Abu Qatada

David Winnick Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am clear that we need to make some reforms. We all value human rights and we want to ensure that we uphold them, but we need to ensure that we have legal structures that will enable us to do so in a way that is proper and appropriate. That is why it is entirely right that the Government have been looking, in conjunction with others, at how the European Court works.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Observing the rule of law is even more important when we are dealing with an individual like this, but I want to ask the Home Secretary the same question as I have asked on previous occasions. This individual has been here for a very long time; he came here in the early 1990s. If there is evidence against him, why cannot he be charged with any crimes that he is alleged to have committed? If there is evidence against him—and there might well be—it is puzzling that he is not being tried in the United Kingdom.

[Mrs May]

The Government have looked at every aspect of the case of Abu Qatada, as I assume the previous Government did. Of course, decisions on whether to prosecute are a matter not for the Government but for others.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly congratulate my hon. Friend on working closely with his local police force. As he has highlighted, the important thing is how police officers are used. Better deployment, better shift patterns, reduced bureaucracy and increased scope for officers to use their professional judgment are steps that many forces are taking and that this Government support.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

As far as crime is concerned, does the Minister’s boss, the Home Secretary, accept that policing, particularly on the front line, should be done by the police? The suggestion that private security firms should undertake some of those responsibilities for West Midlands and Surrey police forces is simply unacceptable: policing should remain the responsibility of the police.

[James Brokenshire]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman appears to criticise the role of the private sector and looking at ways of providing innovative services, because I know that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), applauded and welcomed that type of innovation when in government. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that where warranted officers are needed for those services, that is absolutely what will happen. Surrey and West Midlands police forces are engaged in looking at innovation in back-office services.

Abu Qatada

David Winnick Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Of course we are always in the business of considering what measures we can take to ensure that we can strengthen our ability to deal with potential terrorists. As for the issue of intercept evidence, we are still pursuing it, the advisory council of Privy Counsellors is considering it again, and it has been considered by successive Governments. It is a complex issue, but that work continues while we try to establish whether there is a way in which it would be possible to introduce intercept as evidence.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

This person is clearly motivated by murderous hatred—there is no doubt about that—but can the Home Secretary answer this question? He has been here for some 16 or 17 years. If there is evidence that he was inciting murder, why was he not charged? Would that not have been the most appropriate way of dealing with this fanatic?

[Mrs May]

In all cases relating to terrorists, potential terrorists or those who are inciting others, our preference is always to be able to prosecute, and for those people to be behind bars. That is why all cases are looked at very carefully, and, obviously, the appropriate judgments are made.

Foreign National Offenders

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is it not clear that the reason why the Home Secretary is not here to make the statement herself is that her Department is in such a shambles over matters relating to immigration control? Can the message be sent to her loudly and clearly that it is time she got a grip on her Department?

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that if the shadow Minister for Immigration asks an urgent question, it is answered by the Minister for Immigration. That is the way things work.

Intelligence and Security Committee

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

The heads of the agencies have been travelling to the Intelligence and Security Committee to give evidence—albeit in secret, not in public—for a good number of years, so precedent is not being broken. Some thought is being given to holding public sessions, and I certainly hope that will prove possible over the next few months. I cannot give an absolute commitment to that effect, but it is certainly what I would expect.

The nature of secret operations remains as crucial as ever. A much more mature approach is being taken to what Britain needs to remain secret and what is a legitimate question of public debate, even if the intelligence agencies are involved. When I first entered this House, and right up until the 1990s, the very existence of the intelligence agencies was never officially declared or admitted and those who led the agencies were very private figures whose identities were never revealed. Much has changed since enactment of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, but to this day some aspects of that approach remain very much in our eye. The question that must be asked is whether that is acceptable in a modern society. We have three intelligence agencies that collectively receive some £2 billion of taxpayers’ money each year. That is serious money that inevitably needs not only private scrutiny but a degree of public scrutiny, too.

Secondly, the very fact that they are secret agencies in an open society means that there is a need for Parliament and the public to take a serious interest not only in the private but, where possible, in the public way in which the agencies operate. Of course, there is a third consideration, which is that as the very activities of the agencies involve the power to intercept communications or carry out operations that, without the authority of a Secretary of State, would be unlawful, they have a privilege that is not available to the rest of the community. If one thinks that this debate is taking place in the middle of a hacking inquiry when exactly that kind of interception was carried out by those who did not have lawful authority, one can see a clear illustration of why the needs of the agencies should be subject to a degree of transparency.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

The Chair of the Committee mentioned that before 1994, there was no debate—or at least no acceptance and acknowledgment by the Government of the day—of the security services. Does he accept that during the 1980s some of us pressed for parliamentary scrutiny and used every opportunity in debates to say that there should be such scrutiny by Members of Parliament?

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

I not only acknowledge that but can say that both the activity of the hon. Gentleman and many representations from other hon. Members and those outside this House led in the 1990s to the Government changing the situation. I was Defence Secretary at the time and was involved in the discussions within Government that led to the 1994 Act, which set up for the first time the independent oversight machinery. We are now trying to discuss and consider the radical modernisation of that machinery, which has existed since 1994.

It is worth also making the general point that at the end of the cold war there was a debate about whether we still needed intelligence agencies and whether they needed the funding, powers and resources they had been allocated during the cold war. The famous phrase about its being the end of history was quoted at that time. I have always been sceptical of that phrase; I prefer an alternative view, which is that as one door closes another slams in your face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I shall follow previous speakers to some extent, particularly the latter remarks of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). I see this as a continuation of the debate about the parliamentary accountability of the security services. Over a number of years I argued, with other Members—Labour Members—for adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the services involved in security. When I was looking up previous debates on the subject, I noted that 23 years ago, almost to the day, I argued that such scrutiny was important, and that it was therefore necessary to provide the mechanism for Members of Parliament to look into what the security services were doing.

Before the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which, as we know, established the Intelligence and Security Committee, a leading historian, Sir Michael Howard, observed in 1986:

“So far as official government policy is concerned . . . enemy agents are found under gooseberry bushes and intelligence is brought by the storks.”

In other words, children, Parliament and the public should not meddle in what were considered to be very adult matters.

At least we have a consensus that we need to move on from the limited parliamentary machinery that was established at the time. I welcome the fact that the Committee is in favour, as the Chair said and as the report makes clear, of expanding the role of the ISC. The Green Paper makes the same point.

I note that in its recommendations the Committee does not suggest public evidence, but the Green Paper does. I see no reason why such evidence should not, in certain circumstances, be given in public. If some members of the Committee immediately say, “Much of what we do can’t be revealed in public; it is confidential—classified”, I agree. When I spoke in 2008 and tabled an amendment, which I later withdrew, about holding public sessions, the then Foreign Secretary accepted that there was scope for holding some sessions in public and wanted to make progress on that. It was not made then, but I hope it will be now.

The then Foreign Secretary emphasised, as one would expect, the need to protect national security. Let me be clear: public sessions, yes, but most of the evidence and most of the Committee’s work would be in private. There would be limited scope, as I see it and as the Green Paper recognises, for public sessions.

In the past the heads of the two main security services, MI5 and MI6, were not mentioned, as though they and the organisations did not exist. The difference is that now we have become used to the head of MI5—the current head and his predecessors—making public speeches. There is nothing novel about that. It does not necessarily get great news coverage because, as I said, it has become quite common. Last October for the first time the head of MI6 gave a public speech. Parliamentary democracy survived. The intelligence services survived. Presumably, as in the case of MI5, the head of MI6 and his successors will continue to make public speeches, where appropriate. It is true, of course, that in giving such a speech, the head of MI6 was not giving evidence and being asked questions by Members of Parliament. That, I hope, will be brought about.

The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee made the point that when, from time to time, we have sessions with MI5—he mentioned MI5, so I will mention it as well—we are told that if we want to have such briefings, which obviously are private and remain so, we should go over to Millbank. I do not see any reason why we should do that any longer. If it continues, I for one, as a member of the Home Affairs Committee, would be most reluctant to do so. It seems to me that if MI5 is going to give briefings on a confidential basis, the director general should come to the House of Commons, not the other way round. It is not a major point, but it asserts the supremacy of Parliament.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), a former Chair of the ISC, and a very good Chair, as is the present one, spoke about Members. I hope all Members of the House are reliable and can be given information on a confidential basis. I am not putting myself forward as a candidate for membership as I do not particularly want to join the Committee. If it was said in the past—not, I hope, in the present Parliament—that there are some rogue elements among Members, the same applies to the Security Service. Peter Wright and other elements, a small minority of the Security Service, apparently believed that Harold Wilson was an agent of Moscow and acted on the instructions of the Kremlin. Let us be clear that in the past there have been rogue elements—a very small minority—among Members of Parliament, as in the security services.

[Mr George Howarth]

Although what my hon. Friend says about some of the personalities involved is undoubtedly true, does he think it would give great cause for concern if there were rogue elements within the security services being overseen by rogue elements in the House of Commons?

[Mr Winnick]

Yes. I do not think it would help our national security. I hope that satisfies my right hon. Friend. I do not know what other answer I could give to that question.

In previous debates I have criticised the ISC. I do not believe, and I am hardly alone in this, that it has been robust enough about the allegations of complicity in torture. The present Chair of the Committee said that there is no allegation whatsoever that British security officials have in any way taken part in torture. I accept that entirely. I said in the previous debate that there is not the slightest evidence that such torture has been used by British security services, but clearly the allegation, which is a very serious allegation, is complicity in torture. In respect of what has been happening abroad—the water-boarding, 160 times in one instance, carried out by the United States on an individual, Guantanamo remaining opening, the practices that went on there, the Pakistan security service and so on—the allegation is that British security officials knew what was happening and took no action. That is an extremely serious allegation. Peter Gibson’s inquiry is therefore to be welcomed. I am not sure whether the inquiry is already under way or when it is likely to conclude and publish its report, but perhaps the Minister will clarify that when responding to the debate.

The question is whether the ISC was sufficiently robust when looking at the matter. In my view it was not. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, in a report produced last year, was critical of the ISC in such matters and expressed concern about the adequacy of the parliamentary mechanism for oversight of the intelligence and security services. I hope that there will be a different approach in future. It is very important that the ISC does not give the impression that it is simply the voice of the security services or that it is reluctant to criticise, because if that was its attitude it would not be doing its proper job. Unlike some Members, I have reservations about relevant sensitive material not being disclosed in court, and I will be very surprised if that is not the subject of further debate in the House.

In conclusion, I in no way underestimate the acute and continuing terrorist danger to our country. Sometimes critics such as me are accused of underestimating, not recognising or playing down, the terrorist danger, but I certainly do not underestimate the danger, and I take the point as well about republican dissidents in Northern Ireland. Even if 7/7 and what was attempted a fortnight later had not happened, I would recognise first and foremost that this country faces an acute danger from Islamists who clearly believe that murdering as many people as possible is the way to paradise. Hon. Members have today put various views and arguments on how we should deal with the terrorist danger, and that debate will continue for some time. However, the greater the danger and the greater the role of the security services in trying to protect our country from further atrocities and mass murder, the greater the need for effective parliamentary scrutiny of those involved. It is absolutely essential that the changes proposed by the Committee and set out in the Green Paper are implemented in the near future.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

I should begin with an apology because it has been my misfortune to miss a large part of the debate owing to a prior commitment, which was on behalf of Parliament but outside the House. However, I have had the opportunity to listen to the debate and hear some very fine and perceptive speeches. I hope that I may be excused for singling out the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), who made a very wise contribution. I was also pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), with whom I serve on the Committee, because his four years in the Northern Ireland Office undoubtedly qualify him to speak with common sense and great knowledge of the problems Northern Ireland presents, not least in recent times. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Chair. I think that the Chair should be the best person for the job because any kind of preference, however well intentioned, could stand in the way of the Committee’s efficient working.

As for what the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) said, or at least implied, anyone who doubts the independence of the Committee over the years should come to the office and look at the photographs on the wall of the people who have constituted the Committee over 20 odd years. He will not find one of them, man or woman, who could be described in any way as less than fully independent. My experience as a relatively new member led me to believe from the very beginning that the quality I had to demonstrate most of all was independence.

Despite the independence of those who have served on the Committee, it is interesting to note the extent to which its role has been misunderstood, and often in circles where one would have hoped that its role would be much better appreciated. That is one of the most compelling arguments for the changes in the Committee that the Committee itself has recommended and that now form part of the Green Paper.

[Mr Winnick]

When I made my criticism of the Committee, I cited what the Joint Committee on Human Rights reported last year—that the Committee had not been sufficiently robust in dealing with the allegations of complicity in torture.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

That is a matter of judgment. Members of the Committee sign the Official Secrets Act and are subject to constraints when it comes to any criticism directed at them either collectively or individually. Based on my experience, however, I have never seen any action—or lack of action—on the part of the Committee which suggested a lack of independence of thought.

Border Checks Summer 2011

David Winnick Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We now have different accounts from different officials, the Home Secretary and the memos from the Border Agency that have been revealed. What the public want to know is the truth. That is why we need the information to be published. We need to know what information the Home Secretary gave to the Border Agency, what instructions were given to the Border Agency and what instructions were given by the Minister for Immigration. What information was provided to Ministers from the Border Agency? What monitoring did they ask for? What monitoring did her Minister for Immigration do? By the way, it is good to see him here today. He has been completely silent and absent from this entire debate. Indeed, in the light of these revelations, we wonder what job he is in fact doing. What information did either Minister ask for when they decided to extend the pilot just six weeks ago?

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Is it not crucial that we know Mr Clark’s version of events? We look forward to his giving evidence next Tuesday, because so far we have simply had the Home Secretary. Why should a senior civil servant of 40 years standing wish to mislead us or give a wrong impression to Parliament?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right: we need to hear Brodie Clark’s evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which will be important. However, we also need to know what it says in the instructions that the Home Secretary’s office gave to the Border Agency. That by itself should clear a lot of this up. What did she decide? What were her instructions to the Border Agency? Has it accurately reflected those instructions or not? She should publish that information and those data. Let us get to the bottom of what has been going on.

Thirdly, the Home Secretary needs to provide us with more information and assurances about resources. It is clear from the internal memo and from the Border Agency that staff were under pressure. One internal management e-mail says:

“If we aren’t using level 2”—

the reduced level of checks—

“the assumption is we won’t be using secondary staff to support any pressures…as you know, this is a message we have put out time and time again…We cannot continue to pull resources from other parts of our business when we are not making use of all the tools available to us”.

In other words, the Border Agency was not allowed to ask for extra staff when things got busy unless it had already downgraded to a lower level of checks.

People do not like queues when they come back from holiday—the kids are crying, it is very stressful, or perhaps they are late for a business meeting—but they stand there, looking at all the empty booths, and thinking, “Why aren’t the extra staff put on? Why aren’t the extra lines open?” Now we know the answer: because the Border Agency has been told that it has to cut the checks that are in place. Some 6,500 staff are going from the Border Agency, with 1,500 going from the border force, including more than 800 this year alone. The Prime Minister told the House with great pride that the level of staff was returning to the level of 2006. Really? I have to say that I do not think that border controls were strong enough in 2006. We were right to strengthen them and to keep strengthening them. [Interruption.] If Government Members really want to roll back the clock and reduce the checks and border controls that are in place across this country, they are completely out of touch with their constituents across the country, who want to see proper immigration controls in place.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

David Winnick Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I think we have moved on somewhat; certainly I have. Also, the facts have changed. There was a time when a lot more people feared much more that we might need more than 14 days rather more frequently, but the fact is that the powers have not been used—they have not been necessary. The facts have changed, time has passed, and we need to move on. I am grateful for the Minister’s wishing me well, with a slight barb to it.

The Minister said that in the case of phone hacking the House moved remarkably swiftly. In fact, all that happened was Executive action, because the Government were finally persuaded that they should set up the Leveson inquiry. Parliament did absolutely nothing. We did not legislate; we certainly did not go through three stages of a Bill. We may end up legislating in that respect, but it will not happen for some time.

We have had the pre-legislative scrutiny process, and I am grateful to the right hon. and hon. Members who sat on the Committee. However, there is still the danger that following the moment that necessitated emergency legislation—I do not know whether that would be 10, 11 or 12 days in—we would effectively be undertaking ad exemplum legislation, which is always a mistake. I sympathise with the squaring of the circle that the Government are trying to achieve whereby we all accept that the norm should be 14 days, and while in normal circumstances we do not want all those 14 days to be used, we none the less accept that there might be some exceptional circumstances in which 20 days might be necessary. However, I believe that the Government are going down the wrong route in trying to achieve that, as does the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, which said:

“We believe, however, that the parliamentary scrutiny of primary legislation to this effect would be so circumscribed by the difficulties of explaining the reasons for introducing it without prejudicing the rights of a suspect or suspects to a fair trial as to make the process of justifying the legislation almost impossible for the Secretary of State and totally unsatisfactory and ineffective for Members of both Houses of Parliament.”

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

As someone who does not have to move on from 42 days, having taken, in my view, the right decision at the time—and previously on 90 days—like my hon. Friend I have the greatest reservations about emergency legislation all in one day. If it is to be detention without charge for 14 days, which, like him, I certainly welcome, I would vote against any measure that the Government clearly have in mind whereby it would be 14 days-plus. That would be totally unsatisfactory, for all the reasons he has cited.

[Chris Bryant]

I think that “I told you so” came at the beginning of my hon. Friend’s comments. Quite often he does turn out to be more correct than me, but there we go—that’s life.

I can imagine a point where we are nine days into somebody’s detention and then the Government realise that they need their emergency legislation. They would not be able to start that process until the 11th day, and then they would suddenly be saying, “Right, we’ve got to put it all through this House and the other House in one day.” That leads to very dangerous decision making, and it is a bad route to go down. It would be a mistake for us to decide in principle that that is what we want to do in some given circumstance. That is why I prefer the route advanced by my right hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff South and Penarth and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), and the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) and for Banbury (Tony Baldry). Having said that, we still need to resolve some of the issues about the level of corralling needed to ensure that the power is not used gratuitously, that the Secretary of State is not able to proceed unhindered, and so on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Goggins]

My hon. Friend knows enough about this matter to know that we cannot draw simple comparisons between our system and other systems. Other systems sometimes appear to hold suspects for shorter periods when in fact they are held for longer periods. We have a system that reflects our own judicial culture but also recognises the fact that we face enormous threats and challenges from terrorists in this country, perhaps particularly in this city. We have had to work our way through this, but if he missed the earlier part of my speech, he will not have heard me say that I have had pause to reflect and that I have changed my mind. I think that 14 days should be the maximum in most circumstances, apart from the exceptional circumstances that I am referring to.

[Mr Winnick]

rose—

[Paul Goggins]

I shall give way one more time, but then I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion.

[Mr Winnick]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I accept that he is a convert to 14 days, although I suspect that if we were debating 42 days, he would not necessarily be up on his feet protesting. On the point about the Attorney-General, are we really to believe—this is not a reflection on the Attorney-General in any Government—that if the Home Secretary told the Attorney-General, in the usual way that these things are done, that it was necessary to increase the 14 days in exceptional circumstances, the Attorney-General would say to the Home Secretary, “No”? It is unrealistic.

[Paul Goggins]

I do not accept that it is unrealistic. It would depend on the individual judgment of the Attorney-General linked to the judgment of the Home Secretary, who would have been briefed by the Security Service and others. On its own, it is not a total safeguard, but it is one among several, and I shall briefly go through the others. The Secretary of State would have to give a statement to both Houses as soon as possible. There would have to be a review by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation of any case in which a suspect was detained for more than 14 days. There would have to be an annual report by the Home Secretary listing any orders that had been made; that report would have to be debated and voted on in six weeks. Finally, the Director of Public Prosecutions would have to give his personal authorisation to any application to the High Court for a further warrant for detention. We know that that already happens in practice, but it should be on the face of the legislation. Members of the Joint Committee will be pleased that the Minister has tonight confirmed that he will introduce legislation to make the order-making power available during the Dissolution of Parliament, and that he has acknowledged the importance of an independent review of each case and of the personal authorisation of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Minister is a reasonable man who genuinely seeks to strike the right balance, but I believe that he has landed in the wrong place on this issue. His preferred route of primary legislation is too risky: time might be against him, and a subsequent trial might be prejudiced. This measure is exceptional, and we all hope that it will never have to be used, but if it is required, it is important that it be absolutely reliable and available as soon as possible.

The Committee’s recommendation respects the Government’s view that 14 days should be the normal maximum; frankly, I think that that is the settled view of Members on both sides of the House. That would give greater certainty in the face of extraordinary challenges, threats and attacks. On behalf of the six members of the Committee, I am happy to commend our recommendations to the Minister, and I hope that, even now, he will give them further consideration.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

To be clear, when I say “routinely” I am talking about powers routinely available under the TPIM Bill, accepting that there is a draft Bill that we tabled last week, and the exceptional circumstances when those powers may be available, which we discussed earlier today. Of course, we will be able to use the robust powers in this Bill to disrupt an individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity by, for example, requiring them to reside and stay overnight at a particular address in their locality, so that they can be easily monitored; requiring them to abide by other restrictions on their movements overnight; banning them from areas or places where they might meet extremist associates or conduct terrorism-related activities; prohibiting their association with individuals of concern and requiring prior notice of association with other individuals; requiring them to report regularly to a police station and to co-operate with electronic tagging; restricting and monitoring their financial activities; and limiting their communications to a small number of approved devices.

That is why I say clearly that the TPIM Bill provides robust measures to address the risks posed by such individuals, allied to the additional resources being provided to the police and the Security Service, and that that is the right package of measures to have in place. Indeed, as the House is aware, the director general of the Security Service has told the Home Secretary that he is content that the TPIM Bill provides an acceptable balance between the needs of national security and civil liberties, and that the overall package mitigates risk.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

As someone who had many reservations about the previous regime and the methods that were used, I, for one, can see very little difference between what this Government are doing and what the previous Government did. At the end of the day, despite all the criticism that was made, particularly by the Liberal Democrats in the last Parliament, by and large, what happened before the election is happening again.

[James Brokenshire]

I ask the hon. Gentleman with all due respect please to read the Bill. He will see that there are significant and important differences that I cannot address in the two minutes remaining to me. However, we have always been clear that there may be exceptional circumstances where the measures in the Bill, together with the additional resources, may not be sufficient to manage effectively the risk we face. National security is the primary duty of any Government, and we will not put security or the public at risk. That is why we concluded, as announced by the Home Secretary in January, that there may be exceptional circumstances where it would be necessary to seek parliamentary approval for additional, more restrictive measures. The review included a commitment that emergency legislation would be drafted, and that is what we tabled last week.

In a free society, we must challenge ourselves to fight terrorism using a targeted set of powers, safeguarding our hard-won civil liberties and prosecuting terrorists wherever possible. However, we must also ensure that those powers are sufficiently robust to meet the threats we face and sufficiently flexible to protect the public in changing circumstances, including in exceptional circumstances. I believe that the Government’s approach to this difficult issue is the right one and—I come back to balance being the essence—does strike the proper balance in giving us that right mix of disruption and ensuring protection for civil liberties. I am sorry that the Opposition do not appear—

Police (Detention and Bail) Bill

David Winnick Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am not aware of such figures, but the right hon. Gentleman’s question gives me an opportunity to comment on remarks that some lawyers and others have made as to whether the original judgment is in some way a response to a problem that had been getting worse. I am not aware of such a problem. The rules that we are restoring are those that the police have been operating under for the past 25 years. I say to those who have suddenly raised this issue that if they did feel there was a problem they should have raised it sooner. I also say that this Bill is merely restoring the situation to what has been understood to be for the last 25 years, and that I do not think it is an appropriate vehicle for doing any more than that. We have a task to perform today. The Bill achieves that task, and it is right that it is restricted to that.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I am not necessarily opposed to restoring the position to what it was before the court judgment, but I am always anxious about our rushing through all the stages of a Bill, as we are doing today. The Home Secretary has been very dismissive of critics, but my view is that if there was more time, those critics, who may or may not have a very reasonable case, would be able to put their case to Members and there would be further deliberations before we rushed into making law. I have many hesitations in my mind because, as the Home Secretary herself has admitted, when we have previously rushed through legislation, it has not always proved to be useful.

[Mrs May]

I understand the point that there have in the past been occasions when emergency legislation has been felt to have had consequences other than what was intended. This is a different kind of emergency legislation however, in that it simply reinstates the situation to what it was understood to be for the past 25 years in terms of the operation of PACE and detention and bail. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the Government have done what we can to ensure that there has been an opportunity for the Bill to be considered. I made the draft Bill available to Members and others on Monday, and it was formally introduced on Tuesday. We therefore made it available early so that people would have an opportunity to look at it. It is a very short Bill, and it does not need to be more than a short Bill because, I repeat, it is simply reinstating the situation to what it has been for the past 25 years.

The judgment in the Hookway case significantly impairs the police’s ability to investigate offences and protect the public. I am not prepared to stand by and ask the police to fight crime with one arm tied behind their back. The Bill will restore vital powers to the police that they have operated under, without complaint from the courts, for the past 25 years. I commend this Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

There are cases where police bail can, of course, be used and there ought to be cases where we should explore that. Our view remains that there are also cases where that is not possible, which is why we need control orders, the son of control orders or whatever we are calling these things now—we need some other kind of safeguard. Clearly, where more traditional aspects of the criminal justice system can be used instead, they should of course be used. Control orders are always a last resort and should be used only in those circumstances.

We have seen some worrying cases across the country, and this goes to the heart of why emergency legislation is needed now. Hon. Members are right to say that we should bring in emergency legislation only on the basis of very serious consideration; we should never do this lightly and there are always risks involved. However, Parliament also needs to balance the risks, and there are risks to the public and to the course of justice if we do not legislate now.

The National Association of Probation Officers has warned of a case where a suspect who is already on a 12-month suspended sentence for assault and who has five previous convictions for offences against the same partner was arrested again for assault. He was bailed while drugs found upon his person were sent off for analysis, but that may take a week and the 96 hours have expired. His victims are deemed at physical risk and it is hugely important, in those circumstances, that bail conditions should be able to apply. Another case involves the harassment of a former girlfriend by a suspect who has been arrested and released on bail. His phone and computer were taken for analysis, which takes time—far more time than 96 hours. He is not due back on bail until later this month, but his conditions are not enforceable if the current legal state of affairs persists. I have been told of other cases by police officers, including that of someone arrested as he was accused of sexual assault on women he was supposed to help in the course of his work. Further investigations are under way, but his bail conditions included a requirement that he should have no unsupervised contact with women in his professional capacity and, again, those conditions cannot now be enforced.

In many cases, bail conditions were used to give people a time and date for returning to the police station for further interview once further evidence was expected to be in place. Now, even though that further evidence might subsequently have been gathered, the police will still have to go out to look for the suspect and take that extra time to bring them in. So, in addition to the risks to justice and to the victims, this situation is placing considerable extra burdens on police time and resources, causing additional pressures for them, too.

[Mr Winnick]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the situation that existed prior to the court judgment, and I do not dispute what she is saying in any way, as public safety is absolutely essential and nobody in this House is going to challenge that view. We are dealing with the substance of the matter, so does she not have a concern about the amount of time that a person can be endlessly bailed for as they return to the police station and that happens again? Would it not be far better, as far as is possible, for charges to be brought as quickly as possible where there is sufficient evidence to do so?

[Yvette Cooper]

We are talking about wider issues here and, if I may, I will deal with those later. If my hon. Friend wishes to intervene then, I will be happy to take a further intervention from him. I wish to finish the point that I am making and then deal with his point.

The case for rapid action to resolve the situation is extremely clear. Nevertheless, it is important that we set it out in the House to make it clear to the courts what our view and judgment are. The costs and administrative burdens for the police in trying to manage this interim situation should also not be underestimated. There is also a significant risk that clever defendants or defence lawyers might use that interim period as a way to get off on a technicality, which would mean that justice would not be done, the House and Parliament not having clarified the situation for the police and the courts.

It would be irresponsible for Parliament to wait longer to deal with the situation. It is not possible for Parliament to take the risk of waiting for the Supreme Court hearing on 25 July, as thousands of domestic violence victims alone need the protection of enforceable bail conditions right now, not in several weeks’ time. So we do support the legislation, as I explained in Parliament on a point of order within hours of learning about the issue eight days ago.

However, we should reflect on some genuine concerns. We have not proposed any amendments, even probing ones, because we think that the most important thing today is to get the legislation on to the statute book and to restore the position for the police and crime victims as soon as possible. However, the House should also have concerns about the possibility of the use of endless police bail. There are cases, and there have been cases, where people have been left on police bail, including with conditions, long after another suspect has confessed to the offence. There are other cases where investigations have run dry but action was not taken to end the bail arrangements. Long bail can sometimes mean that delays are allowed to develop, and they eventually become counter-productive in securing justice.

Therefore, we should, in due course, have a wider debate about the appropriateness and proportionality of different lengths of police bail and what safeguards are needed. If Parliament, the Government and the police do not have those debates about what we think is appropriate, we risk the courts making those decisions for us. It is important that the police have the powers and the flexibilities to pursue those investigations, but we need to give them support in doing that, and make sure that that is properly reflected in the arrangements that we have. There are issues to do with the fact that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has been amended many times and clarity might be needed on wider matters, too. It would be helpful if the Home Office and ACPO considered more closely when, how and for how long police bail is used and whether the current framework is appropriate or needs amending.

In the meantime, the most important thing is to restore to the police the ability to operate in the way in which they have operated, and with the framework with which they have operated, for several decades.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

We do have that responsibility, but my reason for continuing to press this point is that these things will come up again because that is the nature of home affairs and Home Office work. There will inevitably be judgments and other issues that cause problems and suddenly raise difficulties in the criminal justice system. We have dealt with them previously, sometimes through emergency legislation and sometimes through other responses. These things happen and the question is whether, when they happen, the response is fast enough or active enough. My concern is that, if the Home Office continues to be complacent about how it has responded, there will be further difficulties in future.

It is worth considering the time line. We are now seven weeks from the original judgment, three weeks since the written judgment was put in place and two weeks since Ministers were informed. That gap alone between Home Office officials’ being informed of the written judgment, the written judgment’s being published and Ministers’ being told puts Ministers in a deeply difficult position. I have considerable sympathy with the position they were put in when the written judgment came out and was commented on almost the same day by Professor Michael Zander, who said:

“This is a very unfortunate decision if it is not quickly overturned on appeal it will need to be speedily reversed by legislation.”

That criminal expert came out with that statement, the written judgment was published and it was still a week until Home Office Ministers were even told there was a problem. I think that is of concern and that the Home Office should recognise it is of concern.

[Mr Winnick]

Given that my right hon. Friend is giving her full support to the Government, is she at all surprised by how sensitive Conservative Members are to any form of criticism whatever?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Given the number of Back Benchers who have leapt up to mention, as part of their intervention, “the speedy action from Ministers” and “the fast response from Ministers”, one might think that a Whip’s note has gone around saying that that might be the phrase to put into every intervention, whatever the point might be.

Our first concern is about the initial delay before the Home Office got the written judgment. I am very clear that more work should have been done between the oral judgment and the written judgment. Then, once the written judgment arrived, there should have been very fast advice to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice about the risks in this case. Instead, the Home Office seems to have sat on this for a week before Ministers were informed. Once they were informed, it was then important for them to accelerate action because the Home Office clearly had not been acting fast enough before then.

What did happen once Ministers were informed? We still do not know when the Home Secretary discussed the matter with the Attorney-General and we still do not know why it has taken so long for there to be support via the Attorney-General, working with Greater Manchester police and the Supreme Court, to get an expedited hearing for a stay of judgment. I recognise the point that the Home Secretary made about the stay of judgment. Clearly, a series of different issues are relevant, some of which the Supreme Court has raised in relation to its powers. The Court also raised the issue of timeliness because by the time it was considering a stay of judgment, that judgment had been in place for many weeks. Timeliness is always a factor when the Supreme Court takes decisions and those delays might well have made it harder for the Court to bring in that stay of judgment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). I congratulate him on the recent announcement of his elevation to the Privy Council.

The Home Secretary is in the enviable position of coming to the Dispatch Box with the support of Opposition Front Benchers—who seem to have disappeared temporarily; they are hiding behind the Chair—and that of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, ACPO, Liberty and every police officer in the country. The only person missing is His Holiness the Pope. Everybody seems to accept that it is vital that the Government get the legislation through as speedily as possible, within the time frame that was set out by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice. I thought he was very generous in saying that we would have until 3 o’clock to complete our debate, because everyone who has spoken so far has said that they agree absolutely with everything that the Government are doing, as do I. I shall learn from my own lesson by speaking as briefly as I can.

I thank the Home Secretary for showing great courtesy to the Home Affairs Committee. She promised us a copy of the draft Bill by 6 o’clock on Monday and we received it. She then appeared before the Select Committee on Tuesday. This may seem like déjà vu because there are so many members of the Select Committee here. In fact, we could adjourn the House and straight away be quorate. This is a model not just for emergency legislation, but for the way in which the Government should deal with Select Committees. If she carries on like this, our next report might have to recommend her for canonisation. [Interruption.] Steady on. I said only that we might have to recommend her for canonisation.

[Mr Winnick]

There would be a vote against, I can assure my right hon. Friend.

[Keith Vaz]

I am sure that there would be a vote against it, probably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick).

It is important that Parliament is kept informed. The fact that this legislation had to be scrutinised in this way meant that the Home Secretary’s presence this week was very helpful.

Government Members need to be mindful of the fact that Opposition Front Benchers are supporting the Government on this matter. Government Members were a little unfair to the shadow Home Secretary. It is right that she is able to raise issues concerning the time line. Select Committee members from both sides of the House necessarily raised that issue with the Home Secretary on Tuesday, and indeed with the chief constable of Essex and the commander in the Met who deals with these matters. I commend the hon. Member for South Ribble (Lorraine Fullbrook) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for their speeches. Although they disagreed on issues concerning the time line, there was absolute agreement with what the Government propose, just as there is unanimous support for it in the Select Committee.

I want to raise two issues with the Home Secretary. The first relates to the position of the Attorney-General and the importance of Law Officers being involved in this process. As the Home Secretary said and as I know from being a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and a junior Minister in the Lord Chancellor’s Department in the last Government, advice given by the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General is by its nature confidential to the Government. However, when this case was first decided on in Salford, I think it was incumbent on Greater Manchester police, who had conduct of this matter, to inform Home Office officials about it, and I am sure that they did. I have not checked the time line, but I am sure that is what they said they did. The Home Office officials should then have consulted the Law Officers. After all, the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General have superintendence over the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose role is extremely important in these matters.

I am sure that if the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) catches your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, he will talk about the role of ACPO in this matter. Of course we are interested in the role of ACPO, because under the new landscape of policing, ACPO will be reformed. In making this legislation, we are putting a lot of faith in the advice given to ACPO by two Queen’s counsel, and in the advice that it gave Ministers. The chief constable of Essex clarified after the evidence session that he finally told the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice last Thursday that it was time to go back to the House to pass legislation, which is what the Minister told the House last Thursday. The chief constable had originally told the Committee in open session that it was the day after when he finally made up his mind.

I do not think that these issues ought to be left to ACPO. They are serious issues that ought to occupy the time of Home Office officials. I hope that Home Office officials in this case did alert the Law Officers. I am not asking for a time line from the Minister when he replies, but it would be nice to know whether that happened. I believe that the Law Officers and the Treasury Solicitor’s Department have a role in this, because at the end of the day, it is they who have to go to the courts to represent the Government. I accept what the Home Secretary says and that she has no locus standi in these matters, but this needs to be kept under review. If we look to the future rather than the past, and accept that what the Government have to do, as outlined by the Home Secretary, is the right approach, we should be aware that these things may well happen in the future. I know about the points made by Professor Michael Zander. I have not put down a parliamentary question to ask whether Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, where he wrote his article, is standard reading in the Home Office or the Law Officers’ Department.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

David Winnick Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Goggins]

Considerable consideration was always given to those issues. As the Home Secretary said earlier, prosecutions should always be brought where possible. Those who engage in terrorist activity should feel the full force of the law and where possible—where the evidence is there—they should be convicted and go to prison for a very long time. The problem is that sometimes the evidence and information that the Home Secretary and other Ministers have is not enough to secure a prosecution because much of it is protected or secret information that could not, of itself, sustain a successful prosecution. That is the territory we are dealing with, but I assure my hon. Friend that that consideration was always at the foremost of Minister’s minds at that time.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I have the highest respect for the work that my right hon. Friend undertook during his time at the Home Office. I have tried to get a parliamentary answer to my question, but I did not get anywhere. I understand that no one who has been subject to a control order has later been charged with a terrorist offence. That seems rather odd and, if I may say so, rather disturbing.

[Paul Goggins]

My hon. Friend has well-known views on this issue and has expressed them frequently in the Chamber from both the Government and Opposition sides over the years. He forms his own conclusions but my conclusions about such individuals is that they are a small group of people for whom it is necessary to have some form of control outside the normal judicial process because of the risks that they pose. My hon. Friend has put forward his point of view on this before and he has strong views—I respect that.

[Paul Goggins]

The hon. Lady speaks with great authority on this issue and I agree with every word she says. These powers—whether the control order powers that have been in place up to now or the new powers that the Home Secretary is bringing forward—should be used absolutely exceptionally and we should always bear in mind the risk that the hon. Lady mentions that their use can become a rallying point and can assist in the radicalisation of people whom we are trying desperately to keep in the mainstream of society. That should always be kept in mind. These powers should not be used generally; they are very specific powers to be used in very specific circumstances.

Let me deal with the circumstances in which the powers should be used. We are talking about a small group of individuals who are suspected of involvement in terrorist activities and who are either foreign nationals who cannot be deported because of a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights or they are individuals who cannot be prosecuted successfully because, as I said earlier, the compelling information about them is secret intelligence that could not alone sustain a successful prosecution. Over the past six years, control orders have been the best—some have used the expression “least worst”—set of powers to deal with that group of people.

As I have said before, we should always seek to gain consensus in the House on the important issue of counter-terrorism. The formation of the new Government last year gave us all an opportunity to reflect on the previous decade and see whether changes were required that would bring greater consensus and get an even better balance between individual liberty and collective security. I have changed my mind about pre-charge detention, having previously voted for 28 days and, indeed, for 42 days. I agree that the normal maximum should now be 14 days, provided that in exceptional circumstances it can be extended to 28 days. I am currently serving on the Joint Committee that is considering the emergency legislation that the Government have brought forward on this, and I have changed my mind on this issue.

[Mr Winnick]

Did I persuade you?

[Paul Goggins]

My hon. Friend is always very persuasive—one way or the other.

One area of policy on which I remain absolutely clear is the need to be able to control the activities of that small group of people who pose a serious threat and who cannot be deported or imprisoned, and I am pleased that the Government appear to have come to the same conclusion. We should seek consensus. There is much in the Bill that I can readily support. Conditions A to E, which are set out in clause 3, are welcome. They confirm the need for these TPIM notices to be focused on protection and prevention and they provide that the terrorism-related activity must be new activity. However, it is important that when a first application for a notice is made, that new activity can well predate the application.

A general time limit of two years is not unreasonable given the provisos that further notices can be made if there is new activity and that where a further notice is made, the older activity can be taken into account in addition to the new activity of which the Home Secretary has become aware. However, I caution her and her ministerial colleague against making that a general rule which can never be excepted. As I said about the maximum pre-charge detention period of 14 days, there might be exceptional circumstances. I hope that the Minister will be prepared, in Committee, to see whether some amendments can be framed to allow extensions beyond two years in specific and exceptional circumstances.

On making the powers permanent, I heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said about that reducing parliamentary oversight, but we could also see it as a positive development if Parliament can reach a consensus and settled view. Given the constant arguing and bickering on this issue year after year when we should be seeking consensus in the face of the terrible threats that terrorists bring, there is some merit in Parliament’s reaching a settled view. There is a balance to be struck.

I agree strongly with condition A, that the Secretary of State must have a reasonable belief

“that the individual is…involved in terrorism-related activity”.

That is a higher threshold than the reasonable suspicion threshold that has previously operated for control orders, but in reaching my conclusion I have referred to the opinion of Lord Carlile in his most recent report that the higher threshold of reasonable belief was, in practice, always achieved anyway for each control order that was taken out under the existing system. It is a standard that was already being met, and I see no problem in including that formally in legislation.

It is right, given that we have six years’ experience of operating control orders, to set out in more precise form the measures that can be imposed as part of the new TPIM notices. Schedule 1 includes a list of measures, including accommodation, travel, communications, association and so on. I urge the Minister to see whether there ought not to be a catch-all power, because there may be a condition that is not caught by schedule 1. It might be sensible to leave an opening so that the Home Secretary can impose such a condition if circumstances allow. It is not a power that I would expect to be used frequently, but if we do not have that power, and unusual circumstances occur, there is nothing we can do about it. Perhaps that is something that could be considered.

I have four serious difficulties with the Bill and in relation to other pertinent issues. The first was mentioned by my right hon. Friend—the overnight residence measure. She was right to point out that in schedule 1, which says that the Secretary of State may impose a requirement

“applicable overnight…for the individual to remain at a specified residence”,

there is no definition of “overnight”. It may be possible to go into that in Committee to see whether it is possible to include something a little clearer.

The really important issue is the specified residence itself. My right hon. Friend made a powerful argument in relation to that. Paragraph 1(3) says that the specified residence must be

“premises that are the individual’s own residence, or…other premises…that are situated in an appropriate locality or an agreed locality.”

An appropriate locality is one in which the individual has a pre-existing connection. In the case of CD, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, it would not be possible under the new legislation for the Home Secretary to impose the conditions that she rightly imposed on the control order governing that individual. If it is possible, I would welcome an explanation on that from the Minister in his winding-up speech.

Let us reflect on who CD is: a leading figure in a close group of Islamist extremists based in north London. That conspiracy of individuals was planning attacks and seeking to acquire weapons. He was a real threat, and the Home Secretary was quite right to take action, and to insist that he live in the west midlands. It is not just me who says so, as Mr Justice Simon supports her view. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear when reading from paragraph 53 of Mr Justice Simon’s judgment that the relocation obligation is a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the public from an immediate and real risk of a terrorism-related attack. The Bill as drafted would not allow the Home Secretary to force that individual to live outside London in the west midlands, and the people of London and elsewhere would be at much greater risk if she could not do so.

My second concern relates to electronic communication, which is dealt with in paragraph 7. Sub-paragraph (1) sounds quite tough, as the Secretary of State may impose

“restrictions on the individual’s possession or use of electronic communication devices”.

However, under sub-paragraph (3), each suspect may have

“a telephone operated by connection to a fixed line…a computer that provides access to the internet…a mobile telephone that does not provide access to the internet.”

To be honest, I am concerned that that demonstrates naivety about the sophisticated operations of international terrorists. They use multiple mobile phones, and will run rings round the measure, unless paragraph 7 is toughened up and made much more specific and much less confusing. There is a real job of work to be done by the Committee.