Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Hazel Blears Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Let me make a few brief comments in relation to a couple of amendments. On amendment 10, subject to any security requirements, will the Minister confirm whether the requirement to report to a police station will not be so onerous in terms of the timing that it actually precludes someone subject to TPIMs being able to undertake employment or coursework? If we want them to integrate, we must allow that to happen, subject to the appropriate security requirements.

My other point is in relation to amendment 11. When I saw a reference to 28 days being changed to 42, I had concerns that we were re-running a completely different debate. I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Government have responded positively to the Metropolitan police’s request that for operational reasons a longer period is needed to enable the transition from control orders to TPIMs to happen.

I congratulate the Minister on not listening to the siren voices on the Opposition Benches who are tempting him to abandon TPIMs all together and to stick with control orders.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Brake]

In one minute. It is regrettable that the paperwork that has been produced to support the contention that control orders should remain in place, or that the implementation of TPIMs should be delayed, relies on evidence from Mr Osborne. I am sure that the evidence was appropriate at the time but things have moved on. I do not know whether Mr Osborne is now actively engaged in the process of ensuring that the appropriate measures are in place. If he is, it might be worth asking him whether he feels that suitable preparations have been made. If he is not actively engaged, it might be that he is now somewhat removed from what is happening in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hazel Blears]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was desperately trying to sit on my hands. Does he not accept that people who are on control orders, and people in future who will be on TPIMs, are some of the most dangerous people in our country and they would not be on those orders if they did not pose a significant and substantial threat to the life, health and safety of our citizens?

[Tom Brake]

I am happy to confirm that clearly some of those people will be very dangerous, as the right hon. Lady says, but I must point out that some people subject to control orders have subsequently had them quashed. She is right that some—potentially all—of them will undoubtedly present a serious threat, but in practice some of them might not be quite as guilty as she believes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hazel Blears]

I am grateful for the opportunity to say what I hope will be a few words in this debate—we have been over this territory several times already. I want to place on the record my thanks to the Minister for the inclusive way in which he dealt with the Committee stage and to other Members on both sides of the House who had the opportunity to contribute. It is not often that people feel able to take such a role in Committee, and I think that the Bill was all the better scrutinised because of it.

The Minister knows how strongly and personally I and my right hon. and hon. Friends feel about this matter, and the debate in Committee was nuanced and balanced. It was not simply about seeking draconian powers to last for ever as part of an anti-civil libertarian agenda. The debate has genuinely been driven by the concern of Members on both sides of the House for our national security and by the recognition that in Olympic year, when the eyes of the world will be upon London and when there will therefore be a heightened threat, the pressures on the capacity and ability of the security services and police to deal with some of the most dangerous people in the country will be significant.

The Minister has attempted to meet the arguments by talking about additional resources. We have heard the evidence of DAC Osborne, who said that relocation was probably the single most useful power under the previous regime and that it would take a year to get the assets and surveillance in place, and I think it perfectly legitimate, even at this late stage, to press the Minister on some of the practicalities of how that coverage will be ensured and maintained during the Olympics.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) said that those who have signed our amendment obviously have some experience in this field. The Minister has heard today from me, and from his hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), all members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We all share the same dedication to trying to ensure the security of our country, which is a very serious matter indeed. All we are asking for in our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 11 is to get us over the period in which we face the most heightened threat, which is a simple, straightforward, common-sense thing to do.

The Government have every right to move to the TPIMs regime. They have a majority in the House, together with their coalition partners. If the Government want to change the law from control orders, they have every right to do that. I am not objecting to that; all I am saying is that, when we face this heightened threat, with pressure upon pressure on our security and police services, is it not basic common sense to say, “Let’s tide it over until after the Olympics”? There will still be a threat—we will face a threat for years to come—but it will not be as great as the threat that we face at the time of the Olympics.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; she is being generous with her time. If there is a threat, it must obviously be dealt with, but does she not accept that one deals with threats by using the law, in particular the criminal law? We do not always descend into special measures such as those that we are discussing, which have a dangerous tone to them of the unaccountable power of the state against an individual. Does she not accept that it is important to stick to the principles of the criminal law and not endlessly go off into special laws?

[Hazel Blears]

My hon. Friend has always taken a principled stand on these issues, and I respect him for it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have recognised that in a tiny number of cases we will not be able to prosecute, because that would lead to disclosure and therefore, because it is based on intelligence, a risk to agents and techniques. I said in Committee that I wanted to see the figure reduced to the smallest irreducible number possible, because I accept that we are talking about special measures that are outwith the normal framework of our legal system and transparent justice. I therefore accept my hon. Friend’s concern, but it is the case, I am afraid to say, that there are people who pose a significant and substantial threat to us who cannot be prosecuted at the current time, and some measures have to be taken to protect the public against them. None of us goes down this path with relish. I have said it before, but let me say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who intervened earlier, that this is not a matter of Labour Members rubbing their hands with glee and wanting to put people under house arrest. Rather, it is about saying, “What is the absolute necessity to protect the public?”

[Bob Stewart]

I very much support most of what the right hon. Lady is saying. None of us in this House wants control orders or TPIMs, but we do not have a choice. However, it is much better that we legislate for these matters and deal with them properly under the law, rather than have what happens in some nations, where people are just lifted and then disappear. That is what we are trying to do. The people concerned are very dangerous—or apparently very dangerous: we cannot prove it, but we do not want to take the risk—and I am afraid that we have to put up with this lack of liberty.

[Hazel Blears]

The hon. Gentleman speaks, as he did in Committee, from a position of great personal knowledge—in many ways, far greater than mine or my colleagues’—from having had operational responsibility on the ground in similar circumstances. He understands that, although we are all reluctant to go down this path, on occasion it is necessary. However, we have a democratic framework—people can challenge the orders; they can go to court; they can litigate; they can launch appeals—which is absolutely as it should be.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Hazel Blears]

I will, but then I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions in the time remaining.

[Patrick Mercer]

The right hon. Lady makes some extremely good points. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—that such measures are the very last things that we want to impose. Next year will be full of difficult periods, including not just the Olympic games, but the royal jubilee. Although I still feel that the powers are inadequate or wrong, they are better than what we had before, so should we not have them? Why are we delaying this? Should we not have powers that are more effective introduced quickly, rather than slowly?

[Hazel Blears]

I do not accept the premise that the TPIMs regime will be more effective. DAC Osborne said in evidence that control orders were effective, that the police were used to dealing with them and that relocation was the single most useful power. He also said that control orders provided not only surveillance, but disruption, and were therefore more effective. DAC Osborne recognised that the TPIMs regime would involve a greater level of risk. The Minister said that that risk would be dealt with by the extra resources. We must wait and see, but the police themselves said that, far from being more effective, the move from control orders to TPIMs would be less effective because it would increase the measure of risk.

[Paul Goggins]

My right hon. Friend is being very generous with her time this afternoon, as always, and is advancing a powerful argument. She will recall that when the Minister responded to my intervention earlier by telling me that national security would always be his highest priority, I was slightly taken aback, because I would not have doubted for a second that that would always be the case.

In view of all the risks that will face us next year and the fact that an entirely new system is being introduced involving additional officers, can my right hon. Friend help me by explaining why, given a choice of dates, the Minister should pick the earlier rather than the later date to introduce his measures?

[Hazel Blears]

I am afraid that this is one of the rare occasions when I cannot help my right hon. Friend. I cannot for the life of me think why, if I were a Minister faced with this level of risk and if I had a practical solution that would not cost me a great deal of extra money, I would not seek the House’s agreement to an extension of the transitional period as a precautionary, preventive measure, just to get us through what I believe will be a time of heightened risk.

I am grateful to the Minister for placing information from the police in the Library to reassure us about their readiness, but I want to ask him a question. What provision exists to cover the—possibly—six people who are currently subject to control orders and to relocation provisions, and who are likely to return to London? In Committee, I raised an issue that has still not been resolved. Paragraph 1 of schedule 1 allows a TPIM to be applied which specifies a residence where a person must reside, but paragraph 3 contains a power to exclude a person from a locality. I believe that there is still a contradiction between a person’s right to reside at his or her own residence and the power that would allow that person to be excluded from, for example, east London. What if the person’s residence is in east London? Which power will have priority, the power to exclude under paragraph 3 or the power relating to residence in paragraph 1?

I have still not received an answer to my question, and I am very worried about the position. If those six people, many of whom may well have residences in east London, choose to live there, will the TPIMs regime include a power to exclude them from a broader area than the locality in which the Olympics will take place? I should appreciate a clear answer from the Minister today. If it is necessary for me to write to him I shall certainly do so, but I should be reassured if he could give me that further information.

[Stephen Phillips]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Hazel Blears]

I will—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Just a moment. We are straying from the amendments. I have allowed a bit of leeway, but I think that if interventions continue to take advantage of the leeway that I have given, we shall carry the debate beyond where it should be.

[Hazel Blears]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am about to end my speech.

I thank the Minister and all his officials, who have certainly served him well and have no doubt contributed to the progress of the Bill. However, as the Minister will understand, I am not reassured by his comments. I know that he is doing his best to protect national security, but I think that he could have taken a simple step that would have given more reassurance not just to Members here but, more important, to people who will be living in their communities during what is likely to be a considerably more dangerous time for them as a result of this transition.

[Richard Fuller]

Let me explain why I oppose amendment (a), and explain to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) why she is hearing opposing voices not only from members of the two parties on the Government Benches, but from members of Opposition parties including her own. The reason is that the amendment is entirely without merit. It appears to constitute a rather unfair and somewhat unprincipled assertion that the Minister is playing fast and loose with the security of the nation, notwithstanding the protestation that of course we are all trying to make things secure and do what is in the country’s best interests.

In her rather brief contribution, the shadow Minister gave nary a reason why the Minister’s position is not the correct approach to take. All the speeches we have heard rely on a solitary piece of evidence provided in Committee, but surely hon. Members on both sides of the House will understand that the Minister has been in extensive discussions subsequently and that the most important consideration must be the one that he put forward today, which is that effective arrangements are in place. That would be the most important consideration if we were dealing with a normal piece of legislation, but in fact we are dealing with a change to one of the most pernicious pieces of legislation that our country has had in recent times—the legislation on control orders.

The shadow Minister’s amendment is merely further evidence that the Opposition have not yet reconciled their conscience on this issue, nor on the fact that they took a wrecking ball to the rights and liberties that this country has held strongly and to its heart for many years. Yet again, Opposition voices cloak in the name of security the most repressive period in recent British history when it comes to individual rights. As the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned, people are put under these restrictions on the basis not of conviction, but of suspicion.

I must just say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears)—I hope I may call her that, given that we have spoken together on a number of Bills recently—that some of us have not had the benefit of high office that she has had, and when she talks about the importance of getting to the smallest irreconcilable minimum the number of people who will be subject to TPIMs or control orders, as it was under her Government, nine is not the smallest irreducible minimum for us. Some of us feel that that number can be reconciled only when it is zero and that everyone in this country has the right to a trial before they are imprisoned for extensive periods.