Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Frank Dobson Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am very happy to respond to that point. We as a country take the issue of human rights responsibilities very seriously in dealing with other countries and their treatment of individuals, but the individual would remain a British citizen and, notwithstanding that their passport had been cancelled and they had to apply for the permit to return, as a British citizen consular facilities would be available to them in those circumstances.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

How would the person concerned prove to the British consular service that they were the person they claimed to be?

[Mrs May]

In such circumstances, the passport will probably still be in the individual’s possession, although it will have been cancelled in the sense of its ability to be used to provide access to the United Kingdom, so I would expect them to have that document available to provide that proof.

On the points made about the individual being in another country, if an individual subject to an order attempts to travel to the UK, we will work closely with the host country and consider appropriate action. This may include detention pending deportation action, but only where appropriate under the laws of the other country, and, again, where appropriate, UK police officers will escort the individual back to the UK.

We are discussing this proposal with other Governments, in particular France and Turkey, in order to agree how it will work best in practice. The problem of foreign fighters travelling to Syria and Iraq and then seeking to return home is one we share with many of our international partners, and so far these discussions have been constructive.

Once in the UK, the police may interview the individual in order to explore their activities abroad. We may then subsequently require them to engage with a programme, potentially comprising reporting, notification of change of address and de-radicalisation activities.

I turn now to the amendments tabled by the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and her colleagues. New clauses 9, 10 and 11 and new schedule 1 all require the Secretary of State to apply for permission from the courts before imposing a TEO. The mechanism provided for in these amendments is almost identical to that in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011—indeed, it appears to have been copied so directly that the right hon. Lady may want to reconsider the title of new clause 9, which refers to the imposition of terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which I suspect might be an error.

As the Minister with responsibility for national security, it is right that I, as Home Secretary, and not the courts, impose an order of this kind. As I have said, this is a discretionary power that will be used only in a limited number of cases where it will have the greatest impact. With oversight of all other national security and counter- terrorism matters, I am best placed to make an informed judgment about whether a TEO is appropriate in each case, taking into consideration the wider context of the terrorist threat we face. For the same reasons, to vest the power to impose one of these orders in the Secretary of State without first requiring an application to the courts is in line with the comparable use of the royal prerogative to cancel the passport of a British citizen.

We must also consider in this context the level of interference with an individual’s rights as a result of the power. A TEO does not take away the right of an individual to return to the UK, and the in-country elements that might be imposed on an individual as part of it are much less restrictive than those available under TPIMs, and for this reason do not require the same level of review. There is therefore no need for a requirement to apply to the courts before imposing an order, and it will of course remain open to an individual to apply for judicial review of the decision to impose an order.

[Mrs May]

But we are talking about an individual who, having had a TEO placed on them, attempts to travel to the UK, at which point they would have to apply for a permit to return and the arrangements for them to be accompanied by a police officer could be put in place. I recognise that there could be some circumstances in which a person might not have immediate access to the legal review, but they would be able to get it at the point at which they chose to return to the UK. This is about having the ability to ensure that certain people return to the UK on our terms, and that it is a managed return.

[Frank Dobson]

When would such an order become valid—when it was served on the person concerned? How would the British officials involved identify the person in order to serve the order on them? Would the process be triggered only if the person sought to come to this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to follow the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who has put forward some alternative proposals, by way of probing amendments, on how this matter might be approached. Having listened to the comments from both sides of the Committee, it seems to me that there is actually a substantial measure of agreement that it is proper for the Government to take action to deal with the question of the managed return of individuals who have gone abroad from this country and whom the Home Secretary reasonably considered might be involved in terrorism.

It is slightly unfortunate that we have become mired in the title of temporary exclusion orders, because it seems to me, having read the Bill, that what we are really talking about is managed returns and how that process is properly to be done. In that context, the approach adopted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary seems perfectly logical. As I pointed out in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Delyn, one of the problems with his proposals is that as the passport remains with the individual whom the Home Secretary reasonably considers to have committed an offence, that individual could use the passport to travel between third countries at will. If the United Kingdom wishes to act responsibly, particularly as we currently have a system whereby we remove passports from individuals trying to travel abroad in some circumstances, it seems rather odd that we should preserve that mechanism.

On the other hand, there is an issue that I think the Committee has to consider. A point was made earlier about how notification of the removal or revocation of a passport might take place. In some cases it might prove impossible in practice to communicate the revocation to the individual concerned and to indicate that a managed return must take place, because the temporary exclusion order is now in place, through the person contacting the consulate. That raises the prospect of an individual turning up at an airport, having purchased a ticket, only to be turned away at security. I might be wrong about that, in which case it would be useful to know how the Home Office envisages that working in practice. That in itself might not matter at all. If we are dealing with a country that is a trusted partner—my right hon. Friend indicated that there were discussions with France and Turkey—that might not be a problem. The individual’s return might simply be delayed until they have gone to see the British consulate and been interviewed.

However, the proportionality test that has to be applied to these cases means that my right hon. Friend will have to assess whether an individual—notwithstanding the fact that she might reasonably consider them to have been involved in terrorism—might be put at serious risk of having their human rights infringed, for example by being detained or tortured, if revocation of their passport would lead to their being exposed as a person who could be viewed as a terrorist in circumstances in which the Government would feel unable to share that information with the Government of that country because they were concerned about the risks that would be attendant on their arrest.

There is an issue of practice and practicality that needs to be thought through, and I hope that as a result of this debate my right hon. Friend and the Home Office may be in a position to provide reassurance as the Bill goes through the House that they have that subject very much in mind. Having listened to my right hon. Friend talk about proportionality, I am reassured that this is a matter of which she is well aware, as I know from the experience of working with her as a colleague; she knows it can sometimes be an issue. Subject to that, the process that she has adopted, which requires the individual to go to the consulate and get, in essence, a one-way ticket back to this country so that we know when the individual is returning, seems perfectly proper as long as the delay period is not too long, and as long as there is not some subtext intention of causing that individual problems in the country in which they happen to be located—a point that I made earlier.

That brings me to a further point raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn, which is about judicial process. I raised on Second Reading and again subsequently my question why it is so difficult to have a system in which there is not a judicial process to initiate it. I appreciate that there is a difference between a TPIM and the temporary exclusion order proposed—a difference in terms of the restrictions that may be placed on the individual when they return, which are capable of being challenged by judicial review anyway, and because the revocation of a passport is an exercise of the royal prerogative, which is different in nature and quality from a TPIM. It is nevertheless a draconian sanction.

As my right hon. Friend will confirm, removing passports from individuals in this fashion is not a process that has previously been carried out, certainly not in circumstances where the individual when they are abroad does not have the possibility of accessing a different nationality, for example. I continue to wonder whether a judicial process might be valuable. My right hon. Friend may have powerful arguments to make against that, but I have not yet had explained to me in quite the detail I would wish the Government’s reasoning on this point. The point has been made that a temporary exclusion order may have to be issued as an emergency or rather quickly. The current TPIM system allows for a TPIM to be issued without a judge’s sanction—an imprimatur—if necessary, so that could be included in this process.

However, it strikes me—perhaps I am wrong, and I am always prepared to be persuaded that I am wrong—that in this process there is likely to be a slightly more leisurely approach anyway, because the Government will know that an individual is abroad and likely to come back to the United Kingdom, and unless that return is likely to happen very quickly, I would have thought it might normally be possible to apply ex parte to a court for the order to be sanctioned and for some scrutiny to be carried out as to the reasons why it is to take place. If that were to happen, it would also allow for a measure of judicial scrutiny as to whether the issue of the temporary exclusion order might endanger a person’s fundamental rights because it would expose them to risk in their present location.

Those are my thoughts on this matter. I should make it clear that I put them forward in an entirely probing spirit because the principle of what my right hon. Friend is doing seems to me, as I indicated earlier, to be utterly unexceptionable, even though it is an unusual power. However, in the context of the risk and threat that the United Kingdom faces which, as I have said on several occasions, I believe to be a real threat, this is reasonable, necessary and proportionate to a legitimate goal that the Government are trying to achieve. I hope that as the Bill goes through the House we will have an opportunity to examine the proposal, which will enable us to get the right outcome on the provision. If we get the right outcome, history has shown that it will cause my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary far less trouble with court challenges thereafter.

[Frank Dobson]

As the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, whose constituency and constituents experienced the bombs on the tube at Russell square and on the bus at Tavistock square, I am second to no one in my desire to prevent terrorism from taking place in this country. It behoves all of us to do whatever we can to protect people in this country from terrorism and not to have terrorists on the loose, whether they are home-grown and have not been abroad, foreigners who come here, or British citizens returning to Britain. Those British citizens have rights and duties. One of their most important rights is the right of abode in this country as a citizen, but they also have a duty not to break our law or, as I understand it, international law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does my right hon. Friend think that this will lead to a whole cadre of virtually stateless people who will congregate together in one place, and that will be a problem for absolutely everybody rather than one state? Surely, as he rightly says, a state has a responsibility towards its own nationals.

[Frank Dobson]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. The whole proposition of exclusion orders seems to be predicated on the idea, first, that these people are totally rational; and secondly, that their greatest desire is to come back to Britain. Neither of those things will necessarily be the case, because some very odd people are going to be involved.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be in danger of attacking the idea that was originally presented rather than that contained in the Bill, which is much closer to being a process of determining that, if somebody who is thought to be dangerous comes back to this country, we can control, monitor and supervise them. Surely that is a more sensible objective, which the original, apparent objective of making people stateless would not have been.

[Frank Dobson]

I agree that the Government have modified their position since the first daft statements were made—things have been made more rational—but I do not think they have come up with the best proposition. The proposal for notification and managed return orders may not be perfect by any means, but it is a better proposition than that suggested by the Government.

The peculiarity of the functions of British consular services when a person is suspected is extraordinary. The consular services will serve people with an order and then, if somebody else nicks them and puts them in prison or starts torturing them, the same consular services will turn around and start looking after their interests. That seems to me to be at the odd end of the functions of a consular service.

[Mr Winnick]

If this measure does not succeed, what would my right hon. Friend say in response to the powerful argument made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) about the judicial process? Would there not be a very strong case that a court should decide on temporary exclusion orders?

[Frank Dobson]

That might be an improvement, but the practicalities of what happens in Turkey or Syria are not changed by a court decision or endorsement here.

What the process does not do—I would have thought that we all want to see this done—is bring people under our jurisdiction, prosecute them and, if they are found guilty, jail them. Surely that should be the main objective of Britain’s policy. The process is likely to get them picked up, but not by us: they will be picked up by somebody who may or may not be one of our allies. I believe, therefore, that the basic Government proposal undermines and interferes with their fundamental rights of abode in this country and it does not achieve what we want, which is to see terrorists brought to justice. The proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) would address both issues, so it would be an improvement.

The human right of a British citizen to abode in this country is not some fancy right dreamt up in Brussels or Strasbourg, and it has not been created by the Human Rights Act 1998. It is a right of citizens to which Gladstone and Disraeli would have subscribed, not to mention Palmerston, who, after all, sent a gunboat to Greece to protect the interests of an exceedingly dodgy Maltese who probably had committed a crime. There is nothing new about this right and we need to be very careful abut doing anything that would undermine it.

I believe that notification and managed return orders do not deny the fundamental rights at all; do not expose people to being picked up by the Turkish authorities and still less by the Syrian authorities; involve the identification of the suspects but do not tip them off that they will be arrested if they come back to this country; which the temporary exclusion orders do; bring the suspects within British jurisdiction; and will result, if those people are guilty, in their being prosecuted and punished, which is what we want. We do not want them roaming around. If they come back here and are guilty of what they are suspected of, they will be picked up when they arrive at the port, the airport or St Pancras station. That is what we want to happen and it will not happen under the exclusion orders.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I had not intended to speak today, but I have been sitting here getting rather more uncomfortable about some aspects of the proposal. I do not propose to go into the complex practical issues, which were well laid out by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who gave thoughtful input, as ever, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). They outlined the issues and complexities very well and I suspect that those complexities will best be addressed by negotiation between those on the two Front Benches, which is not something I often recommend.

What concerns me today is the issue of the Home Secretary herself exercising the power. I am concerned that it comes about without prior judicial approval or, indeed, without being a power of the court, which would be my preference. Over time, I have become progressively concerned about the accretion of fairly absolute power to the state in counter-terrorism policy. Absolute power is pretty important. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) suggested that these measures did not impinge on people’s liberties in the same way as TPIMs might, but I am afraid that the impingement is pretty sizeable. I do not necessarily disapprove of it at all, but it should be exercised with a degree of judicial care.

These accretions of power have come about since the late 1980s and the 1990s when we avowed the various security services that had up until then not been recognised in public policy, or that were at least not in the public domain. At the time, it seemed quite reasonable for the Crown prerogative to be used as a method of giving warrants and of enacting the state’s will to protect the public. I took the 1994 Bill on the Secret Intelligence Service through the House. We did not foresee the level of use—the number of warrants used and the level of power being exercised—that is now necessary to deal with the Islamist terrorist threat.

What is more, we did not give much thought to how such power might be abused—not that it is at the moment, but it might be in the future—or how many errors might occur, which does happen. We had at the back of our mind a model of accountability that, frankly, does not work. The Minister for Security and Immigration will be familiar with the number of times on which he and I have had exchanges that amount to my asking him a question and his writing back something like, “I never comment on security matters.” That is not a particularly good form of accountability for any mechanism.

My concern is that along with progressive secrecy, secret courts and all the other things we now have, the weak accountability—

--- Later in debate ---

The second category has been well documented by researchers in touch with people in Syria and Iraq: it is those who have gone out for idealistic reasons. They may have understandably opposed the Assad regime, felt there was a humanitarian cause and gone out there to do their bit for democracy and the liberation of the people in that part of the world. There is no doubt that some of them will become disillusioned. They may be quite easy to reintegrate back into society. They have seen the alternative and perhaps will have come to recognise the merits of our democratic system, the rule of law, human rights and so on.

[Frank Dobson]

I wonder whether, when the Home Secretary replies, she could make it clear who, in relation to Syria, would be regarded as a terrorist suspect. Would someone who is not a jihadist but has gone out to fight against the Assad regime, sympathising with and supporting the British Government, be regarded as a terrorist? There may even be a few who have gone out to fight for the Assad Government. Would they be regarded as terrorists? It is not at all clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

I understand the point the right hon. Gentleman was making, and the intention is indeed that that will be done on a case-by-case basis—both the question whether there should be a TEO, and how that individual would be managed on their return to the United Kingdom. For some, it would be appropriate to look at further action when they return to the UK—for example, it could be right to put someone on a TPIM—or it might be appropriate for them to be put in the direction of some form of programme that helps to de-radicalise them. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras raised the issue of potential prosecution, too, and it may be that there is evidence and it is appropriate to prosecute somebody when they return. So we are talking about this being done on a case-by-case basis. I know that is a well-used phrase, but that is genuinely intended to operate in this instance.

I hope that answers the point the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made in referring to her two constituents who had died in Syria. Of course we think of the father she quoted, who has seen his sons die in those circumstances. Again, I assure her that we would decide whether to impose a TEO on a case-by-case basis. As I have said, people will go out to Syria for a whole variety of reasons, some of them believing they are going for humanitarian purposes.

The Government have given a clear message to everyone: if you are thinking of going out to Syria for humanitarian purposes, don’t go. There are better ways of helping the people of Syria than going out there and potentially getting caught up in the fighting and losing your life.

I welcome the constructive approach adopted by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who led for the official Opposition, and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I want to respond to some of the points that they and others have raised. A number of Members spoke as though the Opposition’s notification and managed return proposals were an alternative to the Government’s proposals, but I think the right hon. Member for Delyn made it clear that they were in addition to our proposals. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked what would constitute a reasonable excuse. In fact, that would ultimately be for the courts to decide. A reasonable excuse could involve circumstances in which an individual had inadvertently breached the terms of their permit to return to the UK for practical reasons—for example, when their plane had been diverted.

[Frank Dobson]

If a person who had been made the subject of an order that had been deemed to have been served came to this country without knowing that it had been served, would they have committed an offence?

[Mrs May]

I was about to come on to the issue of serving the order. It is set out in the Bill that the fact that someone does not know that an order has been served is not necessarily a sufficient excuse, but that is a matter that would be tested in the courts. They would be looking at the action that was to be taken in relation to a breach, and it would be for them to determine what a reasonable excuse would be. An order would be served in person whenever possible, but when that was not possible, we would seek to ensure that an individual was made aware of the order through other mechanisms. We might, for example, seek to serve it at the individual’s last known address or serve the order to file. As I said earlier, similar systems work effectively in other contexts, such as informing foreign nationals about decisions on their immigration status.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson]

This reminds me of one of my constituents. He went to Somalia and then went to Djibouti, where he was arrested and handed over to the Americans. When he said he was a British citizen, he was told, “No, you’re not. The Home Secretary has taken your citizenship away.” He was unaware of that fact, but I gather that the order was deemed to have been served on him in Somalia because it had been sent to his mother’s address in Islington.

[Mrs May]

As I have said, when it is impossible to serve an order on an individual in person, it is standard practice to make every attempt to serve it in a way that ensures the information gets to them. Using their last known address is one way in which such decisions are served.