. We will not let any terrorist attack deter us from our influence on the matter or how we approach our business.

We are eternally grateful for amendment 12, because it is the beginning of a recognition of Scotland’s distinct responsibilities for measures under the Bill. The Bill asks that we be consulted on competencies for which we are actually responsible. It is not consultation that the Minister requires, it is our consent. We are responsible for delivering those competencies in the Scottish Parliament. We are responsible for education and health, we have a distinct legal system, and we are responsible for the judiciary. The Scottish police force, Police Scotland, is accountable to the Scottish Parliament. We have our own institutions and our own set of responsibilities and competencies. Yes, we are grateful that the UK Government are going to pick up the phone and consult our Ministers, but it is our consent that they require when passing measures under the Bill.

We will agree with the Government on most measures, and I am sure we will get on perfectly well, but we take a different and distinct approach on a number of issues. Of course we do—we have a different culture in Scotland. We do not have the same size of ethnic communities as there are south of the border, and we have a different and distinct approach to community relations. We see and deliver some things very differently from the UK Government.

The vast platform of the Prevent strategy will be administered in Scotland by Scottish public bodies, responsible to the Scottish Parliament and under the guidance of Scottish Ministers. Consultation—great. Thank you ever so much, Home Secretary, for being prepared to consult Scottish Ministers, discuss things with them and maybe even ask their views, but what we need is to give consent. If we are to be realistic about the devolution settlement and the range of responsibilities we have, and if we are talking about the respect agenda, that consent is required. Consultation is certainly not good enough.

Our approach to Prevent is different, of course. We see it more through the lens of safeguarding, with an emphasis on keeping people safe, community cohesion, participative democracy and ensuring that action is consistent with the needs of, and risks to, all our communities.

[Bob Stewart]

I cannot see any difference between that and what is proposed in the Bill. Those are exactly the same measures that everyone in this country wants to see instituted.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but there are differences. They may just be nuances to him, but we take them particularly seriously in Scotland. For example, we work with key sectors in Scotland, such as the NHS, further education, the Prison Service and local authorities. Prevent also benefits from input from Police Scotland’s model of community engagement and from the strength of the relationship between various arms of the community and all the public services in Scotland. The key point is that we perhaps look at the cultural context differently.

What we are keen to do in Scotland—and we have had a great deal of success—is ensure that a sense of Scottish citizenship is given as quickly as possible to new immigrants, particularly from south Asian communities. That has been incredibly successful. We talk about the “bhangra and bagpipe” culture in some of our larger communities, especially in Glasgow, and we are particularly proud of that. Believe it or not, most Scottish Asians supported Scottish independence because they saw from their historical experience, and from being a colonial power or being part of the empire, that independence was not a scary issue. They were able to join us to ensure that such transformative change—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman quite a bit of leeway, but now we have got on to independence. This debate is about consultation, but I think it has stretched a little further than that. As we know, Third Reading is coming up, but at the moment we are dealing just with the amendment.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. We need consent, rather than consultation, because things are so different in Scotland, and we have responsibility for those bodies. Such issues must surely be up to the Scottish Parliament, and not just through consultation. Consultation is great and there is nothing wrong with it, but this is about ensuring that we have consent. We will not oppose the measure today—it is great that we will get that consultation. We enjoy debating with the Home Secretary. She is always welcome in Scotland, and we enjoy making sure that her views are known. Consent is fine, but we need to ensure that such matters are the responsibility of the Scottish Government and that we make those decision: not consultation, consent.

[Karen Bradley]

I will not detain the House for long, but I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her comments and for agreeing not to press her amendment. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was not in the Chamber earlier when we had a relatively lengthy discussion about the devolved Administrations, and the consultation and work to ensure that the Prevent programme works appropriately in Scotland. I like to think that we have more in common than we have differences.

Issues relating to policing and counter-terrorism are clearly reserved matters. Consultation, not consent, is the appropriate requirement in relation to these issues, and that is respectful at all times of the agreed devolution settlement. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman will be supporting the Government amendment, and I am glad he agrees that we must ensure that the Bill becomes an Act.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Third Reading

Queen’s consent signified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

It seems a bit odd to be having the last word on this Bill after we have spent five days debating and discussing it. May I congratulate the Front Bench and shadow Front Bench teams on the consensual way in which they have approached these issues? We have significantly improved this Bill from its early conception, but it was perhaps a tad over-optimistic to have five full days of debate on it. On some days, the Chamber has been a bit like the Mary Celeste on a foggy day—perhaps Members are counter-terrored out. We have had a number of these Bills over the past few years, and no doubt, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has said, we will see many more in the future. We will come back to this issue time and again, and we will have to deal with it year on year. I can already see that we will have another such Bill early in the new Parliament when we reconvene in May.

I do not want to add anything more to what I have already said about the events in Paris this afternoon other than that I hope we have learned something from those appalling events and that we approach and respond to them proportionately. In the past, the temptation has always been to have a knee-jerk response. Indeed this idea that something must be done is a characteristic of so many of the Bills that we have debated over the course of the year: we must be seen to be doing something, to be strong and to be acting. I hope that there is not that kind of response to the events in Paris. We have seen it so many times in previous counter-terror Bills. We have seen the response of a Labour Government—ID cards, the possibility of 90-day detentions and control orders. Let us try to be more imaginative this time around, and respond to the attack in a proportionate way.

At the heart of all such Bills—we have seen it with this particular Bill—is attention. We need to ensure that our citizens are safe and secure and that we pay attention to civil liberties and the freedoms that we enjoy in a democracy. I see many veterans of previous counter-terror Bills in the Chamber. They know what it is to wrestle with the problems. There is this clear balance that we have to strike between our civil liberties and the measures that are needed to keep our citizens safe. Does this Bill achieve that? I do not think so. Again, we have mucked about at the edge of our liberties. We have sacrificed some of the freedoms that we have the right to enjoy in a democracy. As we go forward, we must ensure that we get absolutely right that balance between what we expect as citizens of a democracy and the measures that Governments must take to keep us safe.

This Bill came alive when we discussed the Prevent measures and the radicalisation in our communities. Some of the things that this Government are doing are right, especially the way that they have tried to engage communities. They want to ensure that communities have the resources, ability and capacity to try to tackle the problem themselves. That is the right thing to do.

We have failed in some of our measures and debates to recognise why people get involved in these terrible activities. Nobody is born predisposed to be a jihadist or a terrorist and to do appalling things. Something happens along the way that makes people respond in a particular way. It might be ultimate frustration or a feeling that no other means can be used to exact political change. Something happens, and we have failed to understand some of the features that determine the development in some people’s minds. I hope that in the future we can look at this matter a bit more carefully and clearly. We must also take our share of responsibility for shaping the environment. It would be good if we could acknowledge some of the terrible decisions that we have taken in this House. I am talking about those things that may have provoked some of the responses that we have seen internationally. The war in Iraq, for example, was illegal. If we are looking at any sort of starting point or trajectory for things to escalate in the way that they have, we have to come back to this clear issue. We set that framework up and must start to accept our responsibility for shaping that environment.

I am disappointed that exclusion orders, which are a key feature of the Bill, have been left to be determined by the unelected House of Lords. I think that we, as Members of Parliament who are elected by our constituents, have a duty to consider these things ourselves. We had the opportunity to put that right yesterday. The public expect us to deal with these issues and make the decisions ourselves, not to leave it to the other place, whose Members are not elected, to sort it out behind the scenes, particularly on something as important as counter-terrorism and security. I hope that when the Bill comes back to the House we will have an opportunity to debate exclusion orders properly. We will look at what the Government are offering on temporary exclusion orders and will be able to make some sort of progress.

There are many things in the Bill that I do not like, such as the balance it strikes with our civil liberties, which I think is wrong, as it is in most of these Bills. However, we will not oppose it. When we return here in May, hopefully with about 30 or 40 Scottish National party Members, I am sure that we will revisit the matter. Let us make sure that in future we do not rush such legislation through at breakneck speed. We must take our time on these weighty and important matters, which deserve proper scrutiny. Let us deal with them properly. One thing that we will certainly be doing is coming back here to discuss this once again.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

I accept that there will always be an element of speed required on occasion to examine issues such as the temporary exclusion of an individual, but this will not always be an urgent matter. The Government will know of and will be tracking individuals seeking to return; they will have intelligence on that and will be able to prepare and take action on individuals. I know from my experience of being a Minister in a range of Departments that if speed on legal requirements is needed, it can be done. I have often as a Minister authorised legal action to be taken in the morning that is taken through the courts on the very same day. I have done that in the Ministry of Justice in regard to prison strikes and in the Home Office in relation to a range of other measures—it can be done. The question is: is the Home Secretary’s decision on these matters the fount of all wisdom? It may well be—let us not put too fine a point on it. There will be occasions when the Home Secretary is making a perfectly rational and valid decision based on evidence that someone is a potential threat to the UK and therefore needs to be excluded. The question for the House is simply this: should there be an opportunity for someone other than the Home Secretary—the courts—to make a judgment as to whether the Home Secretary has acted proportionately and within the law, and has justifiable reasons for so acting? That could be done in camera or in public—that is for us to consider—but we are making our proposal because the same provision is in place for TPIM legislation. If TPIM legislation is dealing—and I know from personal experience that it is—with those at the very sharp end of the potential terrorist threat, where evidence is around but necessarily cannot always be shared in public, then that can also be done in the case of temporary exclusion.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I welcome Labour’s conversion to judicial oversight in the matter of temporary exclusion orders. Given that the right hon. Gentleman has moved so far to reach this place, will he and the Labour party now support such oversight for other counter-terrorism measures?

[Mr Hanson]

As someone who had the privilege of holding ministerial position in the previous Government, I can say that we often had judicial oversight of a number of measures or sunset clauses. We are not late coming to this matter. This is a rerun of a debate that we had in Committee in December. I am grateful that the Minister has had Christmas and new year to reflect on these issues and to hear some wider argument from his own Members.

It is clear that the Government face difficult challenges not just from the Opposition but from Members on their own Benches. In Committee on 15 December, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said that he had some concerns about this provision not having judicial oversight. In a long intervention, he said:

“I had not intended to speak today…What concerns me today is the issue of the Home Secretary herself exercising the power. I am concerned that it comes about without prior judicial approval or, indeed, without being a power of the court, which would be my preference.”––[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Security Public Bill Committee, 15 December 2014; c. 1219.]

Those are the words not of the Opposition but of Government Back Benchers. I notice that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) is in his place. [Interruption.] I hope to be able to attract his attention. I am not sure which source he spoke to, but his words are quoted in the Independent on Sunday so they must be true. He said that he was “sympathetic” to the amendments and “would find it hard” to vote against them. I hope that he reflects on those points today. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), who until very recently was Solicitor-General, said:

“There is disquiet about a few aspects of this Bill in its detail.”

Our new clauses back up the concerns of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), which he expressed before the Bill went into Committee. There is real disquiet from a number of Members. Indeed, I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) in his place. According to the Independent on Sunday, he said that he would

“listen to all the arguments with some care”

before deciding which way to vote. Undoubtedly, he is listening to the arguments with some care before deciding how to vote. I know that he is a good colleague of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I wish to place it on the record that concern over these matters is growing. In fact, a late entrant to this festive party appears to be the Liberal Democrats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

The question is one of the Home Secretary having to persuade the court that he or she was entitled to make the order that was sought. In doing so, consideration would have to be given to all the individual circumstances that lay around that application. When one has gone a step further to judicial review, the question is not whether the decision was right or wrong but whether it was reasonable. That is a wholly different element of judicial oversight from the one that the amendments seek to achieve.

The Minister is a sensible individual, and he will, I am sure, understand the extent of the unease—that is perhaps the best way to put it—about this matter across the Floor of the House. He has within his power the opportunity to remove that unease by being sympathetic towards the points that have been made in the speeches we have heard so far.

[Pete Wishart]

After almost four days of debate, this Bill has almost burst into life after I do not know how many hours. Today there have been all sorts of threats of Back-Bench rebellions. The Liberals were going to get up to something; there was going to be a vote against the Government; and there are newspaper articles suggesting all sorts of things. I thought we were going to have a really exciting debate.

Who could believe that something as important as counter-terrorism and security could attract so little attention from Members of this House? [Interruption.] I would say to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) that I have spoken at every stage of these debates. I have turned up and played my part, and I feel that I have contributed to the debate, but where are our Labour friends and colleagues? They have made two contributions during these remaining stages; I do not know how many they made in Committee of the whole House. We are hearing a bit more from our Conservative friends today. I very much enjoyed the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve); it was a worthy contribution and something we should be hearing more of.

Why so quiet? What is going on? Is it because this is rushed legislation that has gone through so quickly that people have not been able to keep up with what the Government intend to do? Our constituents will find it very peculiar that this debate has secured so little attention and so few contributions.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Perhaps the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that most Members of Parliament support the Government line.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Perhaps I could help a little. Obviously we want to get to the new clauses and amendments rather than discussing who has turned up and who has not.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Unfortunately I missed the beginning of this debate on temporary exclusion orders. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), because I wanted to welcome the Labour party out of the anti-civil liberties wilderness. These are actually worthy amendments. I do not think I have congratulated the Labour party on any measure it has taken on civil liberties and security in the course of the past 15 years. This is the Labour party of 90 days’ detention, of ID cards, of control orders, of national databases—

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman’s contributions throughout the passage of this Bill. While he is on the subject of the Labour party, will he tell us whether he is likely to support the amendments tabled in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and others?

[Pete Wishart]

That is what I am doing. I am congratulating the Labour party. This evening, for probably the first time in 15 years, I will be rushing through the Lobby to support the Labour party. Come on board! Re-establish the Labour party with its civil liberties—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We need to get to the new clauses and amendments. I understand that you want to try to make this into a political broadcast, but I am not into that at the moment. I am into hearing your views on the new clauses and amendments, not on the history of the Labour party for the past 15 years.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We have these amendments today because there has been an intervention from David Anderson, the anti-terrorism supremo. We all have to listen very carefully to what David Anderson says about this. He is absolutely spot on, of course. With measures such as this, we need judicial oversight. A number of us could possibly trust the Home Secretary to carry out her function in approaching this with a reasonable degree of professionalism, as one would expect from a Home Secretary as upstanding as the current one. David Anderson gets to the heart of all this: the burden of proof, being able to test matters in court, and the rights of the individual who has been subject to these charges and has no recourse to justice to be able to test them in court and try to determine their innocence. That is not possible as things currently stand, and that is why I very much support what is on offer today.

We have to give people the opportunity to respond to particular charges laid against them. The idea that suspicion that they are involved in a certain activity is enough to stain their reputation and means that they have no opportunity of recourse to justice or to put their case is not good enough. These perfectly good amendments would be a very useful intervention. The Labour party has given us an opportunity to re-examine the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

There are a number of issues that require further consideration. It is better to get this right and to consider things carefully, and the debates we have had in this House have enabled us to advance in that regard. Rather than, as has happened in other cases, having legislation rushed through both Houses of Parliament, we have enabled good and proper scrutiny of this legislation, to ensure that it is appropriate and we get it right.

[Pete Wishart]

Obviously, I cannot speak on behalf of Labour Front Benchers, but I hope they are not prepared to accept the Minister’s dissatisfactory response. Not only did the Opposition table these amendments last year but David Anderson said these things in November 2014, and the Government have failed to act. Why should we believe that they will do something now?

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend was attempting to tempt me, Mr Speaker, but I am grateful for your guidance in this matter. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Prime Minister is the only party leader who has set out an intention to deal with free movement in the European Union and to do it in a way that enables us to do what everybody wants and to have the degree of control over our borders that we wish to have.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Will not the Home Secretary just concede that her immigration cap did not work and could never work, because we live in an interconnected, globalised world of which the free movement of people is a key feature? Will she agree that any future attempt at a UKIP-inspired immigration cap will be as disastrous as the last UKIP-inspired immigration cap?

[Mrs May]

I said in my original answer that we have been blown off course from the net migration target. The hon. Gentleman says that it is impossible to bring about changes in net migration, but I remind him that migration from outside the European Union has come down to levels close to those of the 1990s.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I rise to support the thrust of the argument made by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). We have worked on these issues in tandem so many times that if they were put on to a DVD, we would be in danger of compiling a box set between us. However, by returning to the same subject again and again and often in the same terms in our campaign to get the Government to do more in this field, we are illustrating the principle that the Government ought to be applying when they do that—namely, if one is to win an argument about or involving ideology, it is not good enough to set out one’s stall a single time as though one were a university professor and to think that that is the end of the matter. One must keep the message coming over and over again until one gets one’s own way. We are saying that what is lacking in the machinery is the ability to consolidate and wage counter-propaganda warfare—I use that term in a non-pejorative sense—against this barbaric ideology, and we are talking about doing it in a way that will have an effect at a much earlier stage of the process than most of what is proposed in the Bill as it stands.

It is quite understandable, in the light of atrocities such as 9/11 at one end of the spectrum and what happened in that restaurant in Sydney in Australia at the other, that the Government’s first concern must be countering and impeding what in IRA terms used to be called the “men of violence”. I fully accept that as long as there is a totalitarian ideology at large in the world, in most societies, even democratic ones, there will always be a few people extreme enough, unbalanced enough, criminal enough or at a loss and vulnerable enough for indoctrination to subscribe to it. Even in this day and age, we can find supporters of Aryan theories of Nazism and supporters of Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism, but the key point is that those supporters are absolutely isolated from the wider communities in which they live. We are not concerned about the ability to prevent, by persuasion or counter-indoctrination, every last person who is susceptible to becoming an extremist from becoming an extremist. We are talking about ensuring that that minority remains a minority and that their poison does not leach out into the wider community and, in particular, that the counter-measures taken by the state against what they are doing do not have the effect of radicalising the wider community.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is always very generous in these debates. Although I agree with almost everything he says, I have a small concern and perhaps he could talk me through some of it. He talks about “combating” extremism and ideology, but does he not think that the whole notion of combat and conflict was one of the things that got us into this trouble in the first place?

[Dr Lewis]

I disagree. When one is dealing with an intolerant ideology, one cannot simply say that one will, through some calm rationalisation, remove all the barbs, evil and poison. I am talking about what must be done to counter the pernicious ideology with which we are confronted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I would not be as relaxed about the tabloid rhetoric as he is. I certainly do not think we should be stoking it in this Chamber because that sends out a message that is heard out there and makes young people believe it is too dangerous to come back. I am aware of people from my constituency and the wider area where I live who are out in places such as Syria and do want to come back, but are terrified of doing so. It is not in the interests of wider security that we just send out the same messages; we have to have different messages and learn from countries that seem to be doing a better job on some of this work than we are.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady was on to a powerful theme when she was describing some of the other initiatives we witness across Europe. I am familiar with some of the programmes in Germany and Denmark that she mentioned. Would she say that the major difference in character is that Prevent seems to be a more prescriptive solution whereas the initiatives in Europe are much more organic and involve the community more? The language of “combat”, “taking on” and “fighting” seems to be the prevalent language in Prevent. If the Minister and the Secretary of State were to look a little more carefully at the European models, they might find a more useful model of working within our communities.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He rightly says that in this country it feels very much more as though deradicalisation is done to people, rather than being something people get involved in, and therefore own and are more likely to be part of.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I definitely thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, which is immensely helpful and really sets us back on track to where I think we are best placed to move forward on the issue.

I will begin to draw my comments to a close, because I have spoken for longer than I had originally anticipated. In conclusion, analysis of successful deradicalisation programmes suggests that the most effective identify how individuals become radicalised, rather than simply labelling them. They examine whether and how the process can be reversed, and how Government-led initiatives can help ensure that committed terrorists avoid illegal activity after they are released from custody. We know what some of the ingredients are; we have talked about the importance of family members, education, vocational training and religious dialogue, for example.

Religious engagement is one of the more contentious elements of deradicalisation programmes. It may be effective in reforming radical Islamists, but primarily because it provides an environment that is conducive to behavioural reform, not necessarily because it encourages ideological reform. Some of the reports from the Council on Foreign Relations seem to suggest that focusing on rehabilitation, rather than ideological change, is particularly sensible if it is acknowledged that committed ideologues might not give up their beliefs but might just change their behaviour, which I think is what we want them to do.

These programmes are not about being soft on terrorism. On the contrary, as I said at the beginning, they are an add-on to, rather than a substitute for, good counter-terrorism laws. I hope that Members will join me in calling for a review of deradicalisation and counter-radicalisation best practice in order that we might equip ourselves as effectively as possible for the substantial challenges we face from jihadi and other terrorist groups.

[Pete Wishart]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir—the more Scottish National party Members we see in such positions, the better—and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). She made several pertinent points, particularly on the need to look at experiences from across Europe, and I shall listen carefully to the Minister’s response. It struck me that there is an attempt to look at some of the measures that other countries are adopting to try to tackle this serious issue, but there are also different things being done across the United Kingdom. I wish to focus my remarks on what we are trying to achieve in Scotland.

We are absolutely committed to ensuring that law enforcement agencies and other bodies have all the tools they need to tackle terrorism effectively. We take that particularly seriously in Scotland. We believe that we have robust but different measures in place to tackle these issues. We have massive concerns about what is proposed in the Bill, particularly in part 5. We are concerned that it might cut across some of the initiatives in our Prevent strategy.

It is natural that in Scotland we look at things differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. We face a different range of issues, we have smaller ethnic minority communities, and we have not had the same sort of tensions within our communities, so obviously we look at things differently. I like to think that we therefore look at things a little more holistically, and certainly more holistically than a Conservative-led Government would, or even—if I may be so brave as to say it—than a new Labour Government would.

Our Scottish Prevent strategy shares the same objectives as Prevent across the rest of the United Kingdom, but it differs in some pretty serious and significant ways, particularly in how it is delivered. I think that it does all it can to reflect our Scottish context. Our approach uses Prevent though a safeguarding lens, with an emphasis on keeping people safe, on community cohesion, on participative democracy and on making sure that it is consistent with the needs of, and risks to, all our communities. The Scottish Government’s Prevent strategy for tackling violent extremism works with and through key sectors, including higher and further education, the NHS, the Scottish Prison Service and local authorities. Prevent delivery also benefits from Police Scotland’s model of community engagement and the strength of the relationship between our Muslim communities and the police service.

We sometimes ignore the cultural context, but it is important. One of the most impressive features of Scotland’s Asian community is its willingness and eagerness to adopt what is seen as Scottish identity. We have what is called the bhangra and bagpipe culture. Particularly in Glasgow, where we have a large Muslim community, it is striking how eager the community is to take on board some of the central, defining features of Scottish culture and to get involved. We saw that during the referendum campaign, as Mr Weir in particular knows. One of the fastest growing groups in the movement was Scottish Asians for independence, because there was a natural affinity with what we were trying to achieve as a nation, and there was something about what we were trying to do in order to transform society that proved attractive to many people who had come from countries such as India and Pakistan, which had in their own way secured their independence from the United Kingdom at some time in history.

This feature in Scotland differs significantly from the rest of the United Kingdom. Efforts have been made by the Scottish Government, Ministers and colleagues to try to ensure that the cultural context is taken into account when we approach issues such as radicalisation. I am sure the Minister has seen on his trips to Scotland how the Muslim community, particularly from south Asia, has been integrated in our society and our community. We should all be impressed by that, and perhaps the Minister can learn from our experience.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion made a powerful point about how we start to approach these matters and look at some of the community dimensions. We cannot be prescriptive. We cannot talk down to communities or expect them to respond to our stimuli, our suggestions and our objectives. I shall not dwell on what my hon. Friend said, but we have to work with communities. This process has to be organic, a conversation within communities and groups, to ensure that we come to the right conclusions.

The one thing that I want to add to what my hon. Friend said is that we must also look at the external environment. We have to try to understand what motivates people to get involved in what the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) rightly describes as barbaric activity. There is one thing that this Government have never done, and it surprises me how little work has been done on it. I encourage the Minister to look more closely at it: there is very little profiling of people who have gone out to the middle east to get involved in such activity. We do not have a sense of the pull factors, the reasons why people go there and get involved, because we do not ask them. We are too busy locking people up and all the other things that go with that.

We spend very little time trying to understand what it is that drags people to engage in such awful behaviour and activity, and I suspect that our reluctance to do that has much to do with the results that we are likely to find. When we see people being interviewed about their involvement in such activity, they are not people who would concern the Government on a day-to-day basis—people who have just emigrated from Pakistan or the middle east. They tend to be second or third generation who have been here for a long time. The ideology has not been brought here; it is an ideology that has emerged and grown within our communities.

When we listen to people being interviewed by broadcasters trying to understand what informs the way they behave, they all seem to be pretty respectable, cultured, almost middle class, standard citizens of the United Kingdom. They do not seem to conform to the traditional vision, if I may say that, of jihadists, and the caricatures that develop around that. We fail to get that right, to understand and to do the necessary work to profile—

[Hazel Blears]

I have some sympathy with the argument that the hon. Gentleman is developing on working with communities, which is the approach that I have always wanted to emphasise. Does he accept that one of the reasons that many of the people who are born and brought up in this country and have lived here for very many years then decide to go to Syria, or to create a terrorist plot here in Britain, is that they have been influenced by an ideology based on hatred and a complete rejection of other people unless they agree 100% with their very narrow world view? We have debated whether we use the word “combating” or “countering” in relation to this ideology, which has its roots in Salafi thinking. It is about a violent version of Islam that supposedly justifies this kind of terrorist activity. There is quite a lot of research on this, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of some of it.

[Pete Wishart]

Indeed. The right hon. Lady is partly correct. There is something that draws people in, but our failure to understand some of the motivations and pull factors is a fault that we have.

I do not want to labour my next point because I had an exchange about it with the hon. Member for New Forest East on Second Reading. It is that people feel such a sense of injustice and frustration about not being able to use the traditional, normal political process to exert some sort of change that they are driven to get involved in these activities. People are not born genetically programmed to become jihadists and terrorists: something fundamental and significant happens during their journey that influences them and makes them get involved. We fail to understand that.

We also fail to take responsibility for what we may have done in setting the external stimuli in this regard. For example, we fail to acknowledge the disaster that was the Iraq war and how that cause became a recruiting sergeant for a generation of young Muslims who, with their perverted sense of justice, saw no alternative but to get involved in these terrorist activities. We do not even need to debate this: we can see the line going all the way back to when it started. Yes, there were issues before Iraq and before some of the other difficulties in the middle east, particularly in relation to Palestine, but it is when we get to the invasion of Iraq that we can see the exponential growth in these activities.

We have to take responsibility for that. We have to acknowledge that the decisions we have made and the environment we have created perhaps give rise to some of the massive frustrations that people have. People are not born predisposed to be terrorists, to be jihadists, to be the most barbaric type of murderers. Something happens along the way and a frustration develops. Unless we address our responsibility for creating these conditions, we fail.

[Hazel Blears]

The hon. Gentleman and I have debated this on previous occasions. Does he think that ISIS is killing Yazidis and Christians because it has a grievance about British foreign policy?

[Pete Wishart]

No, of course not. If I may put it ever so gently to the right hon. Lady, that question is not worthy of her. There are conflicts right across the middle east that we fail to understand but only condemn, but in some way we are the major power in all this. We are the interveners in these types of activities, and we therefore have responsibilities in that regard. Of course this does not reflect UK foreign policy, other than perhaps at the margins.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

I apologise for not being here when the hon. Gentleman started his speech. I agree that the Iraq war was undoubtedly the tipping point, and most people now recognise that it was a mistake, but that has not stopped young Muslim men becoming radicalised. All the baring of our chests and saying “We were wrong and it was a terrible thing to do” has not changed what has happened by one iota.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Of course it has not changed behaviour, but we owe it to ourselves to acknowledge this issue. It is a flaw that runs all the way through a lot of the programmes to counter, or combat, radicalisation that we embark on. Unless we understand the external stimuli and the environment that were created, I am afraid we will not have any great success in these things.

There is another factor that informs this and it is some of the debates that we have in this House. If I were a young Muslim listening to some of the poisonous debate about immigration that takes place nowadays, I do not know what I would make of being told, “You’ve got to stay away from here; you’ve got to be kicked out, or sent back, or whatever”—all the inflammatory language that this House hears almost on a day-to-day basis when we debate these things. We have got to be careful, for goodness’ sake. We cannot just believe that it will all of a sudden be reasonably accepted and adopted, and that nobody will mind that this language is employed when such debates take place. Again, let us just be careful about what we do to contribute to the environment that has been created or the conditions leading to such frustration.

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right to warn of the dangers of hon. Members helping to feed the very things they say they want to fight. If there are those who are out to sow the seeds of radicalism, extremism, cynicism and alienation, people should take care not to propagate those seeds by measures that, in relation to international policy, only feed the cynicism of those who see them as double standards, or in relation to this country, even propose to create a twilight zone around the very concept of citizenship. How does that help to counter the very disillusionment of which the hon. Gentleman speaks?

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he is right to say that we must see this in the round. That is one of the reasons why I have difficulties with what is suggested in the Bill. I will not support the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), as I think she knows, because I just do not like this type of language. It does not really address the difficulties we face and the things we have to take on. In looking at anti-radicalisation or ensuring that our communities are resilient in fighting against such messages, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) set out so eloquently, we must work holistically—in the round—and ensure that that is combined and merged with all other community issues that would help us.

We are trying to work towards that in Scotland. Historically, we have taken that approach. We have had responsibility for the Prevent programme for eight to 10 years, and I believe that we have made real progress. With our distinct legal system, we have our own means of doing this sort of thing, and we are making great attempts and efforts to do so. We just take a different view of such things: we have a different type of community and a different approach to the issues that have emerged during the past few years.

The Minister for Security and Immigration is now deep in conversation, but I hope he will allow us to pursue our agenda on such matters. Scottish public bodies that were initially listed in schedules 3 and 4 are no longer included, so I hope that the Minister, when he finishes his conversation, might be of a mind to allow us to make our own progress when it comes to such things. The Minister is now back with us. I was saying—I know he missed this—that Scotland has been excluded from the schedules of public bodies. I know that there have been conversations with the relevant Scottish Minister, and that the Minister for Security and Immigration understands that we have our own particular agenda for this sort of thing.

I hope that in time—perhaps amendments tabled during the remaining stages of the Bill will help him to come to this conclusion—we can have our own strategy without the combat and the fighting language that we do not like. We do not think it works or believe that it adds much to achieving the objective that we in this place all want, which is to make our communities safer and resilient enough to ensure that we get the right type of result and response. I hope that the Minister will be open to further suggestions that will exclude Scotland from part 5 and allow us to pursue our own agenda. We do not like some of the language, and we do not believe it works. Perhaps even in his response, he could satisfy me and my colleagues that we will be allowed to pursue our own agenda and do this our own way.

[Mr Mike Hancock]

I come to this debate with a great deal of sadness about what has happened in my own city. Six young men went out, of whom four are now dead, and one returned to the UK and is now starting a very lengthy prison sentence.

One of the saddest moments in my 45 years’ experience of politics was reading the letter that one of the lads wrote to his parents and left for them when he went to Syria. His parents sat in front of me in the office not saying that they wanted us to fight back, but really begging for something to happen or for someone to take the initiative. They could not understand how this very well educated young man, who was at university—he had a glittering career before him—could walk away from university and go to Syria without discussing it with anyone, not his local peer group or, most importantly, his parents. The last words of the letter were, “Don’t worry about what’s going to happen to me when I come back because I have no intention of coming back.” His parents read into that that he had every intention of fighting, wherever it took him. How sad it was for his mother to read that letter.

We have tried desperately hard with the community in Portsmouth. We have a large Bangladeshi community and four mosques. Portsmouth has a great, integrated society. Everyone was horrified that our city was highlighted in the way that it was and nobody could understand how it had happened. The imams in the mosques did not know, the people who run the madrassah did not know and the extended families of the young men did not know how it came about that these young men were radicalised in such a way that they were prepared to walk away from everything they had in front of them, put their lives on the line and even put it in writing that they did not believe they would be coming back. Some sort of fightback is required on the part of all of us who care about the young men and women who have done that.

I do not share the view that giving disproportionately long prison sentences to people who come back will help the situation. I do not know whether other Members have spoken to young Muslim boys who have been in prison or whether they understand the pressure that those boys are put under in prison by much older members of the faith and the other issues that they raise. We need to find a mechanism to sort that out. I am in favour of the various things that the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) exposed so eloquently. The Bradford example is a fine one. However, none of them offers an easy solution to finding the right role model who can put the alternative case to these young men and women, and do so in the right place.

Nobody has yet suggested that there is an easy way out of this situation. I have first-hand experience of the pitiful state of the families who are devastated when their young sons or daughters are killed and taken away from them. Surely the Bill goes some way towards starting the process that the mother who sat opposite me in my surgery called for when she said, “For goodness’ sake, Mike, we’ve got to find a way of preventing this. I’ve got an 11-year-old son and I’m worried about what will happen to him. What is he thinking? How will it affect him and his peer group when they talk about their brothers who have been killed fighting in a war in Syria?” It is no good just saying that they were mistaken and that they did not believe in what they were going to do. They were believers in what they were going to do and they knew the risks they were taking. They were so certain about it that they were still prepared to do it. We ignore that at our peril.

Again, I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles that we have to start lower down the age range. We need to find a mechanism for very young people.

--- Later in debate ---

More importantly, I want to turn to the implications of clauses 21 and 22 for the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland. While counter-terrorism is a retained power, clause 21 will cover a number of bodies that are otherwise entirely accountable to the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. The Opposition welcome provisions in clauses 23 and 24 that would demand consultation with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, but can the Minister confirm that, regardless of the specific set-ups in Scotland and Wales, devolved bodies will be covered by the same guidance as English bodies? It is noticeable that no Scottish institution is included in schedule 3. Presumably that is because consultation with the Scottish authorities has not yet concluded. Is the Minister expecting, or intending, to add to schedule 3 while the Bill is going through the remaining stages?

[Pete Wishart]

I presume from her comments that the hon. Lady does not want Scotland included in this. I am sure that she has heard about the different, more holistic approach that we have. Could she help us to persuade the Minister to allow us to do our thing uninterrupted by what has been proposed in the Bill?

[Diana Johnson]

We are at the Committee stage of the Bill, looking specifically at the Government’s provisions. Scotland is covered by Prevent. I am concerned that within schedule 3, which lists the bodies that are covered by the duty, there is nothing from Scotland. That worries me. I want to hear from the Minister why that is and what discussions are being held. As the rest of the Bill applies, I assume that there is a gap that needs to be filled.

On Northern Ireland, when the Government introduced the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, they neglected to consult the Northern Ireland Executive. The result is that, after four years, the National Crime Agency still does not have a remit to work in Northern Ireland. I am concerned that we could end up with a similar situation with Prevent and the agenda in Scotland.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I will say only a few words, but I want to explain why I will not support amendment 4.

My opposition to TPIMs and their predecessors, control orders, is on the record. The latest proposals do nothing to address my long-held concerns. The measures before us will take us back in time to when the Secretary of State could require an individual to live in a residence and locality in the UK that he or she considered appropriate. That was a feature of the previous Administration that was abandoned by the current Home Secretary for good reasons. She has now taken a step backwards. Given that these measures will make it possible for individuals to be removed from their families and communities and placed, effectively, in isolation, I do not share the pleasure that is apparent on the Opposition Front Bench, nor the view of the Opposition that it is acceptable to allow people to be relocated without any limit on the distance.

The courts have ruled on a number of occasions that internal exile, in conjunction with the imposition of other restrictions, constitutes a violation of article 5 of the European convention on human rights. That stands whether someone is relocated 50 miles, 150 miles or 250 miles away from their home. In one case, Mr Justice Mitting ruled that, on the basis of evidence provided by the wife of the individual who was subject to a control order, the threat that the detainee posed would be reduced if he were able to remain with his family. That brings us to the crux of the matter. There is not a scrap of evidence that such a brutal and punitive regime plays a role in countering terrorism. In fact, it may well be counter-productive.

When a suspect is subjected to a TPIM, it tips them off, making it much more difficult to gather evidence of terrorism-related activity. TPIMs exacerbate the potential for increased alienation and radicalisation, because they can be made against those who pose no direct threat to the British public. Moreover, as Liberty and others have reported, and as the shadow Minister just said, TPIMs have never led to a terrorism-related prosecution. If the purpose of such proposals is to counter terrorism and make us more secure, TPIMs have little to recommend them and neither did control orders before them. I believe that we should move forward, rather than take a step backwards, as the amendment would have us do.

Clause 13 removes the defence of a reasonable excuse for those who breach a TPIM and leave the UK. The measures in the Bill undermine some of the basic tenets of our justice system. Clause 13 will allow for somebody to be imprisoned for up to 10 years for breaching a TPIM, even though a TPIM can be imposed without any need for them to be arrested, charged or convicted for a terrorism offence. In other words, it will allow somebody to be criminalised and locked up for 10 years for breaching a civil sanction. That move will turn our justice system on its head. It is at odds with everything we ought to hold dear. I hope that Members will not stand by and let such a draconian measure pass.

One former Law Lord, referring to the control order regime, said:

“They are, and always have been, a blot on our jurisprudence.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 March 2010; Vol. 717, c. 1528.]

That criticism stands, with or without the changes that have been outlined today. I am disappointed that the Home Secretary is advocating more of what Justice calls

“an ineffective and draconian diversion from prosecution of criminal behaviour.”

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

These are terrible amendments. They are so sadly and typically new Labour. The control order regime was the centrepiece of what is commonly described as the new Labour anti-civil libertarian state. It had all the usual new Labour features: suspicion, restrictions without trial and sweeping powers for the Secretary of State to make up her mind about convictions. New Labour was always on the wrong side of the crucial balance between making our nation safe through security-related legislation and upholding civil liberties. The control order regime was part of the central agenda that new Labour constructed, which included the suggestion that suspects should be locked up for 90 days without trial, ID cards and national databases. Under new Labour, we became probably the most restrictive, anti-civil libertarian state anywhere in the European Union.

As Members have said, there have been no prosecutions of people on control orders or TPIMs. That suggests that they are either really good or really rubbish. I supported the Conservatives when they moved against control orders. They did the right thing in abolishing control orders. We did not like TPIMs because they had features that were sadly reminiscent of new Labour’s control order regime, but the Conservatives seemed to be rowing back from the anti-civil libertarian state that had been constructed by new Labour and we supported them on that basis.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman have an alternative proposal to put to the Committee?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. These measures are counter-productive in trying to make our country safe. All they do is tip people off that there is a particular issue with an individual. If there is a terrorist community, the first thing that they will take note of is the fact that somebody has been the subject of a TPIM or a control order. It alerts them to the fact that something is going on. I am all for making our country safe, but have there been any prosecutions? No.

The saddest and most bizarre feature of control orders and TPIMs is that they are all about suspicion. There is never enough evidence to test these matters in court, to take them to trial, to have a judge and jury decide whether something is going on. It is all about suspicion. That is the critical feature of TPIMs, as it was of the control order regime. How can anybody try to secure their innocence when they are subject to such measures? They have no opportunity to do so at all. They just have to accept the situation.

Unfortunately, the relocation measures will bring TPIMs right back to where we were with control orders. That was the defining difference between TPIMs and control orders. It is therefore particularly depressing that relocation is a feature of the new TPIM regime in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will resist Labour’s call to extend the powers further by making relocation even more restrictive and having another list of qualifications in the TPIM regime. I know that he will resist that and ensure that Labour, in its new Labour guise, will not have its way.

[Diana Johnson]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He should have listened to what I said, which was that these are probing amendments to allow us fully to understand the Government’s thinking. They are intended not to extend the powers in the Bill, but to seek clarification. I hope that he will take that on board.

[Pete Wishart]

I am a bit more satisfied, but on the face of it, the amendments do call for further restrictions. If they are just probing amendments, that is fair enough and we will hear the Minister’s response. Regardless of whether the amendments are probing or active, I hope that he is not convinced to back anything that Labour is suggesting, because that would make matters worse.

It seems to me that the Labour leopard has not changed its new Labour, anti-civil libertarian spots. Labour still wants further restrictions. It still wants the Government to go further, despite the critical balancing act that we always have to consider between the necessary steps to keep our nation safe and the civil liberties that we cherish and value in a democracy. New Labour got the balance drastically, appallingly wrong. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are moving on to that territory once again. I hope that the amendments are resisted. I understand that they are just probing amendments, and that is fine, but I hope that the Minister will not be probed into accepting what is being suggested by the Labour party.

[Ian Swales]

I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Does he remember that the previous Government introduced a raft of new offences under terrorism legislation, and therefore the gap that TPIMs or control orders are there to fill should be, and indeed has proved to be, negligible? Are they needed at all?

[Pete Wishart]

I think I took part in practically all the debates in this House on these issues—indeed, the hon. Gentleman and I would have sat on the same Benches when arguing against what new Labour was trying to create with these measures. He is right: are such measures necessary? One individual in the country is subject to a TPIM, yet we are discussing the issue in Parliament and ensuring that what will probably be expensive resources are allocated to ensure that this new restrictive measure goes through. Is it worth while?

I do not like TPIMs—the Minister knows that—and I disliked control orders even more. Are they necessary? I suspect not. Do they do anything to make our nation safe? No, they do not. Should we be doing other things to make our country safe? Yes, we should, but unfortunately no amendment has been tabled that will deal with those issues. I hope that the Minister is not in the mood to accept Labour’s suggestions—

[James Brokenshire]

indicated dissent.

[Pete Wishart]

I see by his response that he is not. I hope the amendments are rejected and that in future we do something that will make our country safe without having to resort to measures such as TPIMs.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I wish to take slight issue with the hon. Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). The hon. Gentleman’s speech seemed to play to a particular event that will take place over the next few months in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and it was more about distancing the Scottish National party from the position taken by Labour. That is fair enough; he is entitled to do that but he seemed to be putting rather more heat than light into the debate. To be slightly more serious—as I am sure he intended to be—the problem with the approach taken by him and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is that they describe a black and white world where either we have the evidence, in which case we go through the court system, prosecute someone and if that is successful they receive an appropriate sentence, or else there is not enough evidence to bring forward a court case so someone is not controlled at all. The difficulty is that the world is not black and white in that way.

Suppose one of our intelligence agencies has information from a liaison partner—the United States, for example—about somebody’s connections, or plans that they may be involved in with a third party elsewhere in the world to commit an act of terrorism in this country. There is a problem with taking such a case through the courts because the information it is based on is governed by the control principle—namely that that information is the property of the other agency, which in this case is in the United States. To allow that information to appear in a court case as evidence would undermine the relationship between the UK and that liaison partner.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

In large measure, it has been the changing nature of the threat picture. My right hon. and learned Friend will know from his time in government that in the past two years we have seen a very altered threat picture and, as he will no doubt recognise, a rise in the threat level earlier this year. The Government need to consider, in a responsible fashion, that changed threat picture and the advice we received from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The proposals in the Bill are formed with that insight clearly in mind and David Anderson’s specific recommendation on this point. It has been against all those factors that we have judged that the right thing to do is to introduce the measures in this way, subject to the safeguards I have spoken about in respect of the change in the burden of proof and the specific limitation on relocation being limited to 200 miles from the location of the individual. I will come on to speak on that in a more direct fashion, recognising the point the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North rightly raised in her amendment.

[Pete Wishart]

I am sure the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), with his years of distinguished service to the House, deserves a better answer than that pathetic response from the Minister. The question the Minister has to answer is: why? What evidence does he have to suggest that relocation is now necessary? Why relocation? Why now?

[James Brokenshire]

If the hon. Gentleman is not able to recognise the change in the nature of the threat and the evolving picture taking place in recent months, I am sorry he is blind to it. The Government have a responsibility to respond to it in a fair way. We have to take into consideration the advice we receive from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and listen to the Security Service and the police, who we have consulted, to ensure we have the right package of measures, challenging ourselves and others, to do all we can in a proportionate and necessary way to ensure that those agencies have the appropriate powers to guard against the changed risk picture, as well as ensuring an appropriate balance between privacy and security. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and learned Friend on the issue of absconds. A point that David Anderson made directly was that the only way in which one could be absolutely certain that someone was unable to abscond was by putting them in a prison cell, which is why my preference always is to seek a prosecution, when the evidence is there. The challenge is that it is not always available.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

That is not the intention of the duty; its intention is to ensure that the university or institution has in place a policy on matters relating to extremism. For example, they might have a general policy that they apply in relation to extremist speakers coming to their institution. The purpose of the power to make a direction in the Bill is to ensure that they are doing something like that, taking their statutory duty seriously. It is for those institutions that are failing to comply with the statutory duty that that particular power has been put into the Bill.

Alongside that statutory requirement in relation to Prevent, the Bill will also provide a statutory basis for the existing programmes for those at risk of being drawn into terrorism, known as Channel in England and Wales. That will enshrine existing good practice and help to ensure consistency across all local areas.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

As the Home Secretary knows, the Prevent strategy falls within the competence of Scottish Ministers under the devolved settlement. Scottish Ministers have their own priorities and agenda when it comes to delivering those measures in Scotland. I know that there have been discussions with Home Office Ministers about excluding Scotland from that power, so that we can have the opportunity to consult our public bodies properly. Is she open to that type of approach, so that Scotland could be included in the measures later, when we have had an opportunity to work out what it would actually mean for our public bodies and their responsibilities?

[Mrs May]

I point out to the hon. Gentleman that counter-terrorism is obviously a reserved matter. He might like to know that his point relates to the very next paragraph I was about to read. It is the Government’s hope and intention that these provisions should also apply to Scotland. We are consulting Ministers in the devolved Administrations about the practical implications of our proposals, and obviously those discussions will continue with the Scottish Government.

Part 6 includes amendments to two provisions in the Terrorism Act 2000. First, it will put it beyond doubt that UK insurance firms cannot reimburse payments made to terrorists in response to ransom demands. To put that in context, the UN estimates that ransom payments raised up to £28 million for ISIL over the past 12 months alone. We need to avoid any uncertainty on that issue.

Secondly, the Bill will clarify our counter-terrorism port and border controls in relation to where goods may be examined and the examination of goods comprising items of post. That is an important part of our counter-terrorism port and border controls and the disruption of those engaged in terrorism. We must ensure that the law is clear and that the police can fulfil their duties.

The powers in the Bill are essential, but they should be used only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. Their use will be stringently safeguarded, including through suitable legal thresholds and judicial oversight of certain measures. Part 7 of the Bill will also allow for the creation of a privacy and civil liberties board to support the important work of David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

Finally, the Bill includes a provision to ensure that challenges to refusals of applications for British overseas territories citizenship can be heard before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, so that sensitive material can be protected. This simply addresses an anomaly in existing legislation.

I have stressed the urgency and importance of this legislation. This is not a knee-jerk reaction but a considered, targeted approach that ensures that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to respond to the heightened threat to our national security. Substantial work, in consultation with the police and MI5, has gone into drafting the clauses. Where the measures impact on those in the private sector or civil society, we have consulted the relevant bodies.

I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for engaging in constructive discussions on the timetable for the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

It is absolutely right to look at both violent and non-violent extremism. If the Home Secretary has listened to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles has said on the issue over many years, she will know that the previous Government’s work was about looking at both violent and non-violent extremism and at the process of radicalisation from beginning to end. The whole point of providing counter-narratives is to tackle non-violent as well as violent extremism.

It is unfortunate that the Home Secretary chose to narrow the programme in the way she did and handed over community-led Prevent programmes to the Department for Communities and Local Government, which simply did not pursue them. The police have done very good work, but narrowing Prevent to just a police-led programme means that it has simply not been effective, and there have also been considerable gaps in the programme.

On the Secretary of State’s power of direction, there will be questions not only about how she intends to use it, but about what safeguards will ensure that she does use that power inappropriately.

The next challenge is how to deal with those who have become radicalised and pose a serious threat. Wherever possible, those people should clearly be prosecuted and passed through our courts. We know that there are difficult cases in which that is not possible, but people still pose a serious terror threat. It will come as no surprise to the Home Secretary or the House that we welcome the return of the relocation powers. She told the House in 2011 that the removal of the relocation power was a deliberate and desirable part of TPIMs. She said:

“Forcible relocation will be ended”,

and individuals

“will have greater freedom to associate.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 308.]

The Home Secretary defended her decision on relocation after Ibrahim Magag absconded in a black cab on Boxing day in 2012 once his relocation order had been revoked. She said at the time:

“I am confident in the TPIM package that was available”.—[Official Report, 8 January 2013; Vol. 566, c. 165.]

She also defended her decision in 2013, when Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed fled in a burqa after his relocation order was revoked.

No powers are perfect, but it is significant that no terror suspect has absconded under a relocation order. The Home Secretary has said in the House that she made those changes because control orders were under threat in the courts and TPIMs were not. In fact, both the former and current independent reviewer of terrorism legislation have made it clear that relocation orders were never under threat in the courts. It was a policy decision that was taken by the Home Secretary and the coalition.

The truth is that TPIMs have not worked. Despite the increased terror threat, only one is in place at the moment and it relates to someone who has left prison. TPIMs simply do not contain enough powers to be useful for the agencies or the police, or to be worth the extra effort involved. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, concluded in his review:

“A power to relocate subjects away from their home areas would be of real practical assistance…in distancing subjects from their associates and reducing the risk of abscond. It would also facilitate monitoring, save money and could help restore faith in a TPIM regime that has withered on the vine.”

It is not because of the increased terror threat that the regime has withered on the vine; it is because the TPIM regime simply was not effective without the relocation orders that it needed.

[Pete Wishart]

I have not heard from either Front Bencher the two words “civil liberties”. Is it the right hon. Lady’s view that the measures we are discussing today will tilt the balance between civil liberties and security too far towards security and compromise some very important civil liberties?

[Yvette Cooper]

In fact, I talked about the importance of protecting both liberty and security when I opened my remarks. We need both in a democracy and it is the responsibility of Government to protect both. On TPIMs, I think that the Government were wrong to remove the relocation powers. They are important and effective, and it has been recommended that they should be restored by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, whose judgment has proved to be balanced and sensible on a series of issues. There are other areas where additional safeguards are needed, and I will come to them shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman has worked very hard on this issue for some years. I believe that the status quo does not work, and I have every sympathy with his proposal, which would enable the different programmes to be delivered together.

I mentioned earlier that the Home Secretary had addressed the Bangladeshi community yesterday. She was extremely well received by the 2,000 people who were present; she made a strong effort to relate directly to that important community. Obviously her message yesterday was different from her message today, because a different kind of event was involved, but the point is that we need to get into the DNA of communities.

The Home Secretary’s constituency contains a south Asian community—indeed, like my own constituency, it contains various communities—but we have in this Chamber Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), both of whom are very much a part of their communities. Anyone who walks down the Lozells road with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr will see that the entire community relates to him. We are lucky to have not just him and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East, but other Members with different origins, on both sides of the House. They will tell us what the voice of the community says, which is that being told what to do never works, whether by police officers or—if I say so myself—by men in grey or black suits. What is necessary is peer group pressure and community engagement, and those must come from communities themselves.

How many times do we discover from the BBC news that parents have no idea that their children have gone to Syria to fight? One parent from Brighton said that he did not know where his son had gone until he was phoned and told that the son had died. That is why peer group pressure is so vital. How do we miss this point every time? We cannot tell communities what to do; we need to engage with them, and they need to move that process forward.

[Pete Wishart]

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely right about the need for us to engage with communities, but is it not our responsibility to try to understand some of what motivates people to go and do these appalling, dreadful things—the illegal wars, the conflicts in the middle east, and the injustices that they observe in Palestine? Is there a way in which we could try to understand, and perhaps take on, some of the issues that motivate people to become involved in extremist activity?

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is right. We need to understand much more, and we can only do so at local level: in the mosque, through community activities, in schools—as the Home Secretary said—in colleges, and in prisons. People who have not been radicalised go into those institutions and come out radicalised, and then there is a failure to monitor them. The solutions are all there—in reports written by Committees over a number of years, in contributions made in all the time Members have been in this House, and in speeches of Home Secretaries, as strong as the one we heard today, when she said what she wanted to put right as far as terrorism and radicalisation are concerned—but they are not acted upon, and they have to be acted upon, otherwise we will be back here in a year’s time doing the same thing again, and we do not want that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

That only goes to show that the right hon. Lady and I do not co-ordinate our efforts as seamlessly as perhaps we ought, because I should have known that. Anyway, the important thing about the article is that it looks at the consequences and conclusions of our recently published Intelligence and Security Committee report on the terrible events in Woolwich. The main question in Charles Moore’s mind about the killers is: what is it that made them so bloodthirsty and so bold in the first place? Why did they want to do such a terrible thing? He comes to the conclusion:

“Islamist extremism combines something very new—the power of internet technology—with something very old—the power of belief.”

He says that the report establishes that

“Lee Rigby’s murderers were ‘self-starting’”,

but that

“they were not lunatics or even ‘lone wolves’. They took large doses of the drug called ideology…It was supplied by pushers who might live in their neighbourhood, but might equally well live in Yemen or Aleppo.”

Charles Moore refers to the calls that have been made to start a counter-narrative, but he notes that MI5, for all its good work, does not have—some would say that it should not have this; it is not necessarily its responsibility to have it—an ideological unit. He says:

“It is rather as if we were trying to combat Communism without knowing the theories of Marxist-Leninism.”

He concludes:

“Time after time, it is non-violent subversion that has prepared the ground for serious trouble”,

and he warns against the danger of running around

“trying to catch the bad fruit, instead of taking an axe to the tree.”

This is a problem that we face at a scale that is not yet insupportable, but which could get very much worse.

Somebody once said that the problem with the world is that the ignorant are cocksure and the wise are full of doubt. The problem we have is that some people with a racist, radical, totalitarian, extremist, murderous ideology have found a way, in the name of their interpretation of their God and their Prophet, to do what extremists have always wanted to do, which is to enjoy untrammelled power over everyone else.

One cannot mobilise a society or a community to counter that successfully if one confines oneself simply to dealing with individuals whom one has already recognised as at risk of radicalisation, because they will already be on the conveyor belt to an extremist outcome and, very probably, to a violent extremist outcome. What one has to do is not to be shy about the virtues of democratic politics, institutions and ideas, or about denouncing the follies and iniquities of systems based on an ideology that stands in total opposition to everything that moderate and liberal-minded people believe.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is making such a powerful speech that I am loth to interrupt him. I am sure that he would appreciate, respect and understand the fact that we, too, have a responsibility for creating some of the conditions that have allowed this dreadful, awful and appalling ideology to take root, through decisions such as those about military adventures in the middle east, injustice in Palestine and illegal wars. In his rounded assessment, surely he should also look at our responsibility for allowing this to happen.

[Dr Lewis]

When I heard the hon. Gentleman, in his articulate fashion, make that point in an earlier intervention, I felt, frankly, that it was a counsel of despair. If he is saying—[Interruption.] Let me give him my answer. If he is saying that the only way to stop terrorism is to bring peace to the middle east, then, frankly, we are never going to stop terrorism. [Interruption.] I will let him intervene again in a moment if he so wishes. I want to put to him the more serious point that we have a Muslim community of between 2 million and 3 million citizens, but I am very pleased to say that out of that very large number, only a very tiny number resort to such methods. If the real cause was western folly in interfering in the middle east, that would still not justify what the tiny minority of Muslims are doing. I will give way to him again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

In no sense was my intervention an attempt to justify what is happening. It was about accepting and assuming our responsibility following the decisions that we have made. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that military adventures in the middle east have increased radicalisation, with some people finding such an ideology as a response to their ultimate and desperate frustration. Surely the hon. Gentleman must recognise that.

[Dr Lewis]

What I recognise is that the events the hon. Gentleman is talking about are legitimate in a democratic society for argument and disagreement, but not for resorting to terrorism.

[Pete Wishart]

indicated assent.

[Dr Lewis]

I see the hon. Gentleman nodding in agreement, so I will quit the exchange at that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Here we go again, with yet another counter-terror Bill to tackle yet another threat posed by extremism—yet another essential set of measures to keep our nation safe, and to be rushed through at breakneck speed—accompanied, predictably, by yet another escalation of the threat that we are supposed to be experiencing. We are invited to believe that we are surrounded by terror plotters and backers, jihadist bombers, extremists, and just good old-fashioned nutters. No one is safe; threats are everywhere. That is why we need this legislation as quickly as possible, just as we have needed all the other Bills as quickly as possible. There have been seven counter-terrorism and security Bills since 9/11, all of which have been rushed through Parliament, all of which have been absolutely necessary, and all of which have been fast-tracked.

I suspect that this will not be the last counter-terrorism and security Bill. In fact, I do not suspect that it will be the last of the calendar year. I suspect that there will be at least one more, perhaps two, and that they too will have to be rushed through Parliament to meet the escalating threat with which we must deal. As we have heard so many times in so many speeches, we live in an era in which there will always be an existing, growing threat for us to address. So what do we do? We do the same things.

Every counter-terrorism Bill that we have considered in the House could probably be characterised by a few key features that seem to crop up again and again. We must gather, retain and collect vast amounts of personal data from internet service providers. In this instance, internet protocols must be collected just in case we find something that could be used in the future. That cause is very dear to the Home Secretary’s heart, because she still hankers after a snoopers’ charter. She would probably have her way in the event of a majority Conservative Government next year, because I fully expect it to be included in any Conservative manifesto. We must continue to subject suspects to internal exile, for that is exactly what we are doing. I applauded the Conservatives when they reversed new Labour’s control orders—I thought that TPIMs were an improvement—but we are back to what is effectively internal exile. We are working towards depriving people of statehood. We are preventing people from travelling, and we are considering home arrest without trial. It is all the usual stuff.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend may recall that, during the last Parliament, 90 days of detention without trial seemed to be the litmus test of the Blair Government’s machismo. That fell by the wayside, but, in view of what my hon. Friend has been saying about those seven Bills and the groundhog day aspect of this debate, does he envisage a return to the “90 days” proposal?

[Pete Wishart]

I know that my hon. Friend has been paying real attention to some of the conversations that we have been having. That is exactly how Labour behaved. What a Government! They established and effectively monitored an anti-civil libertarian state. My hon. Friend is spot on when he reminds us of the proposal for 90-day detention. The one reason for which I applauded the incoming Conservative Government was that the first thing they did was bring about the bonfire of the ID cards and the national database. Is it not depressing that they have fallen into their old manners and customs? They are almost right back to where the Labour Government were in supporting the creation and maintenance of an anti-civil libertarian state.

We always get this wrong. At the heart of all these counter-terrorism Bills is a critical balancing act. On one hand there is our need for security—the need to make our citizens safe—and on the other hand are the civil liberties that we all enjoy as a result of being part of a democracy.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one problem is that there is a mentality and a default position that anything to do with national security and terrorism has to be dealt with by secretive special courts and a secretive special process, all designed to protect the security services from any kind of accountability? Does he agree that we should actually rely much more on the basis of the criminal law, so that where people commit criminal acts, they should be tried for that crime?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman reminds me of the last feature I wanted to include in the list of what we always see in these counter-terror Bills, which is the very thing he mentions; it is all about suspicion, and the powers of the Home Secretary and how she will be allowed to exercise them, never testing things in courts, because the evidence is not substantive enough. It is all to do with this idea that somehow we have got to make people safe in this country by proposing all sorts of control mechanisms on suspects. If the Government were serious about this—if they believed and had the courage of their convictions—they should take it to court and test it in the public court, and give people an opportunity to defend themselves. If someone is subject to one of these new TPIMs, they have no means to try to fight their defence; they have no access to having that tested in court. The Government talk about how extremism develops, about radicalisation and about the furthering of ideologies, but when they are doing things like this, it is no surprise that people might take a jaundiced view about some of the things that happen.

I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). It was good and there was very little I could disagree with. Some of the things that are necessary to tackle extremism are the sorts of things he presented, and many of the things mentioned by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) are also absolutely necessary, but we have got to look at ourselves. We have got to look at the decisions we made. We have got to understand the things we have said, passed and done that may have inflamed the situation. If we cannot do that, we are not acting responsibly. We have got to make sure we account for our actions and see what they led to.

I was in the House when we had the debate on the Iraq war, as were other Members, and we said what would happen as a consequence of the Iraq war—an illegal war that inflamed opinion and passions not just in communities here, but communities around the world. We said that there would be a consequence and a reaction. That has come true. That has happened. The reason why we are now having to mop up with this type of legislation and these types of measures is because of some of the critical decisions we took, and some of the appalling and bad decisions we made and are still accounting for.

[Hazel Blears]

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that, in equal measure, the decision not to intervene in the events in Syria may also have inflamed the feelings of some of the people who saw the terrible events played out on their screens showing what was happening to vulnerable families in those circumstances?

[Pete Wishart]

What I accept is that there was a failure to recognise some of the international dynamics that influence communities in this country. The solution always seems to be that we have to intervene—that we have got to try to make the world better—and sometimes we are unaware of the unintended consequences that come from that. All I am saying to this House is that at some point we have got to acknowledge what we have done in terms of framing the conditions and setting the environment in which these things happen. By failing to do that, and by failing to acknowledge that type of issue, we will be hampered in our approach to these matters, and the very good things in Prevent and all the anti-radicalisation programmes will fall and fail, because we will have missed out a crucial part of the holistic view we need to take of these things.

[Mr MacNeil]

Syria has been mentioned. Last year the idea was to intervene in Syria on one side, but this year the idea was to intervene on the other side. As we encourage professionals in all walks of life in this country to critically self-assess, my hon. Friend is right to say that we should be moving towards a point where Government, MPs and Parliament critically self-assess what the consequences of our actions have been over decades past.

[Pete Wishart]

Again, my hon. Friend is spot-on. We should be proofing anything we suggest and put through, and assessing the impact and effect it might have and any unintended consequences on communities we represent. If we were to do that, we would start to make progress.

What does the Bill do? It is specifically designed to tackle the threat posed by the so-called Islamic State, which, according to the Home Secretary, has given energy and a renewed sense of purpose to subversive Islamist organisations and radical leaders in Britain. No kidding, Madam Deputy Speaker. What does this rush Bill propose that is different from all the others? It has got all the usual features, of course, because they are the bedrock—

Deferred Divisions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

[Pete Wishart]

I thought that I was going to get one of my traditional and routine tickings-off from you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am glad that it was just an interruption for the 7 o’clock motion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is the season of good will, Mr Wishart.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful for the early Christmas cheer.

To return to the Bill, what new measures does it contain? I suppose that its unique selling point is the introduction of temporary exclusion orders. They are a relatively new feature, and I do not think that there has been much discussion of them. They are designed to ban British citizens who are suspected of travelling abroad to fight for terror groups from re-entering the UK, and they involve the cancellation of travel documents and the inclusion of such individuals on watch lists and no-fly lists. The Bill allows the cancellation of passports at the border for up to 30 days. The police and border forces will be able to seize the passports and tickets of British citizens if they suspect that those individuals intend to engage in terrorism-related activities at their destination.

That all moves us quite conveniently and neatly towards the idea of statelessness, which we have looked at in relation to other matters that we have debated in the House, and which seems to be the drift and the trend. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell me where we have got with the 30 days issue. I listened carefully to the Home Secretary’s speech, in which she said clearly that the Government are in control of allowing people back in. Well, we have heard about some of the difficulties with that. What happens if there is a breakdown of bilateral relationships with other nations that are not prepared to play along with the UK’s game? Surely, an effective state of statelessness will emerge.

The Bill includes the stronger enforcement of TPIMs, including an ability for the authorities to force suspects to move to another part of the country, which amounts to internal exile. There is no great difference between that and the main feature of Labour’s control orders. The Bill also contains curious stuff about colleges and universities, and the expectation that our higher education institutions will prevent individuals from being drawn into terrorism. The measures include banning extremist speakers from campus grounds. How that is to be achieved without massive impacts on academic freedom and freedom of speech in higher education institutions is beyond me. I am looking forward to guidance about how those freedoms will be maintained and guaranteed. Our universities and colleges have already started to raise concerns. I listened carefully to the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) who said that only yesterday there was concern about how the proposal would be represented in colleges and universities. We have to be careful about how we pursue such a measure.

Perhaps most controversially, the Bill contains measures to require internet service providers to retain data on internet protocol addresses to enable authorities to identify individual users. That brings us neatly to the ongoing concern about, and the trend towards, the Home Secretary’s much-coveted snoopers charter. We are all in the business of doing all that we can to keep the people of our nation safe and secure, but that does not always mean that we must necessarily agree with everything that the Home Secretary says from the Dispatch Box. Some of us might even have a different way of doing things and different suggestions about how to get the balance right between assuring our safety and security and making sure that there is no compromise on our civil liberties. That is why in Scotland, where we have specific responsibilities on that agenda, we take a different view about how it can be better progressed. In Scotland, we want to ensure that our police and our other public bodies have the tools they need not only to tackle and prevent terrorism but to maintain a community where civil liberties are respected and where measures that are introduced are proportionate and have full community support. We have our own separate and distinct legal system in Scotland, and we have a range of devolved responsibilities. We have responsibilities for delivering large parts of the agenda in the Bill, particularly on the Prevent side. Once again, we have seen an almost total lack of consultation between this Government and the Scottish Government, who have specific responsibilities for delivering large swathes of the Bill because of devolved competences.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does my hon. Friend think—this is emerging in his speech—that in the seven Bills he has mentioned, and in the responses of both the Labour and Conservative Governments over the years, the reaction has been, “Must do something, although we are not sure what”? That seems to be the driving policy. There is not much thought in their policy, but the policy is, “Must do something.” It is probably headlines driving the policy.

[Pete Wishart]

That “must do something” feeling has probably increased as we approach an election year. The Conservative Government have gone a bit more cautiously and trodden a little more gently and carefully into this area than the previous Labour Government. The Labour Government went all guns blazing straight into the Labour anti-civil libertarian state they so carefully constructed and made sure they managed so effectively. The Conservatives have played this game a little differently, but we are now into an election year. So what is a good move to get people overexcited about political issues? What is the approach to take? It is, “Get a terror Bill, to make sure you are seen to be hard on this. That will differentiate us, and challenge the Labour party and all our political opponents to say we are doing this wrong.” That is not a game we have a particular interest in playing.

So we have this idea and this conversation we are having between the Government and Scottish Ministers, but the Scottish Government did not even get sight of some of the measures in this Bill on First Reading. I know that the Minister has been in touch with our new Justice Secretary, so he will know the unhappiness there is in Scotland about some aspects of all this. The Scottish Government have said that because we have responsibility for the public bodies mentioned in so many bits of this Bill, we want proper consultation. We are not interested in this fast-tracking and getting it through as quickly as possible because it is an election year—we want to do this right. Where we have devolved responsibilities for delivering this agenda, we want to make sure that the public bodies accountable to our Parliament will be properly consulted, so that we can shape up and make sure we have a proper agenda. We have therefore asked the Minister to take Scotland out of the Prevent side of these measures. The schedules relating to Scottish public bodies have already been dropped in part of this. I suggest, and I hope the Minister may be open to this approach, that he seeks to ensure that we at least have the opportunity to engage with our public bodies and consult them properly, and to make the right decisions that suit our agenda and our responsibilities. That would be good. Sometimes we tend to look at things such as the Prevent strategy in a proper, holistic way, considering how public bodies could also promote cohesion, well-being and democracy. That is the way we differ on looking at these things, and we hope the Government follow our approach.

Let me say something about my commitment and my reason for taking this on. David Haines, the British man so brutally executed by ISIS forces in Iraq, was a constituent of mine. His family were in Perth, and I was at the memorial service that was held. His killing was an appalling act and it brought this right home to my community. The way the people of Perth responded to what they had observed—the brutal, appalling murder—was nothing short of magnificent. They made sure that David Haines was properly commemorated and that his memory will endure in Perth, and it was fantastic. So I know how these issues are brought home to specific communities and I have seen the wonderful way communities unite to make sure they gather around that family, making sure they are supported, and try to understand. But the most impressive thing for me was that I saw a real attempt to understand what was going on within this—more so than probably the Government have done. People wanted to understand why this happened in our community and what special conditions led to this happening in a small, sleepy little city such as Perth.

Every single one of us in this House has a job of work to do to keep our communities safe and to keep brave people such as David Haines safe. David Haines went out there to help the world become a better place and to ensure that communities without help and assistance could be helped and assisted. All of us have a responsibility in this regard, so I will take no lectures from anybody in this House about being soft on terrorism or about our Government taking no interest in this matter. We all have an interest in this matter. We might not all agree on everything. I vehemently disagreed with the approach of the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles when she was in the Labour Government. I was keen on what the Conservative-led Government were doing at first, but I am less keen now. But let us all work together. We need to look at this whole thing holistically. We should take responsibility for the things that we do wrong and challenge the horrible extremism and ideology that exist in our communities, but let us do it together, do it sensibly and do it constructively.