Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Conor McGinn Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful to the Minister for his introductory remarks, particularly about how we can best work together as a Parliament, and I join him in paying tribute to the hon. Members across the House who shared personal experiences and testimonies—particularly the hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) and for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). If we had had to be convinced to support the Bill, perhaps those experiences—in particular the experience of the friend of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford—would have been sufficient to convince us.

The Minister’s ambition to have a sentencing regime in place for serious terrorism and terrorism-related offences has our support—no delay and no watering down—but he needs to ensure that the service is properly equipped and provides the services needed. I was therefore rather surprised—“stunned” is the word I wrote on my bit of paper—that the impact of introducing this new legislation will be less than £5 million for new prison places, an extended probation service and additional workers in the system. I cannot quite understand where that number comes from.

However, I am sure the Minister will be relieved to know that all I ask now is that he and his Home Office colleagues reflect on the challenges that we have made. I will withdraw new clause 1, but we will return to amendment 30 later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

Lone terrorists: Review of strategy

“(1) The Secretary of State must commission a review and publish a report on the effectiveness of current strategies to deal with lone terrorists.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must be conducted by a person who meets the criteria for qualification for appointment to the Supreme Court, as set out in section 25 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

(3) A review under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) counter-terrorism policy;

(b) sentencing policy as it applies to terrorist offenders;

(c) he interaction and effectiveness of public services with respect to incidents of lone terrorist attacks.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(c), “public services” includes but is not limited to—

(a) probation;

(b) the prison system;

(c) mental health services;

(d) local authorities; and

(e) housing providers.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.

(6) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than 3 months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.”—(Conor McGinn.)

This new clause ensures that the Government orders a judge-led review into the effectiveness of current strategies to deal with lone terrorists including, but not exclusively, current counterterrorism and sentencing policy.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 59, in clause 32, page 29, line 7, at end insert—

“(4) A Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure may not be imposed on an individual, or renewed, solely on the basis of—

(a) any statement made by the person while participating in a polygraph examination;

(b) any physiological reaction of the person while participating in a polygraph examination; or

(c) any refusal to comply with a requirement to participate in a polygraph examination.”

This amendment will prohibit the use of information obtained from a polygraph test as a basis for imposing a TPIM notice on an individual in England and Wales.

Amendment 60, in clause 33, page 30, line 24, at end insert—

“(8) A Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure may not be imposed on an individual, or renewed, solely on the basis of—

(a) any statement made by the person while participating in a polygraph examination;

(b) any physiological reaction of the person while participating in a polygraph examination; or

(c) any refusal to comply with a requirement to participate in a polygraph examination.”

This amendment will prohibit the use of information obtained from a polygraph test as a basis for imposing a TPIM notice on an individual in Scotland.

Amendment 61, in clause 34, page 33, line 6, at end insert—

“(4A) A Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure may not be imposed on an individual, or renewed, solely on the basis of—

(a) any statement made by the person while participating in a polygraph examination;

(b) any physiological reaction of the person while participating in a polygraph examination; or

(c) any refusal to comply with a requirement to participate in a polygraph examination.”

This amendment will prohibit the use of information obtained from a polygraph test as a basis for imposing a TPIM notice on an individual in Northern Ireland.

Amendment 40, page 34, line 22, leave out clause 37.

This amendment removes the provision that lowers the standard of proof to reasonable grounds.

Amendment 37, in clause 37, page 34, line 25, leave out

““has reasonable grounds for suspecting”.”

and insert

“, on the basis of reasonable and probable grounds, believes.”.

This amendment would raise the standard of proof for imposing a TPIM under the proposals in the Bill.

Amendment 39, in clause 37, page 34, line 26, leave out “suspecting” and insert “believing”.

This amendment would create a higher bar for the standard of proof under these proposals.

Amendment 42, page 34, line 27, leave out clause 38.

Amendment 41, in clause 38, page 34, line 31, at end insert—

“(za) in subsection (3)(a), after “met” insert “and the court gives the Secretary of State permission”;

(zb) after subsection (3)(a), insert “(ab) In determining the extension, the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review.””

Amendment 46, in clause 38, page 34, line 31, at end insert—

“(za) For subsection (3)(a), substitute “may be extended under subsection (2) only if—

(i) the Secretary of State believes on the balance of probabilities that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity;

(ii) conditions C and D are met; and

(iii) the court gives the Secretary of State permission to extend the TPIM notice.”

This amendment will provide that any extension of a TPIM notice will require (i) a higher threshold to be met (“on the balance of probabilities”), (ii) the Secretary of State must reasonably consider that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, for terrorism prevention and investigation measures to be imposed on the individual (Condition C), and that it is necessary, for purposes connected with preventing or restricting the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity, for the specified terrorism prevention and investigation measures to be imposed on the individual (Condition D), and (iii) judicial approval.

Amendment 47, page 35, line 21, leave out clause 39.

This amendment will remove from the Bill clause 39, which allows the Secretary of State to vary the relocation measure in a TPIM notice, if it is necessary to do so for resource reasons.

Amendment 48, page 36, line 27, leave out clause 40.

This amendment will remove from the Bill clause 40, which widens the scope for imposing a curfew beyond overnight.

Amendment 49, page 36, line 32, leave out clause 41.

This amendment will remove from the Bill clause 41, which inserts a new polygraph measure which can be imposed on TPIM subjects to test if they are complying with their TPIM measures, if the Secretary of State considers it necessary to protect the public from a risk of terrorism.

Government amendment 17.

Amendment 50, page 38, line 3, leave out clause 42.

This amendment will remove from the Bill clause 42, which introduces a new drug testing measure which can be imposed on TPIM subjects, to test for Class A and B drugs.

Government amendments 18 and 19.

Amendment 38, in clause 47, page 40, line 17, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) In section 20(9) of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 (support for persons vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism) for the words from “within the period” to the end substitute “by 1 July 2021”.”

This amendment would reinstate a statutory deadline for the independent review of the Prevent strategy, which will have to report by 1 July 2021.

Amendment 51, in clause 47, page 40, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—

“(a) in subsection (8), replace the words “6 months” with the words “2 years”;

(b) in subsection (9), replace the words “18 months” with the words “3 years”.”

Clause 47 omits the current statutory deadline for (a) making arrangements for an independent review of Prevent and (b) laying before both Houses the report and any recommendations of the review of Prevent. Instead of removing the statutory deadlines, this amendment provides for new deadlines: in respect of (a), 2 years beginning with the day on which the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act was passed (12 February 2019) and in respect of (b), 3 years beginning with the day on which the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act was passed.

[Conor McGinn]

The overriding priority of this Labour Opposition is and always will be to keep the public and our communities safe. I want to concentrate on the three amendments that our Front Benchers have tabled on behalf of the official Opposition, conscious of the fact that we have little time and I wish to hear from colleagues on the Back Benches who did not have the opportunity to discuss these issues in Committee.

As we—including me, as shadow Security Minister—said on Second Reading and in Committee, the tragic events at Fishmongers’ Hall and Streatham showed that there was a clear need for legislation, and subsequent events in Reading have only affirmed that. We on the Opposition Benches are committed to being forceful and robust in the fight against terrorism, so we welcome the Bill and in principle support its introduction. We have also sought to thoughtfully scrutinise the Bill, both to gain assurances on concerns and to attempt to improve it and ensure it is up to that most important task of keeping people safe.

To delve into new clause 8, following the shocking and tragic incident in Reading on Saturday 20 June, my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary called for a judge-led review of the Government’s strategy for tackling the dangerous and growing menace of lone attackers. Reading was the third time in seven months that such devastation had been witnessed on UK streets, with lone attackers responsible each time. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who showed such leadership and thoughtfulness in the days after the appalling attack on his community.

We on the Opposition Benches have no doubts as to the immense skill, bravery and dedication of our police and security and intelligence services. New clause 8 is fundamentally about supporting them as they tackle extremism from root to branch, because they cannot fight the battle alone. We need to look at the range of services we all rely on, particularly when we want to identify, monitor and treat subjects who pose such a huge threat to wider society.

Our proposals would make provision to assess the systemic response needed for the emerging and disturbing phenomenon of lone terrorists. A judge-led review of the effectiveness of current strategies to deal with them could effectively do that. It would address counter-terrorism policy and sentencing policy as it applies to terrorist offenders and the interactions and effectiveness of public services with respect to incidents of lone terrorist attacks. It would also undertake an analysis of a wide range of key public services, including our probation system, the prison system, mental health services, housing providers and local authorities, each of which can intervene at critical points.

The review would build on prior research and expertise, such as the extensive work carried out by Lord Anderson, the previous Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. That work has already provided insights into how we might better connect the current systems. His review’s proposal for multi-agency centre pilots would involve the identification of newly closed high-risk subjects of interest, the sharing of data by the Security Service and counter-terror policing with other agencies, such as local authorities and Departments, and the enrichment of that data using the databases of multi-agency partners. The review also highlighted barriers to local partners’ involvement in managing subjects of interest, including the challenges of resourcing.

Our public services must have the tools they need to intervene and work together in the most effective and efficient manner possible, particularly as many of the services have interactions with individuals who give them real concern. We need to undertake an assessment of the systemic response needed to confront the dangerous and growing threat of lone attackers, with all the necessary security safeguards in place, and I thank the Minister and the Security Minister for discussions on that.

Jonathan Hall, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, is looking at the issue in a review of the multi-agency public protection arrangements, which was commissioned by the Home Secretary. My understanding is that the review is currently with the Home Office. Can the Minister say a little bit more about that and perhaps commit to publishing it before the Bill reaches the other place, which I think would provide some assurance?

Turning to amendment 38 on TPIMs, we fully agree that the mechanisms must be robust and agile to help the police, the Security Service and their operational partners to do the job of keeping the public safe. As reflected by the amendments that the official Opposition has tabled, as well as those of the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), it is fair to say that we feel the Bill’s proposed changes to TPIMs will have a profound impact on the regime, especially when taken together.

We want TPIMs to be as effective and efficient as possible, and when those on the frontline in policing and counter-terrorism say that the changes will be useful, we fully trust and support their assessment and will do all we can to assist them. We will also, however, seek assurances that proper safeguards are in place. We would all want and expect to see such safeguards on measures of such importance in a democracy such as ours. If the standard of proof is to be lowered while simultaneously making possible a potentially indefinite TPIM by removing the current limit, then scrutiny, oversight and safeguards will take on a new-found importance. 

We must remind ourselves that a TPIM notice can involve a wide range of measures: overnight residence requirements, relocation, police reporting, an electronic monitoring tag, exclusion from certain places, limits on association, limits on the use of financial services, and limits on the use of telephone and computers, as well as a ban on holding travel documents. Those are robust measures and, in my view, rightly so, but we must not forget that TPIMs are a restriction on rights for people who have not yet been convicted of any crime. It is not in the interests of anyone to allow such individuals to remain indefinitely on TPIMs, either for their own sake, for society’s, or, crucially, in terms of bringing them to justice.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the concern about TPIMs is not just the breadth of measures available but their indefinite nature against people who have not actually been tried and charged?

[Conor McGinn]

I do, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work she has done on this issue and her commitment to it. I am sure the Minister will have heard what she says. It is something I raised in Committee and I did receive some assurances from the Minister, but I think we would wish to hear—not just in the light of what my right hon. Friend says, but of what the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation said when he made a similar point—what the Minister is doing to ensure those safeguards are in place.

[Jim Shannon]

It is very important that we look at TPIMs to make sure they are usable, but does the hon. Gentleman agree it is very important that the Secretary of State’s hands are not tied by legislation, but is able to respond to any emergent terrorism attacks or activities that take place in a way that is effective? Surely that has to be prominent precedent to follow?

[Conor McGinn]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with both great personal dignity and authority on these matters. I agree. We want the system to be agile and to be able to respond. The Bill places a very significant power on the Secretary of State. In seeking to ask the Government for assurances, we want to ensure the system itself is robust, because those protections allow authority and credibility in terms of being able to respond to the ongoing terrorist threat. The amendment we propose would ensure that there are reasonable and probable grounds for a TPIM to be issued. The higher bar would create safeguards without harming the robust nature or operational utility of TPIMs, which we want to be as impactful as they can possibly be to keep people safe.

We acknowledge that it was a Labour Government who, upon introducing control orders in 2005, imposed a standard of proof, as proposed in the Bill, to require only reasonable grounds for suspecting an individual had been involved in terrorism-related activity. That was then raised by the coalition Government in 2011 with the creation of the new TPIMs regime, and again by the Conservative Government in 2015. However, I cannot help but reflect on the words of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to the Bill Committee, when he said:

“If it is right that the current standard of proof is usable and fair, and I think it is, in a word, if it ain’t broke, why fix it?”––[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2020; c. 7, Q6.]

I think the Minister has to respond to that challenge. We need assurances from the Minister today, and an operational, administrative and procedural perspective for making those changes.

We would also like clarity on an exit strategy, given the indefinite nature of what has been proposed. Our concern with an open-ended or enduring TPIM regime is that it could see difficult cases languish, with no realistic plan for a resolution of any kind. Indeed, under the proposals, as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation confirmed to the Committee, we could conceivably see someone who has been convicted of a terrorism offence being free from constraints before someone who has been placed on an enduring TPIM. That kind of situation is intolerable and I hope the Minister will again respond to those concerns, alongside the arguments of many colleagues in the House in relation to TPIMs and polygraph testing, which, while useful as an additional information source in certain contexts, we know is controversial and untested in the counterterrorism sphere. I do not think it would be unreasonable to run a pilot scheme, as per new clause 9, so that before making such costly national changes we could see proper independent evidence of the polygraph’s reliability and utility in the specific context of terrorist offenders. We all want an effective and efficient TPIM regime to help to save lives and protect our country’s citizens from harm, and we want to work with the Government to get it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

As I said, I accept that. There have not been any historical cases where the standard of proof has been a blocker, but we have been categorically advised by the security services, speaking through Assistant Chief Constable Jacques, that it might occur, and that these proposals will make the public safer. He said that categorically, and I do not think that the House could, or should, disregard such clear advice. In relation to Jonathan Hall’s comments, I suspect that he may not have heard the evidence that I read out. He gave evidence to the Committee immediately before Assistant Chief Constable Jacques. His evidence was new to the House and to Parliament, and we did not have it on Second Reading. We do have it now, however, and we should have careful regard to it.

A number of Members raised questions about civil liberties, and not wishing to intrude on an individual’s freedom, and I will directly address those points. I will do so with reference to the original Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. By lowering the burden of proof, we are changing only one of five limbs. The other four limbs remain exactly as they are, and one of those, laid out in section 3 of that Act, states that the Secretary of State must reasonably consider whether the TPIM is “necessary”—I use that word carefully—for purposes connected with protecting members of the public. Subsection (4), condition D, states that the Secretary of State must consider whether a TPIM is

“necessary, for purposes connected with preventing or restricting the individual's involvement in terrorism-related activity,”

That test of necessity goes far beyond the reasonable suspicion referred to in the first limb. The requirement for necessity is unchanged.

The hon. Member for St Albans said that this measure could be introduced on a Minister’s whim, and that a Minister could impose a TPIM with the sweep of a pen. I say to her gently, however, that that is not the case and there are judicial safeguards in the 2011 Act. For example, section 6 of that Act states that when a TPIM notice is given, the Secretary of State must go to the court and make an application, and the court has to verify or validate that the TPIM is reasonable, and certify that it is not “obviously flawed”. There is judicial certification.

Section 16 of the 2011 Act provides for a right to appeal. If the subject of a TPIM feels that they have been unfairly treated, or that the TPIM is unjustified, they can apply to the court in a process akin to a judicial review, and apply to have it overturned. There are judicial safeguards to protect individuals from unreasonable actions by the Government.

In the many years that TPIMs have been in operation since 2011, and in the six years when control orders were in place from 2005, the numbers used have been small. There were never more than about 15 to 20 control orders in force at any one time, and we heard evidence that as of today only six TPIMs are in force. That is a very small number, as they are used only in exceptional circumstances. When I asked Jonathan Hall whether he believed that any Government, including the previous Labour Government or the more recent Conservative Government, had ever abused the power provided by TPIMs or control orders, he answered that no, he was not aware of any such abuse. I would add that a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, has expressed support for the measures in this Bill.

Let me turn to the issue of time and how extendable TPIMs are. They currently expire after two years. We propose to make them extendable in one-year increments, as were the old control orders passed by the then Labour Government and indeed supported by some Members in this House this afternoon. We heard evidence from Jonathan Hall that there was risk where a TPIM ended after two years, as there could be a gap. He knew of two real cases where that occurred, with a gap of one year in one case and a gap of 16 months in the other before a new TPIM could be obtained. That is because we have to get fresh evidence; we cannot rely on the old evidence and we have to wait for somebody to do something wrong again to give us the grounds to renew the TPIM. Max Hill, when he was independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in 2017, said that some terrorists were “biding time” waiting for the TPIM to simply time out.

In fairness to the last Labour Government, even though the previous control orders could be extended year by year, in practice most of them were not: 30 of them were for less than two years; eight were for between two and three years; four were for between three and four years; and only three extended for between four and five years. Again, the subject can apply for judicial review if they think the TPIM extension is unfair, so a judicial protection is in place.

I have two quick final points to make. In terms of prosecution, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked about, there is a duty under section 10 of the 2011 Act that requires the Secretary of State to seek prosecution where appropriate. On Prevent, let me say that the statutory obligation to carry out the Prevent review remains. There have been some delays, because the independent reviewer had to be replaced and then we had the coronavirus pandemic. Our commitment to do it remains in statute. Obviously, specifying a date caused a problem before, and we do not want to repeat that mistake. We hope and expect that this will be done by August of next year, but we feel that, given the experience of the recent past, putting that date in the Bill would simply be setting a bear trap. So I hope that I have laid out the case for resisting these amendments.

[Conor McGinn]

In the brief time available, I wish, first, to thank the Minister for addressing some of the concerns we have raised, not just today on Report, but through a thorough examination of the Bill in Committee. Although Labour Members wholeheartedly support robust action to keep our country and our citizens safe, and to tackle terrorism and its causes, it is the duty of any responsible Opposition to examine fully the Government’s proposals. I feel that we have done that, with the assistance of Scottish National party and Liberal Democrat Members, those from other parties in the House, and colleagues on the Back Benches.

The Minister and the Government should listen carefully to the very personal testimony given by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) and for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), and indeed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Although I might not have agreed with her on every crossed t or dotted i, or even on whole words or sentences on occasion, she does speak with the voice of years of experience in this House and a commitment to these issues. She also, like Members who spoke from these Benches, speaks authoritatively and with great passion on behalf of the constituencies and communities she represents. The Government should listen to them, which was why I made the points I did about the importance of not only getting this Prevent review right but getting on with it, to give the clarity and confidence needed, and to address some of the challenges and controversies associated with it.

I was hoping that we might receive a commitment from the Government to publish their MAPPA— multi-agency public protection arrangements—review before we got to consideration in the House of Lords, because it is important, given the removal of the statutory deadline for Prevent and given that the Opposition have proposed a review on lone actors, to have some timeframe on that. I appreciate and understand that the Minister has made valiant efforts to do that, but I regret that it has not been forthcoming to date. I hope that in considering the request for a review on lone actors, the Government understand that we do so in a constructive spirit.

[Chris Philp]

The Lord Chancellor has appeared, as if by magic, behind the Speaker’s Chair and has indicated to me by eloquent gesticulation that the MAPPA review will indeed be published before the consideration of the Bill in the other place.

[Conor McGinn]

I thank the Lord Chancellor and the Minister for that commitment. The robust exchanges we have had have been in the context and spirit of working constructively on a Bill of huge importance, which is concerned with keeping our country and its citizens safe. Our proposals for that review are in keeping with that view. We await to see what the MAPPA review by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation comes forward with. Colleagues in the other place will no doubt wish to scrutinise that. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

Serious terrorism sentence for adults aged under 21: England and Wales

Amendment proposed: 30, page 5, line 35, at end insert—

“(7) The pre-sentence report must —

(a) take account of the offender’s age;

(b) consider whether options other than a serious terrorism sentence might be more effective at—

(i) reducing the risk of serious harm to members of the public, or

(ii) rehabilitating the offender.

(8) The court must take account of any points made by the pre-sentence report in relation to the matters in subsection (7) and consider whether they constitute exceptional circumstances under subsection (2).”.—(Alex Cunningham.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.