Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I too welcome these amendments, which introduce judicial control. The Government have listened to the Constitution Committee and the independent reviewer. They have also listened to the observations made from all sides of the other place and indeed here at Second Reading.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, raised a concern about paragraph 3(2) in the proposed new schedule set out in government Amendment 44 and the reference to whether the decision is “obviously flawed”. I draw her attention to the fact that its paragraph 5(1) states that:

“In determining a reference under paragraph 3, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review”.

So my understanding—I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation—is that when the court asks whether the decision itself is obviously flawed, it will apply the principles of judicial review. It will ask whether the decision has been made on a lawful and proportionate basis, for a proper purpose and other matters of that sort, although of course the court will not look at the merits of whether a lawful decision has been made.

There is one other matter to which I draw attention in the schedule being introduced by government Amendment 45. Paragraph 5 of the proposed new schedule expressly confirms that:

“Nothing in paragraphs 2 to 4, or in rules of court … is to be read as requiring the relevant court to act in a manner inconsistent with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention”.

That is very important indeed and I welcome the fact that the schedule expressly confirms that the court should comply with Article 6. I ask the Minister to tell me if I am wrong, but I am not aware of anything in the Bill which suggests that the courts, in exercising their judicial control powers, should be required to depart from our obligations under the human rights convention, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Bates, has made a statement on the front page of the Bill under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that in his view the provisions of this Bill,

“are compatible with the Convention rights”.

I hope that that will give some further reassurance to those who are concerned about these powers.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I welcome the government amendments and I thank the Minister for his explanation of them. I also welcome the Government’s conversion to the principle of judicial oversight in regard to temporary exclusion orders. That is because it has to be said that any measure which seeks to restrict the movements of an individual and restrict their right to return to the country of which they are a citizen is a hugely significant power. I will not go into the other points that have been raised because we have yet to discuss the detail of how the exclusion orders will work, but the noble Baroness said that they would remain in force for two days. My information suggests that they can remain in force for two years from the date they are first imposed.

The Government previously insisted that this was a power for the Home Secretary alone, but that was not a view we could share. Both the Home Secretary and the noble Lord have referred in their comments to judicial review. That was already in place, but judicial oversight is, as we have heard, something that the Constitution Committee referred to and the Joint Committee on Human Rights said would be a necessity. Indeed, from the beginning we have been convinced of the need for parliamentary scrutiny of this aspect of the Bill. At Second Reading in the other place on 2 December, the shadow Home Secretary, my colleague the right honourable Yvette Cooper, rightly pointed out that there is such a judicial process for TPIMs and stated that we would be tabling amendments on judicial oversight. The Home Secretary responded in Committee on 15 December saying that such oversight was not necessary because it was the operation of a royal prerogative in terms of cancelling a passport, and that it was less restrictive than the conditions under TPIMs. The debate continued through to the Report stage, where again we tabled amendments which both the government parties voted against on the explanation from the Minister that there had not been,

“the chance properly to consider the Opposition amendments”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/1/15; col. 208.]

Three weeks has been long enough for noble Lords to consider the Bill, but it was not long enough for Home Office Ministers to consider our amendments. That is why I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord. In the 10 days since it was voted down in the House of Commons, the Government have found time to consider the issues and table amendments. It is a minor point, but I received an e-mail about this last Friday evening, which was a little late. Also, it would have been nice to have had the amendments with that e-mail. Perhaps that could be considered for the future when letters about new amendments are sent out at a late stage.

However, those are minor matters as compared with the fact that the Government have come around, and we greatly welcome that. The case for judicial oversight of this has been clear from the beginning. We understand and appreciate that there are times when a swift application and decision have to be made, but the Government have rightly recognised in their amendments that that should be subject to judicial processes.

Perhaps I may raise a couple of points for clarification. There are some differences between the amendments we tabled at the start of the process and government Amendment 52. First, the new amendment does not require the Secretary of State to set out a draft of the proposed notice in the temporary exclusion order application, unlike subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in our Amendment 54. Why do the Government not think it necessary to set out the draft of the proposed TEO notice, as we propose? Secondly, proposed new subsection (2) provides that the court may, in addition to giving the Secretary of State permission to impose a TEO,

“give directions to the Secretary of State in relation to the measures to be imposed on the individual”,

who is subject to such an order. That is not in the government amendment. There may be good reasons for that, but it would be helpful to know from the noble Lord the reasons for those changes.

We are committed to judicial oversight along with the other measures we have proposed. We have not had total success, although the Minister has agreed to reconsider some of them. These measures should be subject to a sunset clause; that is, a renewal requirement for Parliament to look at them again. We also think that Parliament should be assisted in that consideration. There should be further scrutiny in the form of a report from the independent reviewer and a report on their use from the Home Secretary. All these measures are important, but we are pleased that the Government have accepted the need for judicial oversight. It will not threaten the ability of the Home Secretary to impose a TEO where there is intelligence and evidence to support that measure, as the noble Lord has clarified. However, what judicial oversight does provide is legitimacy and validity to the order. That, I think, will provide the public with greater reassurance when they see these orders being imposed.

We support these amendments, but it would be helpful if the noble Lord could give us an explanation of the differences between our proposals and those set out in the government amendments.

[Lord Bates]

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their broad welcome for the amendments which have been put forward. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we have listened in the other place, which is why my honourable friend the Minister for Security and Immigration, James Brokenshire, said that he would seek to bring forward measures in this House. We have listened to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and what we have proposed has been moulded by and fits in with what he sought to set out. We have also been significantly influenced by the persuasive report of the Constitution Committee, to which I referred earlier. Again, I thank my noble friend Lord Lang for his thoughtful work, which has been extremely helpful. That has all come together and we have made our recommendations and presented the amendments.

Let me deal with some of the points raised, in no particular order. However, certainly on the human rights side, I stand by the declaration that I made in the Bill. It is a very important statement in terms of giving assurance to people about the proportionality of what is being proposed regarding temporary exclusion orders and how they will operate.

--- Later in debate ---

This relates to the point of my noble friend Lady Warsi about the duration of these orders. The two years relates to the potential in-country element, so that when they return to the country there could be a stipulation about taking part in a deradicalisation programme, or something similar, or agreeing not to travel, which could be in place for up to two years. It is more likely that they would be switched to one of the other mechanisms, particularly if there was evidence that they had been engaged in terrorist activities and we wished to engage in a prosecution on that basis. So we hope that the amount of time they would be, as it were, at a port, seeking to return, would be very short, and that they would have access to consular facilities in-country. Then they would return and the in-country element of the exclusion order would be part of the conditions for their return to the UK.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The Minister said that the in-country application of a TEO—if I understood correctly—would be two years. Am I incorrect, then, in my understanding that if a temporary exclusion order were served either at the address or in person, the person’s return would be subject to that for two years, so that if at any time in that two-year period they sought to return to the UK they would be subject to the conditions of the TEO? Is he saying that that is incorrect and it is only the in-country provisions of the TEO that last for two years?

[Lord Bates]

I will clarify that point to make sure I have got it absolutely right. My belief, however, is very much that we are talking here about two elements. On the in-country element, technically—of course, we are dealing here with legal processes and they would have to be reviewed—if the person were to refuse the conditions of their return they would not be able to return and therefore the order would effectively remain in place while they are not in the country. The intention, however, would be that there would be reasonable requirements about being accompanied, the time and place, their mode of travel, the fact that they would be met, and the in-country element would expire at that point. However, I will look again carefully at the words that I used and clarify them if need be.

The noble Baroness also asked why we would not provide the court with the conditions to impose on an individual at the application stage. Temporary exclusion orders differ from TPIMs in that the imposition of a TEO is likely to be put in place many months before the individual returns to the UK and is subject to in-country measures, as I have mentioned. The nature of the individuals who will be subject to TEOs means that the specifics of their cases will vary, and it would be inappropriate for the security services and police to decide on the conditions so far in advance. The individual will be served with the conditions of their return to the UK and will be able to challenge these conditions as part of the statutory review.

The temporary exclusion order remains in force for two years. This includes both the out-of-country provision and the in-country element. In practice, how long the in-country obligation lasts will depend on how quickly the person returns, which is what we were discussing there.

I think that I have covered the point of my noble friend Lady Warsi about the briefing session. I am grateful that she found that helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

49: Clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out “reasonably suspects” and insert “has evidence”

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I think what has come out of the last debate is that we are all trying to find our way through how the temporary exclusion order is going to work. I come back to the point I made at Second Reading about whether they should ever have been called temporary exclusion orders. I suspect they were named as such because of the Prime Minister’s statement that he was going to exclude people who had fought abroad as terrorists and prevent them from coming back to the UK, which of course is not what is being proposed. “Managed return” is a better description, but we need to understand exactly how that managed return will work in practice—a point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. This is a probing amendment, as is Amendment 59, which we will come on to later, to try to tease out some of the detail of how this will work in practice.

Amendment 49 leaves out the requirement that the Secretary of State “reasonably suspects” that the individual has been involved in “terrorism-related activity” outside the UK and inserts “has evidence”. In this amendment, we are trying to seek some further information on how the process of issuing the temporary exclusion order will be managed. It would be helpful if the Minister could give some information on the evidence threshold. What evidence would be required for the Home Secretary to reasonably suspect that condition A has been met and that someone is, or has recently been, involved in terrorism-related activity? As previously discussed, the imposition of such an order will have a similar legislative impact to a TPIM, and will restrict an individual’s movements over a period of time. There may be other obligations, either through TPIMs or, for example, to engage in perhaps the Prevent programme or Channel.

The Government’s fact sheet is very interesting. It states that MI5 would have to make an application to the Secretary of State for her to consider. Is that the only route to a TEO—for MI5 to apply to the Secretary of State with information and to ask her to consider it? The Bill states only that certain conditions have to be met; it is the fact sheet that refers to MI5. The fact sheet also refers to the threshold, where it merely repeats the “reasonably suspects” wording. I am seeking some clarity on the threshold and on the process. Will a TEO always, and in all circumstances, be considered only on evidence from MI5 or the wider security services? Are there any circumstances where a Home Secretary, or any other Minister including the Prime Minister, could initiate the process? Are there any circumstances in which a Home Secretary could issue a temporary exclusion order without, or against, the advice of MI5? That is what the fact sheet says but, again, it is woolly on the legislation.

I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned humanitarian support earlier. What if someone has left the country—for example, to go to Syria—to be involved in humanitarian support, and although it is quite likely that is what they have been doing there, there is not hard evidence to prove it but, equally, there is not hard evidence to say that they are engaged in terrorism? What, then, would fulfil the definition of reasonable suspicion? When the legislation is in place—and if the Government get their way and do not agree to a sunset clause—it will not just apply to current threats but this will be law for ever and in any circumstances in the future.

We have to ask whether there is a value judgment to be made as to how the UK views the cause on the side of which somebody goes to fight. I want to just explore this with the Minister. I wonder whether he can help me, as I genuinely do not know the answer and am trying to find a way through this. Let us take the case of somebody with dual nationality who travels abroad to fight on the side of a cause in their second country that the UK would support. It has not been unknown in history for us to change sides, but let us say they have gone to another country, we support the cause they are fighting for, and they have dual citizenship of that country and this one. What about the British-Iraqi Kurd who, on his own evidence, leaves to fight against ISIL and against extremism? Could they find themselves subject to a temporary exclusion order? I know that the noble Lord cannot comment on intelligence matters, but just for this amendment it would be helpful to have some clearer explanation of what the Government mean by “reasonably suspects”, and what the evidence threshold will be for imposing a TEO. I beg to move.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, this allows us to consider the legal threshold for issuing a temporary exclusion order. Before I get on to what our position is, I shall answer a couple of the noble Baroness’s questions.

She asked about the basis on which reasonable suspicion is used in the power to seize and retain travel documents at a port. The test uses the evidential standard of reasonable suspicion that is used in relation to many other police powers. What constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion will depend on the circumstances in each individual case. There must be an objective basis for the constable’s state of mind, based on facts. Such information must be specific to the conduct of the person. It can include observation of the person’s behaviour, information obtained from any other source or a combination of these. Reasonable suspicion cannot be formed on the basis of assumptions about the attitudes, beliefs or behaviour of persons who belong to particular groups or categories of people. To do that under Schedule 1 on this basis would be discriminatory.

The noble Baroness also asked whether the Home Secretary will make a TEO application only on the basis of an application from MI5. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide whether the tests are met. In practice, she would base her judgment on advice from the security services. The final decision will of course be hers, even though, in practice, she will generally require input from the security services to establish reasonable suspicion.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Perhaps I might press the noble Lord further on that point. The other purpose of my question was to ask whether the Secretary of State or any other Minister, including the Prime Minister, would be able to initiate the process. Would they ever be able to act against or without the advice of the security services in imposing a TEO?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I think it would be better if I clarified that and came back to the noble Baroness. I do not want to say something that is incorrect on the precise details of this. I could make a guess, but I would rather not.

The noble Baroness’s amendment would mean that the Home Secretary would be required to have evidence that an individual has engaged in terrorism-related activity abroad rather than having a reasonable suspicion. The reasonable suspicion may well be based on intelligence, which is clearly not always the same as evidence. This change would greatly reduce the number of individuals against whom the Home Secretary could use this power. The result of this would be that the Government would not be able to control the return of individuals suspected of fighting alongside terrorist groups and would have fewer tools available to manage the threat these individuals posed to the British public.

Furthermore, where there is clear evidence that an individual is engaged in terrorism-related activity, it is likely that we would be in a position to seek their prosecution, which would be preferable to placing them under the conditions of a temporary exclusion order. Such a high test would also bring them within scope of the much stronger TPIM regime. Given the less stringent obligations of a TEO compared with the other measures, the Government’s view is that such a test would be disproportionate. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend made those concluding remarks, referring particularly to prosecution where it is possible.

Should we be comforted by the distinction between the words in Condition A, “reasonably suspects”, with an emphasis on “suspects”—the noble Lord referred to “reasonable grounds for suspicion”, which we covered earlier today—as against, in Conditions B and C,

“the Secretary of State reasonably considers”?

That seems to require more of the Secretary of State. Conditions A to D must all be met, so we can look at them together and see an escalation of the seriousness of the Secretary of State’s views, if I may put it like that. I could understand the concerns of the noble Baroness if we were to look only at Condition A, but I do not think that we can look at it in isolation.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for trying to help the Minister but the purpose of the amendment was merely to probe the issues around the evidence base for “suspects”. She was taking me very literally on that.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response and glad that he will write to me on the point that I raised with him. Could he also write to me on the second point, which he did not address? This was about somebody who might have dual nationality and was fighting against terrorism, for instance. I gave the example of a British Iraqi Kurd who was fighting against ISIS. It would be helpful if he could clarify that.

The purpose of this amendment and my next, Amendment 56, is to tease out how this will work. The Government need to answer some of these complex questions. It is a big and important power, but we need to understand how it will work. I am grateful for the Minister’s help and his offer to write to me, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 49 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I wondered whether the noble Baroness was adopting this one.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I apologise—mine is Amendment 59.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I think we are all being as co-operative as we can be on this: we are aiming at the same thing.

Briefly, Amendment 56 amends Clause 3, which provides that notice of the imposition of an order must include an explanation of the procedure for making an application under Clause 5. My amendment would provide that it should also include,

“the Secretary of State’s reasons”.

This is simply for the reasons that we discussed earlier: an individual affected needs to have an understanding, not necessarily—almost inevitably not—of the fine detail, but of the gist of the reasons why. This might not be the right term in this context, but in normal terminology it covers what I mean. Having knowledge of the procedure is not a great deal of use unless one knows the reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision. I did not quite keep that to under a minute but I beg to move.