Deferred Divisions

Debate between Yasmin Qureshi and Khalid Mahmood

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the speech by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), some of which I agreed with. Let me place it on the record that I also agreed with some of the things that were said by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and, of course, my Labour colleagues.

I ask the House to bear with me for a few moments while I explain what I did before I became a Member of Parliament. It is important for the House to know where I am coming from when I make the observation that I am about to make. I was a prosecutor for nearly 15 years, so I am not shy of having strong laws in the criminal justice system. I do not have a problem with people being prosecuted for crimes that they have committed and being sentenced appropriately. If people commit a serious offence, they should receive a serious sentence. I do not think there is a problem in having laws that deal with criminality.

I understand the position from which Governments approach this subject. Obviously, they have an obligation and a duty to protect their citizens. That duty must, of course, be balanced with individual rights and civil liberties. I know that it can be a difficult balance to strike, especially in these challenging times. Perhaps it is at times of pressure that a civilised society can be recognised. When a civilised society loses sight of its liberties, it is giving in to the terrorists. It is saying, “You have succeeded, because we have put up all these fences and brought in all this legislation.”

I ask the Government to consider the following points. On the issue of temporary exclusion orders, there should be proper legal and judicial oversight. There should be a categorical commitment that a UK national who is overseas will be allowed back into the country. At the end of the day, everybody knows that, under international law, a person will be stateless if they cannot come back to the country of which they are a national.

Earlier, I put a question directly to the Home Secretary. As I understand it, she said not that people would be stopped from coming back to the country, but that they would have to go on a managed programme, by which she meant that they could come back on our terms and conditions. The question is, what happens to the person who does not want to accept our terms? We can deal with them if there is evidence of criminality against them, as we can prosecute and, if necessary, imprison them. But what if no criminal allegation can be proved? What happens then if they want to return? The proposed legislation suggests that they can return only on our terms. I ask the Government to reconsider that concept in its entirety. If they want a managed return, the person who is subjected to the order should be able to go to the courts to challenge it. I do not mean the judicial review process, because that is incredibly complex and the Government have recently passed quite a lot of stringent rules about whether people can have legal aid for judicial review.

The process of challenging a managed return order should not be dissimilar to that which applies when someone is charged with a criminal offence. They can apply for legal aid, they can go to court and they can contest the allegations against them. That element should be strengthened in dealing with people who are excluded. Legal aid should be available in a very simple system, allowing people to challenge the orders in the proper courts, as opposed to having to go through the very circuitous route of judicial review. As a lawyer, I can tell hon. Members that that is not an easy route. A straightforward application to challenge orders, such as that which people would make in any other example of criminality, is the right way forward. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Opposition Front Benchers, when tabling amendments to the Bill, will consider the judicial safeguards.

The second part of the proposals involves taking away people’s passports or travel documents when they are travelling. I understand the rationale for that. A father or mother might ring up, saying that their child is travelling across the country and might be heading for somewhere they should not, and asking whether something could be done. I accept that it might not be possible, in the space of a few hours, to get a court order to ensure that there is a legal sanction behind the removal of that person’s documents. However, the proposal that the police or law enforcement agencies could keep the documents for up to 14 days—even after 14 days people might only be able to go to the courts for a judicial challenge—needs to be reconsidered.

Although there might be an urgent need for such a provision for the first few hours, or even for a day, the judicial oversight should kick in within a certain time—say 48 hours—of the stoppage taking place, rather than 14 days, which is what the Bill proposes if I understand it correctly. Even after those 14 days, the person would only be able to challenge whether the police officer had been diligent. They will say that they are diligent; what needs to be challenged is whether taking away the document was a right and proper decision. We know from history that whenever powers of stop and search are introduced, they are always abused and they are quite often never properly implemented. We therefore need to be careful about these draconian powers and how they are exercised. Adding a legal and judicial element to the process is necessary so that we have a balance between protecting the citizen from criminality and retaining people’s liberties. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that. At the same time, it is pointless to have rights if people do not have the legal aid with which to exercise them. I hope that that will accompany this.

On TPIMs, I agree with the Home Secretary’s new definition involving reasonable probability. The standard of proof has gone up, but it should be even tighter. Provisions such as TPIMs take away people’s liberties and they should be able to challenge that. I know that people can challenge those orders in law. Members might not be aware that, interestingly enough, quite a lot of people who challenged their TPIMs in court were released from those orders, and that was with a very low standard of proof, as we call it in the legal system. I am very pleased that the standard of proof will go up and I think that there should be clear judicial safeguards in this regard as well.

I now come to my final observations on a point that is causing me some concern—the provisional statutory framework for universities, prisons, schools, nurseries and so on, intended to prevent radicalisation. It always makes me uncomfortable when the state tries to enter the arena of monitoring and controlling thought and discussion. Other hon. Members have alluded to the fact that some universities are worried that that might prevent the proper, sensible discussion of issues. There are many in this country, and across the world at large, who hold views that could be called socially or morally conservative, religiously conservative, or even radical; but there is a big difference between holding socially conservative views and getting to the stage of committing a criminal offence—that is a big jump.

Although I will wait to see the Home Secretary’s guidelines, I am concerned about another proposal in the legislation. If an institution does not carry out what it has been asked to do, or fails to monitor it properly, the Secretary of State can direct them to do it. It would be helpful to know what we are talking about in relation to the guidelines. I say this not to criticise, because I know that all Governments, of whatever complexion, do this, but when this type of legislation is introduced, we should have more time to analyse and discuss the matters sensibly and get the details. Regrettably, that has not happened in this case. We have not had enough time. I know that three days will be set aside for debate in Committee of the whole House, but we really should have had more time to discuss the measures in the Bill before it came to the Chamber today. I therefore look forward to hearing the Government’s proposals in relation to libraries, universities and other institutions.

Let me move on to my concerns about the state interfering in thought processes. The provision might look, on the face of it, very comforting and reassuring, but will it actually achieve anything? Will it be effective, or are we just bringing in another layer of rules and regulations without thinking about whether they will work? I think that organisations should be told that these dangers exist, and I do not see anything wrong with sending out guidelines that say, “This is the kind of thing you’re looking for,” but I think they should be voluntary, not statutory. I think that resources should be made available to help institutions deal with radicalisation and extremist views.

Although everybody is talking about radicalisation in general, we know that we are talking about a tiny number of people who call themselves Muslims but are doing things that I can quite honestly say most of us just do not connect with in any shape or form. As the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, of the 2.5 million to 3 million Muslims in this country, those people number in the hundreds. Many of them are young, and most of their information seems to come from the internet.

It is right that there should be a counter-narrative. The state should not set up a unit specifically to deal with that, but there is nothing wrong with going into a Department and putting in place funding, for example, to look at countering the narratives. Many Members have talked today about certain institutions that have been looking at radicalisation, such as the one in King’s college, but there are other people who have looked into it who, perhaps because what they say is sometimes a little broader, do not get enough attention.

A famous American academic, Professor Kundnani, has looked in detail at all aspects of radicalisation, and one of his suggestions—this is very pertinent—is that in universities and places of education there should be spaces for wide-ranging discussion of religious ideology, identity and foreign policy. Those spaces should not be undercut by the fear that expression of radical views will attract the attention of intelligence agencies or counter-terrorism police. If we scare people so that when they come out with some radical or conservative idea they will not discuss it, we will never find out what is going on in their head and never be able to challenge them and say, “Actually, your narrative is wrong.” A safe space should be allowed for that discussion to be had.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood]

When we start to engage with those with radical views that differ substantially from the views of the general Muslim community and of Islam, allowing them access at that level sets us back, because instead of putting their views forward, they put the whole radical doctrine and ideology forward, which weakens the entire case. We have done too much of that here in the past. We need to start to tackle those with very different and radical views that need to be addressed.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree with my hon. Friend. Yes, some people have radical views that we would all disagree with, but unless we hear what they have to say, we cannot challenge them.

I speak to a lot of young people all the time, especially young Muslim males, and I listen to what they say. Sometimes they come out with things that do not make me think for a minute that they are going to commit a crime, but show that they have a view about certain issues. I sit there and explain to them, “That is not right and this is how it should be,” and they listen. That kind of discussion is important, and we cannot stifle it.