Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard - continued): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Minutes of Proceedings - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the twin maidens on their enviably assured and elegant speeches. I thank the Minister, noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for the overly kind comments they addressed to this near-maiden.

The noble Lord, Lord King, referred ruefully to the number of anti-terrorism laws that have come before this House in recent years. He can perhaps take comfort from the fact that he has not been sitting in the Australian federal Parliament, which last time I checked —on Thursday last week—had passed 74 counterterrorism statutes since 9/11. It was my privilege to assist MI5 and counterterrorism policing last year in drawing the necessary lessons from the atrocities perpetrated in London and Manchester. The most important of those lessons relate to the gathering and processing of intelligence, but it is right to ensure also that our laws are in the best possible shape.

In support of the Bill on the whole, I will make two comments. First, whatever its faults, it is based on the criminal justice approach to counterterrorism that has served this country so well. Our freedoms are better protected by the common sense of a jury than they are by an expansion in the range or volume of Executive commands such as control orders, and now TPIMs, which are imposed by Ministers and reviewed in court only months after the event and on the basis of evidence that cannot be shown to the subject.

Secondly, I welcome the conclusion, to which I was reluctantly driven when I was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, that the existing law may not deal sufficiently with radicalisers. Anjem Choudary has been mentioned, with good reason. As many as 25% of British jihadis convicted between 2001 and 2015 were associated with his organisations, outnumbering the 10% linked to al-Qaeda and the 5% linked to ISIS, or Daesh. His organisations also had great influence in northern Europe, yet although the police reported his activities to the Crown Prosecution Service 10 times between 2002 and 2015, no prosecution could be brought, whether for incitement to religious hatred, indirect encouragement to terrorism, inciting terrorism overseas, incitement to murder or proscription offences. In my mind, his eventual conviction in 2016 does not excuse us from seeking to improve the law in this area.

The Bill has some troubling features. I will refer to three of them which have so far been touched on only lightly or not at all. The first relates to proscription offences, which are supplemented or strengthened in Clauses 1, 2, 6 and 9 to 11. Whatever the merit in extending these offences, we should do so only if we can be sure that proscribed organisations are proscribed lawfully because they are, in the words of the Terrorism Act 2000, “concerned in terrorism”. Unfortunately, we have no such certainty; rather, the reverse. In 2013, the Home Office admitted to me that up to 14 proscribed international terrorist groups did not appear to be lawfully proscribed. It allowed me to publish the fact and commenced a programme of deproscription, but as I recorded in my report of December 2016, that initial honourable resolve on the part of the then Home Secretary soon foundered, I suspect under the influence of another great department of state. So it is likely that at least 14 international groups remain proscribed despite not meeting the statutory requirements for proscription.

We do not know how many of the 14 Northern Irish groups, every one of which has been proscribed continuously throughout this century, are in the same position. There, as the Committee on the Administration of Justice pointed out, the flags of proscribed organisations fly everywhere and their symbols cover memorials, appear on gable walls and decorate banners hanging from lamp posts. The law is applied to them only partially and occasionally, inadvertently injecting an unwanted political element into the exercise of police and prosecutorial discretions. It is true that proscribed organisations are eligible to seek deproscription, but this is a rarely invoked and extremely costly process, as was shown by the PMOI case—the only one in which such an application has ever gone to trial.

Then, to make it worse, the Government abandoned the regular reviews that they used to conduct until 2013, despite those reviews having been described by a High Court judge in the PMOI case as,

“certainly a practice that the Secretary of State should continue to adopt”.

As I wrote at the time, they seem to have discontinued these reviews out of embarrassment at their own inability to act on their conclusions.

It is surely unjust to expose a person to prosecution for a proscription-related offence when the organisation that he or she is said to support does not meet the statutory conditions for proscription. There are solutions to this, but would the Minister accept in the meantime that we are confronted with a tricky problem that is exacerbated rather than relieved by the Bill?

My second point, much more briefly, is on Clause 4, which would create the so-called designated area offence. I was quoted on Report in another place as a vigorous opponent of this idea, but, to set the record straight, the comments in question came from my former special adviser Professor Clive Walker and, despite their distinguished source, were never adopted by me. But some of his words at least ring true. I have spoken, as I know others have, to organisations and individuals engaged in humanitarian and peacebuilding activity in conflict zones who are not at all reassured by the discretions that Clause 4 would confer on the Secretary of State and prosecutors. The Government have cited Australian and Danish precedents for this law, so I hope that the Minister will consider adopting either some more precise conditions for designation and defences, as in Australia, or a pre-authorisation regime, as in Denmark, or both.

My third point is on the new Schedule 3 port power. When I was independent reviewer I noted that, over a five-year period, between 13% and 25% of all intelligence reports resulting from stops under the existing Schedule 7 were concerned not with terrorism, which is the object of Schedule 7, but with nuclear proliferation or espionage. Ports officers sometimes expressed to me their unease at being invited to stop people who could be described as possible terrorists only on the most elastic interpretation of that already broad definition. The case of David Miranda is a well-publicised example.

I am glad that the object of the Schedule 7 power is being extended to counterproliferation and counter- espionage, but the Schedule 3 powers do not stop there. It is proposed that they might be used to determine whether a person appears to have engaged in “hostile activity”, including acts that threaten the economic well-being of the country in the interests of a foreign state, whether or not those acts constitute criminal offences. That is far too broad a basis on which to allow these extremely extensive no-suspicion powers to be exercised. Then there are the additional powers exercisable at the Irish border under paragraph 2 of Schedule 3, which will also need to be elucidated.

Each of my three points echoes concerns expressed by the Supreme Court in the 2013 case of R v Gül about the very broad discretions already given in this area to prosecutors and to police. In particular, the court warned against Parliament delegating to the DPP or to the Attorney-General the power to decide whether an activity should be treated as criminal for the purpose of prosecution. That, as the Supreme Court puts it, leaves citizens unclear whether their actions or projected actions will be judged to be criminal and risks undermining the rule of law. I do not wish to embarrass the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, but he put his name to that judgment.

I will keep those comments in mind throughout our scrutiny of this important Bill. Flexibility is useful, but when behaviour is criminalised we all need to know where the line is drawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and well informed debate. We also had the joy of listening to two excellent maiden speeches. While listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, I wrote down the words, “Amusing and informative”. Unlike during his previous maiden speech, noble Lords were riveted by what he had to say. I am sure the noble and learned Lord will prove that he has his uses in this House. “Generous and thoughtful” is what I wrote while listening to the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie. His electoral record in Chichester speaks volumes about the esteem in which he is held generally. Judging by what he said this evening, I am in no doubt that he will be fearless in his future contributions in the House. I also thank the Minister for comprehensively introducing the Bill.

I pay tribute to the police and the security services. During consideration of previous legislation, I had the privilege of going both to GCHQ and to the security services headquarters. I was impressed not only by the capability of those working in the services but by their integrity. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and others talked about the numbers involved—the number of suspects and the number of operations going on—which just goes to prove how successful the police and the security services have been, despite the tragic events that we have seen in recent years.

I am not wrong in saying that there has been a general consensus, on all sides of the House, that the legislation—whatever it ends up as—needs to pass the test of being necessary and proportionate. The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, and even the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, all suggested that that was necessary. There were perhaps two notable exceptions to that consensus, as that was not something that the noble Lords, Lord Blair of Boughton and Lord Tebbit, would support.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in particular that I was the police spokesman after the bombings on 7 July 2005. I was in this House when the terrorist incident happened in which one of our police colleagues was killed. I was at home, a 10-minute walk away from London Bridge, when that attack happened. That is not the first-hand, tragic experience that the noble Lord has had, and I completely understand that his experience has deeply affected him. We should not lose sight of the impact that these incidents have had on the victims.

So there is a consensus, generally. Clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord King, said, there may be some differences of opinion as to what is necessary and what is proportionate. Obviously, we accept that this legislation has already been through the other place. But, as the noble Lord, Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, said, some in the other place said that they agreed to the legislation being passed subject to it receiving scrutiny in this House, and that is clearly what we must do.

We on these Benches will support any necessary and proportionate measure that makes the United Kingdom safer or will help defeat terrorism, but we will not support measures that we consider to be disproportionate and counterproductive. Colleagues on these Benches, particularly my noble friend Lady Hamwee, highlighted evidence from the Joint Committee on Human Rights—concerns that not only we share but the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Max Hill, also shares. We offer a similar view to his. There are some good, pragmatic measures in the Bill, but there are others that go too far.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, suggested, only in the most extreme cases should the police be given such wide discretion that they can arrest someone engaged in potentially completely innocent activity where the person arrested has to rely on a reasonable excuse defence. Having a reasonable excuse defence in legislation is no protection from an innocent person being arrested and potentially charged.

I echo the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. If I understand my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford correctly, with “reckless”, either it is an objective definition of reckless, in which case we are into the realms of people being arrested for what they think or simply for expressing their view, or we are looking at a subjective definition of reckless, which is what the current law says. In that case, the provision is superfluous to what is already in existing legislation. Clearly, we need to consider these issues carefully.

Similarly, in terms of other provisions in the Bill, it is not too difficult to think of circumstances where a teenager innocently takes a selfie in a mate’s bedroom not realising that there is an ISIS flag on the wall behind him and posts that photograph on Facebook. The next thing, that individual is in police custody—a completely innocent action that results in them being arrested.

Under this Bill, it would also be an offence to click on a page on the internet that has,

“information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”.

Just one attempt to look at the document could result in that individual being arrested, with a potential term of imprisonment not exceeding 15 years. The Minister said that previous legislation covered only situations where documents were downloaded and now we have a situation where people are streaming or simply just looking at documents. Not too long ago, we in this House considered at length internet connection records. Surely that sort of thing will provide the necessary evidence, even if people are looking at or streaming information rather than downloading documents. There is a lot to be considered here in terms of whether the legislation is necessary or whether it goes too far. Of course, it was only at the last minute that that particular provision about looking at things on the internet was changed from being one where someone looks at a page on the internet, goes back to it and goes back to it again before they can be convicted to being a one-click offence.

The other last-minute provision that we have serious concerns about is the Secretary of State designating areas overseas as being illegal for UK citizens or residents to travel to. It could become illegal for a Syrian refugee who is resident in the UK but whose family still lives in Syria to visit them, even though his mother or father could be dying. Again, the Government will say that there is the “reasonable excuse” defence, but how sick does your mother have to be before it is considered reasonable for you to travel to a designated area? There would be no reason in law why you should not be arrested and charged, whatever the circumstances. The Government will say that the police are not going to arrest innocent people, but the history of policing is littered with cases of innocent people being wrongly arrested where legislation has been drawn too broadly. Sometimes they have even been charged and wrongly imprisoned.

Surely there must be a way for academic researchers to get permission in advance in order to look at offending pages on the internet, or that grieving family members or humanitarian workers can get permission to visit these areas in advance. As my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Thomas of Gresford said, should there not be an opportunity to get the “reasonable excuse” defence in first?

Clearly, offences should carry a penalty that both deters and keeps innocent people safe, but sentence inflation, as suggested in this Bill, will simply add to the crisis in the Prison Service, as my noble friend Lord Marks said. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, this is not about the fact that prisons are full and therefore we should not put terrorists in prison. This is about the difference between prisons being a place where people with extremist views can be rehabilitated and prisons being a place where radicalisation can become endemic because of overcrowding and the lack of ability of prison staff to carry out any sort of rehabilitation. Surely a smaller prison population would be better, in that we know that prisons are places where people, being at their most vulnerable, are more easily radicalised. Keeping people in prison for longer periods of time surely gives more opportunity for that to take place.

As many noble Lords have said, in some communities there is deep suspicion about Prevent, and along with Independent Reviewers of Terrorism Legislation, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, we support not only an independent review of Prevent but a recasting of the programme with a much more community-based approach that is incorporated into other safeguarding functions. Those at risk of being radicalised are also in danger of being exploited sexually or being drawn into criminal gangs. Prevent should be part of a broader safeguarding process rather than people being potentially stigmatised as a result.

I have to say that there was a bit of conflict between what my noble friend said and what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said in terms of the statistics around referrals to Channel panels. On one reading, it would seem that only a small proportion of people who are referred are actually considered to be at risk of being radicalised, while on another reading it seems to be a rather higher proportion. Again, we need to consider those issues very carefully.

Finally, there is the extension of Schedule 7. We agree with the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, that Schedule 7 powers and the powers in this Bill should be limited to those who are reasonably suspected of being involved in the commission, preparation and instigation of acts of terrorism.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

On a point of order, I have always accepted that the Schedule 7 power to stop should be exercisable without the need for reasonable suspicion. I said that some higher threshold should perhaps be required for some ancillary powers, for example those to detain and examine electronic devices.

[Lord Paddick]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, but the fact is that at the moment, if you are crossing the UK border, you can have your mobile device or computer seized and examined even without any reasonable suspicion. Extending that to those who are now engaged in hostile activity would seem to make this issue potentially worse.

I understand that the Bill is a response to the Prime Minister promising to harden the country’s defences against all forms of hostile state activity following the attempted assassination of the Skripals, but can the Minister confirm whether that was an act of terrorism covered by the existing Schedule 7?

As I have said, we on these Benches will support any reasonable and proportionate response that makes this country of ours safer. However, we believe that large parts of the Bill are unreasonable, disproportionate and could potentially make us less safe, although we look forward to being convinced otherwise.

Finally, I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, on the Government’s disengagement with Muslim organisations. Individual members of those communities may have said things that they now regret, but as a result the Government refuse to engage at all with those communities. At the end of the day, a former head of police counterterrorism said that the police and security services alone will not combat terrorism, but organisations working closely with communities will defeat terrorism. If communities are to work with us to defeat terrorism, we need to engage with them.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 29th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

The noble Viscount has reinforced my point with greater eloquence than I could have done.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, it is an uncomfortable fact that the law as it stands has not been as effective as it might have been in prosecuting radicalisers who have stopped short of inviting support for a proscribed organisation but whose words have none the less been instrumental in encouraging others to support terrorist groups, often by actions, not just words. I shall not rehearse the saga of Anjem Choudary and the many unsuccessful attempts to prosecute him over the years. Clauses 1 and 2 attempt to fill a gap in our law by extending the proscription offences. For that reason I look sympathetically on their general thrust although, like the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I support Amendment 5.

For my part, I could not vote for an extension of the already strong proscription offences in circumstances where substantial numbers of proscribed organisations— 14 by the Home Office’s own admission, and no doubt more in Northern Ireland—are proscribed despite failing to satisfy the statutory condition for proscription, which is being concerned in terrorism. That would expose people to the risk of long prison sentences for expressing opinions supportive of organisations that have long since laid down their arms and committed to peaceful engagement, but which however remain proscribed because no one associated with them has been willing to go to the expense, or indeed attract the associated publicity, of going to court to get them de-proscribed. My support for Clauses 1 and 2 will therefore depend on the outcome of Amendment 59, which would introduce the meaningful review of proscription orders and which noble Lords will consider on another occasion.

[Viscount Hailsham]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6. I accept that there may well be a need to further criminalise the overt support of proscribed organisations; I do not dissent from that view. However, we have to accept that what we are proposing in the Bill is an infringement of human rights—the right to free speech. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is entirely right about that. We therefore need to apply the test of proportionality: to weigh up the evil in one hand and then look at the consequences of what is proposed in the other. It is in that context that I would be very much happier—I now speak directly to my noble friend on the Front Bench—if we were to look again at the concept of specific intent. I would be very much happier if what we were providing for was that the offence was establishable only on proof of specific intent. I find myself very much in support of Amendments 3 and 4 because they seem to satisfy the test of proportionality.

To comment briefly on Amendment 5, I find myself entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Anyone who advocates the de-proscription of a proscribed organisation seems to fall foul of the general language of this part of the Bill, and that should not be the case. It is perfectly proper as part of public debate to argue that a specific organisation should not be proscribed. I therefore hope—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

17: Clause 4, page 3, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert—
“(2) A person does not commit an offence under this section if the person entered or remained in the designated area solely for one or more of the following reasons—(a) performing an official duty for the government of any country (including service in the armed forces of that government) where such performance would not otherwise contravene the law of the United Kingdom,(b) performing an official duty for the UN or an agency of the UN,(c) satisfying an obligation to appear before a court or other body exercising judicial power,(d) providing support through a registered charity for humanitarian, peacebuilding or development purposes,(e) making a news report of events in the area, where the person is working in a professional capacity as a journalist or is assisting another person working in a professional capacity as a journalist,(f) visiting a dependent family member,(g) such other reason as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.”

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 17, I shall speak also to consequential Amendment 30. In doing so I take comfort from the words of the Security Minister on Report that this clause, introduced late in the day, would benefit from discussion in your Lordships’ House and, in particular, from exploration of what he called the reasonable excuse issue. These amendments do not seek to remove the designated area offence but rather to render it more predictable in its application and, in addition, easier to prosecute.

There are three problems in the context of this offence with the wholly general defence of reasonable excuse. First, those few people with good reason to travel to a terrorist war zone will have no assurance in advance that they will not be prosecuted for doing so. Secondly, this troubles some of them considerably, as other noble Lords will know. Thirdly, attempts to prosecute a person for this offence are likely to be met with an ingenious array of excuses to which the jury will be invited to be sympathetic. Without any outer limits on the doctrine of reasonable excuse, the prosecution—which, as the Minister said, still bears the ultimate burden of proof—is likely in practice to have to demonstrate some malign purpose for travel, which is precisely the state of affairs that this offence is designed to avoid.

Amendment 21 contemplates a pre-authorisation system, as operates in Denmark. The Danish counter-terrorism officials, to whom I had an opportunity recently to speak to in Copenhagen, expressed themselves as broadly content with that system. However, the Australian independent national security legislation monitor—the equivalent of our independent reviewer—stated in his careful and positive review of the equivalent Australian offence that,

“an authorisation regime could only be effective to the extent that individual compliance with the authorisation could be properly monitored”.

In place of the reasonable excuse defence, I propose a series of reasons which, if they constitute the sole reason or reasons for entering or remaining in a designated area, will mean that no offence has been committed. On the method to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred—the method he commended to me—whatever the scope of the law, no sensible prosecutor would wish to proceed against persons who fall into any of those categories. However, by spelling them out, everyone knows where they stand.

It will be said that no one can predict all the reasons why someone may wish legitimately to travel to a designated area. I give three answers to that. First, the categories of such people are limited and relatively easily defined, in contrast to the categories of person who may have a reasonable excuse to download or access material under Section 58. Secondly, my list is closely based on that which appears in the equivalent Australian legislation, which the Security Minister referred to as a model for this clause. The Australian list was introduced in 2014 by the foreign fighters Act, and it has not been found necessary to substantively amend it since then.

I suggest amending it in only a couple of respects. Proposed new subsection (2)(d) expands on its Australian equivalent, which is providing aid of a humanitarian nature, though limits it to activities conducted through a registered charity. Proposed new subsection (2)(f) replaces the Australian formulation of making a bona fide visit to a family member on the basis that visits to brothers or sisters who are fighting are not to be encouraged and that Latin should not be inflicted upon juries more than is necessary. The third answer to the objection lies in the regulation-making power, which I propose should operate by the affirmative resolution procedure. In four years it has not been found necessary to use a similar power in the Australian law, which noble Lords may find encouraging.

The amendment does not aspire to infallibility but offers a degree of certainty appropriate to the criminal law. It will give assurance for those who travel for good reasons and assist the prosecution of those whose reasons are not so creditable. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar) (CB)]

I have to tell noble Lords that if Amendment 17 is agreed I cannot call Amendment 18 by reason of pre-emption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his thorough and courteous response, and indeed to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on these amendments. It was intimidating when one noble and distinguished lawyer after another stood up—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—and rather a relief when most of them had only improvements to offer rather than outright opposition. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, about the ultimate purpose of this clause, with great respect, I prefer the view that the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, put forward.

I entirely agree that there is room for discussion about the way some of these elements are phrased, particularly in relation to families and journalists, and perhaps in relation to courts—although it did seem that if there is no recognisable court in a place, then in a sense the issue does not arise of the non-application of the statute. But the fact that the scope of the exceptions is discussable does not mean it should not be done in the way that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, endorsed in his short speech. The principle must surely be to define very tightly the situations in which the Act does not apply, and then allow the prosecutors to exercise their discretion in other cases. To my mind, that is the appropriate area for prosecutorial discretion. We will save the CPS and the courts a lot of trouble if we set out the broad lines now.

But I entirely accept that the Minister, in his helpful speech, has hinted at an alternative way forward, to retain reasonable excuse and perhaps couple that with an indicative list. I give no ground whatever on that, but will certainly reflect hard—and with others—on what he has very constructively suggested. The Minster kindly offered at the end of his intervention to reflect carefully on what had been said. I have not been in this place long enough to be able to decode very expertly what that means. I rather hope it is good news, but it may not be, and in any event I suspect we may be hearing more on this subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 29th October 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

24: Clause 4, page 3, line 43, leave out “condition is” and insert “conditions are”

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, Amendments 24 and 25 would recognise the highly exceptional nature of the designated area offence by ensuring that there is an additional limitation on the designation of areas as out of bounds. Their effect is to make the designation of areas dependent on a proscribed organisation being engaged in armed conflict in that area. I understand that in both Australia and Denmark, where similar conditions are in force, the designations actually made have been extremely limited in their scope, confined in Australia to Mosul district and Al-Raqqa province and in Denmark on a similar basis. The Australian independent monitor, to whose report on their law I referred earlier, expressed no objection to the condition that a listed terrorist organisation is engaging in hostile activity in that area of a foreign country, which is how it is phrased there. He translated the Danish law as referring to “armed conflict”.

On Report, the Security Minister referred to the possible use of the Clause 4 power in Syria, parts of Africa and parts of the Philippines. He acknowledged, quite rightly, the importance of full parliamentary scrutiny of any designation. However, Parliament may not be privy to the full security picture and if this highly restrictive offence is to be justified at all, it must surely be to protect British citizens and residents from the physical or psychological consequences of being in war zones where terrorist organisations are operating. I hope that the Minister will consider making this clear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Judge]

I agree and have nothing to add.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has helpfully explained, these amendments relate to the legal test for designating an area under Clause 4. That test currently requires that it be necessary for purposes connected with protecting the public from a risk of terrorism to restrict UK nationals or residents from entering or remaining in the area. The noble Lord’s amendments would add a second limb to this test, which would require that a proscribed terrorist organisation is engaging in armed conflict within the area to be designated.

It is clear from the noble Lord’s explanation that the purpose of these amendments is to help ensure that designations are proportionate and that they are made only in circumstances where they are genuinely necessary. As the noble Lord has explained, they would more closely follow the approach taken in Australian and Danish law, where those countries have established similar powers.

I completely understand the sentiment and the intention behind these amendments. Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree that they are necessary to secure this outcome. I also do not consider that the UK is bound to follow the approach taken by other countries, which may have different legal frameworks and may be facing different configurations of terrorist threat, rather than seeking the approach that works best for us. As your Lordships would expect, when drafting Clause 4, we looked carefully at the approaches taken by Australia and Denmark, including the legal test for designating an area. We have concluded that the right approach for the UK, and the one that would provide the greatest flexibility while still providing a proper safeguard for proportionality, is the one currently set out in the Bill.

We have no doubt that in most cases in which it might be appropriate to designate an area in future, it is likely that a proscribed organisation will be engaging in armed conflict. Certainly, that has been the experience with the Syrian conflict, which is the closest analogy we have for the type of scenario in which we might wish to use the power. However, we are keen to ensure that the power is sufficiently flexible to be used in currently unforeseen future scenarios.

It is plausible that in the future, there could be an armed conflict or some other situation in an area which gives rise to a clear terrorism-related risk, on the basis of which it is appropriate to restrict travel by UK nationals or residents, but in which a proscribed terrorist organisation is not currently involved. This might be because a grouping of terrorists operating in the area cannot clearly be defined as an organisation. Or it might be because the situation has evolved rapidly—perhaps with an organisation emerging and quickly becoming involved in fighting—and it is necessary to restrict travel urgently before it has been possible to proscribe the organisation. It is also plausible that we may know from sensitive intelligence about the involvement of a specific proscribed organisation in a conflict, but as such intelligence cannot be revealed in public, it may not be possible to prove the organisation’s involvement on open material alone.

As the noble Lord will be aware, regulations designating an area are subject to the made affirmative procedure. As such, Home Office Ministers will need to come to Parliament to explain the basis for the designation, and it would then be for both Houses to decide whether to approve the regulations based on that explanation. In this regard, I note the recommendation by the Delegated Powers Committee that the Home Secretary should be required to lay before Parliament a Statement setting out the reasons why he considers that the condition for designation is met in the case at hand. We are ready to give that recommendation sympathetic consideration ahead of Report.

Given the considerations I have outlined, and the clear and robust necessity test that is already contained within Clause 4, I hope the noble Lord will be persuaded to withdraw his amendment, at least for the time being.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

I thank the Minister for his thoughtful response. It made me wish that we had had a full consultation on this novel offence prior to the introduction of the Bill, or at the very least that we had not seen it introduced to the Bill at such a late stage. However, we are where we are. I concede nothing but will consider carefully what the Minister has said.

[Baroness Hamwee]

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, does he share my concern about the creation of a provision where the boundaries are so woolly and grey? His amendment would have the benefit of being quite clear about proscribed organisations—everyone would know where they were. Essentially we have heard the Minister say that the Executive and the agencies that support them will know things that the rest of us do not know and will stop travel in a situation that they cannot necessarily describe. I am not entirely sure how in that situation Parliament can scrutinise the decision through the procedure to which we have been referred.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. It put me in mind of debates on the proscription of new organisations—which I have often read but never participated in—where Ministers very properly come before Parliament, often only to explain that there is a lot of information that they cannot divulge because it is confidential. What the Minister had to say in that regard perhaps rather strengthened that apprehension on my part. I am grateful to the noble Baroness but I think that at this stage all I can do is beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

26: Clause 4, page 4, line 6, after “must” insert “at least once in every calendar year, starting in the calendar year following its designation,”

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are in the nature of a tightening up. New Section 58C(4) introduced in Clause 4 provides for designations to be kept under review but no time limit is placed on that process. It is unsatisfactory to put no time limit on this in circumstances where designation constitutes a significant and unprecedented legal impediment to freedom of travel and where there might be political factors which, in the absence of a strict statutory requirement, could militate against the removal of designations.

There are precedents for timed reviews in matters of this kind—for example, in the sanctions field and in the former practice of reviewing the basis for the proscription of terrorist organisations on an annual basis. It is precisely because that practice lacked statutory backing that it most unfortunately fell into disuse after 2014—a point to which I propose to return in the context of Amendment 59. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, Amendment 26, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, would put on the face of the Bill that at least once in every year there must be a review of a designation. This would be far more preferable than simply having the rather less clear and less direct wording currently in the Bill, to “keep under review”. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, these are very much tightening-up amendments.

Amendment 27 would, again, put on the face of the Bill a much clearer process for reviewing a designation, determining whether it still satisfies the condition for designation in the first place. The amendment would also make provision for changes or revocation to take place and would require each decision to be published and a record to be laid before Parliament. Again, I think that this is a much better way to address these issues. It would provide more clarity and leave less room for confusion than could be the case at present.

Amendment 28, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, seeks to require the Government to address whether the regulations are still relevant and appropriate through the regulations automatically lapsing three years after coming into force. Amendment 29, again in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, would place a duty on the Government to bring these regulations to the attention of the Intelligence and Security Committee and for it to lay before Parliament its report on whether or not they should be approved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, Amendments 26 and 27 would add to the existing requirement in the Bill that the Secretary of State keep under review any designation made under Clause 4 and revoke it if the legal test for designation is no longer met in respect of it. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, explained, they would specify that such reviews must take place on an annual basis and would prescribe the options open to the Secretary of State when conducting such a review, as well as requiring the outcome of the review to be published.

I should start by saying that I am in full agreement with the principle that any designation under Clause 4 should not be indefinite, that it should be kept under review and that it should be revoked as soon as it is no longer necessary.

In saying that, perhaps I can take the opportunity to correct something stated by my noble friend Lady Williams when she said earlier that the list of proscribed organisations is subject to regular review. This was an inadvertent slip by my noble friend, for which, on her behalf, I apologise. I understand that she has already approached noble Lords privately to make that correction, but I do so on the record.

Where I depart from the noble Lord’s views, much as I respect them, is that I believe the current drafting of the Bill is the most effective way of delivering the objective. In particular, I cannot agree that a rigid requirement for an annual review is needed or is appropriate. I say that, first, because the type of situation in which this power is expected to be used may be fluid and rapidly evolving, but it may equally be one where there is an obvious and enduring threat. In the former case, an agile review, more frequent than once a year, may be appropriate—I accept that the amendment would not preclude this. In the latter case, an annual review may simply be unnecessary, and may be a poor use of the time and resources of those in government and the security and intelligence agencies tasked with protecting us from the terrorist threat.

I note in this regard that the Australian legislation sunsets a designation after three years, but with the option of an area being redesignated. If we were to go down this road—as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, seeks to do with his Amendment 28—three years strikes me as more appropriate in this context compared with the annual review provided for in these amendments. Once again I have in mind the Syrian example, where the nature and extent of the threat, and the involvement and intent of UK nationals and residents, is self-evident and has indeed been proactively publicised by its protagonists over an extended period of time.

However, secondly, I say this because, regardless of its frequency, a formal review process at a fixed point is not likely to be appropriate. In all cases where the level of terrorist threat is so high that it is appropriate to designate an area under Clause 4, as your Lordships would expect, the Government and the security and intelligence agencies will keep the situation in that area under extremely close and continuous review.

This will be a comprehensive ongoing assessment across the full spectrum of government. It will involve consideration and ongoing review of every aspect of the Government’s response to the situation, including their use of legal powers and any designation under Clause 4. In reality, this is a closer and more effective consideration than that envisaged by the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. It will enable the Government readily to identify if the situation on the ground has changed such that the legal test for designating the area is no longer met, and to take prompt action should this be the case.

I remain to be persuaded that the more elaborate annual process provided for in these amendments would serve the public interest, or would be an effective use of resources, or would lead to any more rigorous or effective a review of whether a designation remains necessary. As I have indicated, I can see more merit in a backstop three-year sunset clause with the option of redesignation. I am ready to consider this option further ahead of Report.

Amendment 29 would require that before a Motion to Approve any designation regulations may be tabled, the regulations must have been reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the committee must have laid before both Houses a report providing a recommendation on whether the regulations should be approved.

I recognise and appreciate the constructive spirit in which this amendment is intended and I am happy to make clear that I share the view that Parliament should have as well informed a debate as possible on any regulations made under this power. However, I am not persuaded that involving the Intelligence and Security Committee in this way is the right approach or would be an appropriate extension of the committee’s role, which is what it would amount to. The Intelligence and Security Committee has a specific statutory remit under Section 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, which focuses on the administration and operation of the intelligence agencies. This is extended to certain aspects of the Government’s activities in relation to intelligence or security matters by means of a memorandum of understanding agreed under Section 2(2) of the 2013 Act.

Section 2(3) of the 2013 Act specifically excludes from the committee’s remit any matter that is,

“part of any ongoing intelligence or security operation”.

This clearly and intentionally establishes the committee’s role as one of retrospective oversight and review—not one of real-time authorisation, approval or review of operational decisions or the use of powers.

This reflects the long-standing principle that national security and the exercise of executive powers in this area is a matter for the Government of the day. There should of course be effective and robust oversight of decisions the Government have made—including, where appropriate, by the Intelligence and Security Committee and, in the case of this power, through debates in Parliament on any regulations designating an area, as well as by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. However, that is of a very different nature from the role proposed for the Intelligence and Security Committee in this amendment, which would be a significant extension of the committee’s role. I do not know if it is one that the committee would necessarily welcome, and it is not one that the Government consider appropriate.

Setting aside more fundamental questions of principle, I can see the amendment also giving rise to difficult practical issues—for example, around the speed with which the committee would need to prepare reports given the need for regulations to be approved within 40 sitting days; and around the extent of redactions that might be needed in such reports to protect sensitive intelligence, which might have informed the committee’s considerations but which could not be shared more widely to inform the consideration by Parliament.

I am, however, happy to give a clear assurance that the Government will always provide Parliament with as much information as possible about the reasons why any designation under Clause 4 is necessary. This will, of course, be constrained to some extent by the need to protect sensitive intelligence which cannot be revealed in public. However we recognise that this does not mean that Parliament will simply take on trust that a designation is necessary. We will always need to make a clear case for it.

I hope these arguments have reassured noble Lords that the current drafting of the Bill will deliver the outcomes they seek. I hope too that the Committee will take comfort from the fact that we will consider further Amendment 28. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

I thank the Minister for his very courteous response. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for her welcome and frank correction. I think we are now agreed that the former practice of annual review of proscribed organisations conducted by the Home Office was discontinued in 2013-14. I am not aware of such a practice ever being adopted by the Northern Ireland Office—but we may come to that in due course.

I thought the Minister might respond to my amendment by suggesting it unthinkable in practice that reviews of area designations would be any less frequent than once a year. He made the point, with which I agree entirely, that one sometimes has to be quite agile. Indeed, my amendment was consistent with reviews taking place, where necessary, on a more than annual basis. With respect, I found it harder to agree with the Minister where he referred to the type of enduring threat which I think he was saying might justify a review as seldom as once every three years. This is a very heavy new power, unprecedented as far as I know in our history, whereby British citizens are simply prohibited from traveling to certain parts of the world. I ask the Minister to consider whether it can really be the case either that no timed review of this power should be required or that, if a time is to be affixed to it, it should be an interval as great as every three years. That seems a very long time for these important rights of travel to be withheld. I hope that I do not sound discourteous, but the Minister will understand that I still have concerns. None the less, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 26 withdrawn.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 31st October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, since the Joint Committee on Human Rights is meeting at this moment it has not been possible to take its view on this amendment but I think it must follow from my comments on Clause 1 that it would not be enthusiastic, as these provisions obviously have to be read together. I was amused that the Minister said, as did the noble Baroness’s letter to noble Lords of 24 October, that the Government have identified further offences. They are not quite offences yet, are they? It would perhaps be fairer to say that the amendment is consequential on Clause, but that is a minor point.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I oppose this amendment and, in doing so, I will seek to explain why the issues are rather different from those considered under the previous group. If Amendment 32 is passed then Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, as supercharged by Clause 1, will apply to any person anywhere in the world who expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of an organisation proscribed in the UK and who is reckless as to the consequences. The deficiencies of our deproscription regime, with which I have already wearied your Lordships, are multiplied when coupled with the indiscriminate grant of extraterritorial jurisdiction in this context.

To illustrate the point, I invite your Lordships to look to the Republic of Ireland, whose citizens would be criminalised by a law of this Parliament for expressing supportive opinions about organisations now committed to peace but in which their grandfathers or grandmothers once fought for freedom. I shall give one example: Cumann na mBan, the Irish republican women’s organisation. It was once aligned with the IRA and is still proscribed in this country, despite no evidence of which I am aware that it has been concerned in terrorism during this century at least. The commemoration of its centenary in 2014 in Dublin was a significant national event. The speakers included President Higgins of Ireland, who spoke stirringly and approvingly of the vision that animated the women of Cumann na mBan. The Minister will of course assure us that no one is going to seek extradition of Irish citizens who expressed opinions supportive of this proscribed group but, as noble Lords have done in relation to other clauses of the Bill, I must question whether this repeated heavy reliance on the discretion of our authorities is an adequate substitute for crafting a properly defined law.

This amendment comes in very late and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, without the benefit of JCHR scrutiny. Whatever view noble Lords may take of Amendments 31 and 33, I strongly question the wisdom of extending extraterritorial jurisdiction unqualified by limitations of citizenship or residence to countries where conduct caught by the expanded Section 12 is not a crime. However it is applied in practice, this amendment might be thought to have a regrettably colonial flavour, not just in Ireland but in other parts of the world. I have no doubt that it is unintended, but it is no less unfortunate for that. This amendment seems to have been an afterthought. I suggest that this is one of those occasions where the first thoughts were the best. I invite the Minister to withdraw the amendment or, at the very least, to qualify it in the ways suggested in Amendment 33.

[Lord Rosser]

I shall be very brief. I await the Government’s response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, with interest.

I would like to pursue another point he raised in his contribution. Bearing in mind that this amendment, which adds offences, is coming in at a very late stage in proceedings, is this a result of a perceived oversight on the Government’s part or does it represent a significant rethink of policy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, this group also includes the question as to whether Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill. I speak in favour of the proposition that it should not and in support of my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s amendment, to which she has just spoken.

At Second Reading I mentioned the dangers of sentence inflation. It is not just many of us in this House who, in the course of numerous debates on prisons, have talked about the dangers of overcrowding and the fact that it is caused to a very large extent by sentence inflation, both statutory and as demanded by public opinion and the press. Senior judges, including the Lord Chief Justice, the organisation Justice, the Howard League and many others have spoken about the dangers of a prison system in crisis—overcrowded, understaffed, violent beyond anything we have ever known before, with little opportunity for education and training or reform, and very little success in reforming offenders.

I echo the point made by my noble friend that there is absolutely no evidence of a deterrent effect of longer sentences when long sentences are already passed. That is as true of terrorism as other areas. However, there is plenty of evidence of the effect of prison sentences and the experience of being in prison for terrorist offences in radicalising other prisoners. A collection of studies edited by Andrew Silke, published in 2014 under the title Prisons, Terrorism and Extremism: Critical Issues in Management, Radicalisation and Reform, contains considerable evidence on the risks of imprisonment in this area. The danger, without wishing to overdramatise it, is that our prisons become academies of terrorism.

The problem has been recognised by the Government. They have introduced two so-called separation centres, the first at Frankland, the second at HMP Full Sutton. A third is opening shortly. But there is limited evidence that these centres will do anything but encourage subversive prisoners to draw strength from each other in furthering terrorism elsewhere. The number of inmates involved in the separation centres will be very small; I understand that a figure of 28 is intended. There are very large numbers of those convicted of terrorist offences in prison and a very large population of prisoners who are liable to be converted to terrorism when they might not have those tendencies so far.

The Parole Board has raised particular concern about radicalisation in prisons. I quote the report of the House of Commons Justice Committee of 21 February this year:

“The Board also raises concerns about radicalisation in prisons, a problem that it suggests will remain regardless of whether the Government decides to segregate prisoners or continues to spread them around the prison estate. In the Board’s assessment, there are concerns that increasing the penalties for less serious offenders will result in them becoming more likely to commit terrorist acts when they are released. The Board goes on to observe:


‘Most of the rest of Europe is devising interventions in the community to deradicalise less serious offenders. These programmes are more likely to be successful in the community than in prison where the influence of extremist inmates is likely to be stronger’”.


Before this legislation is introduced one would expect some evidence from the Government to support the case for longer sentences; certainly before the legislation is passed we should look for that evidence. But there is none produced by the Government. Page 14 of the Explanatory Notes merely sets out the new sentences proposed, without a word of justification. I remind your Lordships what they are. For failure to disclose information about acts of terrorism, the maximum sentence would double from five years to 10; for collection of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, the increase would be from 10 years to 15; for eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of the Armed Forces of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, there would be an increase from 10 years to 15; for encouragement of terrorism, an increase from seven years to 15, and for dissemination of terrorist publications, an increase from seven years to 15. The last two represent a more-than-doubling of the existing maximum sentences. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out, the Joint Committee on Human Rights said simply that,

“the increase in sentences does not appear to be supported by evidence to suggest why it is justified or proportionate. We recommend that the Home Office provide further evidence (if they have such evidence) as to why they consider the current maximum sentences to be insufficient and how this increase is necessary and proportionate”.

We have not had it.

However, there is evidence on this subject which tends the other way. The Sentencing Council produced a definitive guideline in April this year. It considered all these sentences. Perhaps I may take as an example the offence of the encouragement of terrorism. It looked at levels of culpability, which they rated A to C; for instance, if a person was in a position of trust and had intention to provide assistance to terrorism, that would be the highest rating. It rated harm factors from one to three, so that a category 1 example was where others had either acted on or been assisted by the encouragement to carry out activities endangering life, while the lowest, category 3, example was a statement or publication with non-specific content encouraging support for terrorism activity not endangering life. So the range went from a category 3, culpability C, level of sentencing proposed—of a high-level community order to two years’ imprisonment—to, at the top, a category 1, culpability A, sentence range of four to six years, which is well below the maximum allowable at the moment and does not justify any increase. The council listed in detail aggravating factors—it is clear that such factors are always to be taken into account, whether or not they are listed in the statute—as well as mitigating factors.

The definitive guideline followed a statutory consultation under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and was considered by the Justice Committee, which produced in February this year the report from which I earlier quoted. There was no suggestion by the Justice Committee of any increase in the level of sentences for the offences with which this clause is concerned. Only at the top of the statutory limits proposed was there even a suggestion that consideration be given to any increase. It stated that the Sentencing Council might consider an approach where the recommended range was up to nine years when the statutory maximum was 10, but of the offences with which this clause is concerned, only failure to disclose information had a guideline range that went up to the five-year limit.

All that information was carefully considered by the Sentencing Council. It issued its definitive guideline in April and nothing has changed. There was no justification for increases in the ranges. The attacks with which we were concerned in considering the introduction of this legislation all happened before the sentencing guidelines were produced. We would be interested to hear any evidence from the Government to support these radically increased sentences in terms of better outcomes, deterrence, reform or the safety of the public. Without such evidence, we cannot support this clause.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, Ministers will know that the equivalent sentences in other European countries for the type of offences that we are talking about tend to be much lower than they are here. Perhaps that is no bad thing.

In light of these issues and the proposed very substantial increases to which the noble Lord has referred, will the Minister say what steps will be taken to address—or at any rate, given the sensitivities, to research—the disparities that have been observed by informed observers between sentencing levels for terrorism offences in England and those in Northern Ireland, where sentences imposed appear to be a great deal lower for conduct that on the face of it looks quite similar?

[Lord Rosser]

This amendment, moved by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and to which my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark are also attached, is another which reflects a recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. One of the key aspects of the Bill is the proposed increase in maximum sentences for a number of terrorist offences. This was one—but only one—of our reasons for raising concerns about the prospect of innocent parties falling foul of some offences.

The JCHR said that the increases in sentences do not appear to be supported by evidence to suggest that they are justified or proportionate. The committee was particularly concerned that a sentence of 15 years could be imposed for an offence of viewing terrorist material online—even more so in the light of amendments on Report in the Commons that might make a single viewing sufficient for such an offence to be deemed to have been committed. As has already been said, the committee asked the Home Office for the evidence on which it based its decision that the current maximum sentences were insufficient and why it considered the proposed higher maximum sentences to be necessary and proportionate.

The reply from the Home Office, as set out in the JCHR report, stated, among other things:

“The division between preliminary terrorist activity and attack planning is increasingly blurred”.


It did not, according to the committee, explain why existing sentencing powers were inadequate. I hope, like others, that the Government will address this point on existing sentencing powers in their response, as well as the specific terms of the amendment, reflecting the view of the JCHR, which deletes the increase in the maximum sentence from 10 years to 15 years for the “collection of information” offence provided for in Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 40 and 41. Clause 13 inserts a new power of entry and the power to search the homes of registered terrorist offenders, not to look for something specific but to assess,

“the risks posed by the person to whom the warrant relates”.

This is, in our view, a severe intrusion into the private life of not just the registered terrorist offender but his family. In the days of control orders, I became very aware of the impact of certain restrictions on family members, including spouses, children and extended family. I am not suggesting that these powers are the exact equivalent, but the impact on those family members, as well as that on the object of the order, was something of which I became very aware. Being the subject of a search—with the use of force permitted—is not the same, but I do not think that it is completely unrelated.

In response to the JCHR’s initial report, the Government argued that the power may be exercised only as a last resort. I assume that that is a description of Clause 13(2)(c) and (d) and that it requires a warrant and compliance with the powers of entry code of practice. These are safeguards indeed, but the threshold for exercising the power is low. The government response states that the power is to allow the police,

“to assure themselves that the individual does in fact reside at the address they have notified, and to monitor compliance with other aspects of the notification regime”.

Why does the Bill not reflect this, rather than containing the vague requirement of assessing risks?

We on the Committee considered that there should be a clearer requirement that the power is used when it is necessary and proportionate, and when there are grounds for suspicion that the notification requirements have been breached. That has led to the three amendments in this group, which would narrow the power by requiring a reasonable belief that the registered person had breached the notification requirements and ensure, as I have said, that the exercise of the power is both necessary and proportionate. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, Clause 13 provides for a search power that Professor Clive Walker—who is, without much doubt, our foremost expert on counterterrorism law and not a man given to either naivety or overstatement—described in written evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights as “outrageously wide”. As he pointed out, the clause is to be contrasted with paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 5 to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011—the TPIM Act—which confines the purpose of the equivalent search power to that of determining whether there has been any contravention of the measures specified in the TPIM notice. That is essentially the approach that Amendment 39, which I support, adopts.

I echo the noble Baroness’s point that there is a human element to this. The families of convicted terrorists, through their support and influence, are often important factors in turning offenders away from violence. The extreme anxiety experienced by the wife of a control order subject whose house was subject to frequent unannounced searches, and the upset and trauma caused to her young children, were movingly conveyed in an article from which I quoted in my final report on control orders in 2012. I felt justified in doing so, not to give publicity to an unreliable witness—something which, like my predecessor as independent reviewer, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I was always astute not to do—but because the woman in question had recently been described in a High Court judgment by the highly experienced Mr Justice Mitting as an impressive witness and a person whose evidence he accepted without reservation.

The risk of upsetting or alienating such people is surely evident. I have never heard it suggested in several years of, I hope, careful oversight that the powers to enter and search premises occupied by potentially extremely dangerous TPIM subjects are insufficient, so I am puzzled as to what prompted this further turn of the ratchet—at least on paper, even if reassuring words are spoken about how it may be used in practice.

It is important that the power of entry and search should not be used as an instrument of harassment and destabilisation. This reasonable amendment would help to ensure that.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I support the Government’s position on Amendments 42 and 46. In a report of July 2013, The Terrorism Acts in 2012, I recorded the result of an extensive inquiry conducted with MI5 and counterterrorism police into the value of no-suspicion stops under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act. I started from a position of, I hope, healthy scepticism, but noted three useful functions of the no-suspicion stop: deterring and detecting the use of “clean skins” to transport terrorist material; avoiding alerting travellers that they were the object of surveillance; and enabling the travelling companion of a person suspected of involvement in terrorism to be stopped and questioned. I followed this up with several real-life examples, which I had verified, of no-suspicion stops that had brought significant benefits in terms of disrupting potential terrorists. More to the point, perhaps, in the case of Beghal in 2015 a majority of the Supreme Court held that having regard to the many safeguards on its exercise, the absence of a suspicion requirement was not such as to render the basic Schedule 7 power inconsistent with the principle of legality. That judgment contained a lengthy comparison of Schedule 7 with the former Section 44, to which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, addressed some remarks.

These few words should not be understood as a rejection of some enhanced threshold for the use of more specialised powers under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act, or Schedule 3 to this Bill, such as downloading a phone or, indeed, taking a person into detention. Still less should it be understood as support for no-suspicion powers of stop and search in more orthodox areas of policing where threats to national security are not in issue. I hope, however, that it explains why I do not support these amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee]

The noble Lord reminds us about the draft code of conduct. It spells out considerations that relate to the threat of hostile activity and lists a number of factors, one of which, in the context of the stop not being arbitrary, is to have consideration of “possible current, emerging … hostile activity”, which is understandable, and “future hostile activity”. Can the Minister explain the distinction between emerging and future hostile activity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, I support the amendment. The independent review of terrorism law in this country dates back to the 1970s. It offers us in Parliament an assurance that in return for consenting to some exceptionally strong laws, whose operation is often shrouded in secrecy, a security-cleared person will be appointed to report on their application.

More recently, in a development pioneered by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the post of reviewer has become a token of good faith to the general public. Successive reviewers have criticised the Government where it is justified but their approval, when offered, has proved most helpful in dispelling myths and reconciling all sections of the public to controversial aspects of these sadly necessary laws, whether or not they are found to have been mistakenly applied in particular instances.

However, as has been said, Prevent has never been subject to the remit of the independent reviewer and is expressly excluded from the remit of the counterextremism commissioner. I would be the first to accept that policies must be decided by Ministers accountable to Parliament, but external review of the operation of a policy can be of particular value when potential conflicts between state power and civil liberties are acute but information about the use of those powers is tightly rationed.

Prevent is a well-intentioned, voluntary strategy that has achieved striking success, without a doubt, but it is handicapped from reaching its full potential by mistrust, in terms of both individuals and organisations that are willing to work with it. Criticism can fairly be aimed at some of the groups that devote themselves to promoting that mistrust. In my experience, such criticism is generally returned with interest, but blaming others is not enough. One has to ask why an anti-Prevent narrative, promoted by a controversial few, has been allowed to become so prevalent, not only in Muslim circles but more generally among the chattering classes of liberal Britain, and why there appears, from what I am told, to be more mistrust of anti-radicalisation programmes in this country than in comparable places, such as the Netherlands and Denmark.

For some years, I have thought that the Government should combat this hostile narrative through more transparency, wider engagement and commissioning a no-holds-barred independent review. On transparency, they have acted; I applaud the personal efforts of the Security Minister, Ben Wallace. The resulting, regularly published figures are a very good start and are now central to any informed debate, as indeed they were in previous debate on amendments to Clause 19.

On the other two fronts, we have further to go. This strategy is too important not to do as well as we can. An independent operational review with comparative reach would provide public reassurance where it is justified and constructive challenge to the Government where improvement is possible. I accept that it would be more useful if the Government wanted it, but the argument for a review does not depend on the prior identification of specific defects. I hope that the Government will agree to work with the amendments in a spirit not of self-harm but of self-help.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I am not sure whether the noble Lord includes me among the chattering classes, but I forgive him anyway. Does he accept that those who feel mistrust are not the sort of people to make formal complaints and put their views on record, which is perhaps part of the problem with having cases where we can point a finger and say, “This is a problem and this is where the mistrust comes from”?

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

We have heard echoes of mistrust within this Chamber today from a number of noble Lords, so I do not suggest that it is limited to those who are incapable of expressing themselves or have no outlet by which to do so. Nor, for the sake of emphasis, do I suggest that such mistrust is justified. That would be precisely the point of a security-cleared independent review: to get to the bottom of whether things are as they seem and as they should be.

[Lord Sheikh]

My Lords, I want to make some comments relating to the Muslim community in the United Kingdom. There are more than 3 million Muslims in the country, who have come here from different parts of the world. The population is youthful in comparison with other communities. Muslims have done well in every walk of life and contributed to the advancement and well-being of the country. Nearly all of them are law-abiding people, but unfortunately a tiny minority has caused problems. They have been radicalised and committed terrorist acts.

What those misguided persons are doing and have done is totally un-Islamic. They have misunderstood our glorious religion and what they have done is not in accordance with Islamic principles. In the Holy Koran it is written: “Whoever kills an innocent person it is though he has killed all mankind, and whoever saves a life it is as though he has saved all mankind”. It is therefore imperative that we guide such people and tell them about the true principles of Islam. The Muslim community has a role to play in this regard, and I shall expand on this point later.

I have been actively involved in combating radicalisation among the community. In this regard, I prepared a report setting out the various problems and suggesting my recommendations. It was sent to the Prime Minister and a number of Muslim centres and mosques. In addition, I have had numerous meetings and conversations with members and leaders of the community, imams, teachers, parents and the media.

I want to emphasise that I support the Prevent strategy in principle but it is necessary for a review to be undertaken. I therefore support the amendment. To deal with issues concerning radicalisation, we need input and participation from local authorities, the police, schools, prisons and members of the community at all levels. I am trying to raise awareness that the onus is on the Muslim community to be honest and to realise that there are problems among a tiny minority and that it is therefore necessary to take positive action to remedy the issues. This means that a holistic approach must be taken by the community in conjunction with others. The involvement of the community is imperative. We must secure its co-operation to make the Prevent strategy work without problems.

I have travelled to various parts of the country and talked to leaders of mosques, imams, heads of community centres and members of the communities. The Prevent strategy has caused concerns and raised objections. Some critics of the strategy have said that there is racial profiling, excessive spying and the removal of basic civil liberties from innocent individuals.

It has also been mentioned to me that Prevent is perhaps a toxic brand. Not everyone in the community is convinced that the strategy is right, and the concept is difficult to sell to them. It has also been said that only self-appointed community leaders have been involved rather than members of groups which represent the community. The community therefore feels that it needs to be a part of the strategy in whatever form it may be constructed.

I said earlier that Islam is a religion of peace and that any form of terrorism is unacceptable in it. It is therefore imperative that Muslim leaders and imams guide people who may have been misled and are confused about Islamic values. The community therefore has a role to play.

At one of its annual conferences, the National Union of Teachers asked the Government to withdraw the Prevent strategy with regard to schools and colleges and to develop an alternative scheme to safeguard children and identify risks posed to young people. Teachers have said that the strategy causes,

“suspicion in the classroom and confusion in the staffroom”.

It has also been mentioned that Prevent is affecting education and undermining trust between teachers and pupils. It appears that about 65% of a total of some 5,000 Prevent referrals are Muslims. Muslims have a one-in-500 chance of being referred, hence the chances are 40 times greater than for someone who is not a Muslim. Furthermore, a very small number of referrals are acted on. These figures indicate that there is perhaps over-referral of Muslims, which needs to be looked into thoroughly. I have been made aware of some unpleasant incidents in schools where it was proven that Muslim children had been picked on for no good reason. This has led to anguish and anger. School authorities may have acted in good faith, but their actions were wrong.

It appears that the total cost of the Prevent strategy is more than £40 million. One needs to examine whether the money is spent effectively and we are getting proper value for our expenditure. The amount spent may be excessive and perhaps lucrative for some people. Furthermore, it is important that we apply suitable criteria before an organisation receives a contract for undertaking the work. We should ensure that proper checks and balances are applied to organisations granted contracts.

--- Later in debate ---

Of course, we must continue to explore how we can do things better and, in the normal way, the fifth anniversary of the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 affords us the opportunity to undertake a post-legislative review of the provisions in Part 5 of that Act, which provides the legislative framework for Prevent. I hope my explanation of some of the positive impact that Prevent has will assuage any lingering concerns and that the noble Baroness will feel free to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

Since the Minister mentioned Assistant Commissioner Basu and what he had to say about the Prevent strategy, is she familiar with the interview he gave, I think to an American periodical, a few weeks before he was appointed to his current role in relation to counterterrorism in which he made a number of constructive suggestions for changing the Prevent strategy, in particular to make it more, as he put it, community focused and less top down?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I shall read it with interest.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

59: After Clause 20, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of proscription
(1) Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (6), insert—“(6A) In respect of each organisation listed in Schedule 2, the Secretary of State must at least once in every calendar year, starting in the calendar year following its listing—(a) review the activities of that organisation,(b) determine whether that organisation satisfies the conditions for proscription in subsections (5) to (6),(c) decide whether to vary or revoke the listing or to take no action with respect to it,(d) publish each such decision, and(e) lay a record of such decision before Parliament.””

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it is unjust to expose a person to prosecution for supporting a proscribed organisation when that organisation does not meet the statutory condition for proscription. That condition is being “concerned in terrorism”, a phrase defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 and elucidated by the Court of Appeal in the PMOI case—the only case on deproscription to have reached a final judgment. The Bill does not seek to amend that condition. Yet precisely such an injustice exists today and will be worsened by the Bill, and in particular by Clauses 1 and 2, which extend the substantive reach of the proscription offences, and by Clause 6, which extends their geographical reach.

No sensible person would deny that the likes of al-Qaeda, Daesh or indeed National Action, three of whose adherents were convicted this morning, are concerned in terrorism. However, our ever-lengthening list of terrorist groups features quite a few that, to put it bluntly, simply should not be there. In June 2013, as independent reviewer, I reported publicly that a preliminary analysis by the Home Office itself had identified 14 groups, some of them already removed from equivalent lists in other countries, that no longer met—or appeared no longer to meet—the statutory test.

Some of them had not done so before the Terrorism Act 2000 came into force. To the 14 should no doubt be added some Northern Irish groups. I cited the example of the women’s group, Cumann na mBan—any involvement in violence far in the past and its centenary celebrations recently attended by the Irish President—in debate on Amendment 32.

Confronted with this evidence and recognising that there was no track record of deproscription by the Home Office, even in those rare cases when someone was brave enough to ask for it, the then Home Secretary, the current Prime Minister, came up with a principled solution: a programme of deproscription to be completed during the first part of 2014 and to be informed by the internal reviews that were, at the time, still conducted every year, and which a High Court judge had described as,

“certainly a practice that the Secretary of State should continue to adopt”.

But principles were not enough. The solution failed, despite the best efforts of the Home Office, because proscription of international organisations, particularly separatist organisations, is seen in some quarters as a cost-free way to please foreign Governments—although I suggest that it could not be described as cost free for members of the relevant communities in the UK, who are liable to find themselves under enhanced suspicion when an organisation claiming to represent their community is deemed to be a terrorist group. I reported also on that.

Furthermore, in Northern Ireland, where, as far as I know, there has never been a system of annual review, the non-statutory solution was never even attempted. Embarrassed by its failure, the Home Office discontinued even its former practice of annual review, because it was apparent that reviews determining that the statutory condition was not met were simply never acted on.

This sorry state of affairs persists today. I described it in my final report of December 2016—I am sorry if the phrase is strong, but it is the strongest phrase I ever used in six years as independent reviewer—as an,

“affront to the rule of law”.

Fortunately, there is a solution—and by no means a radical one. The amendment would reinstate the internal reviews that the Home Office always used to operate and extend them to Northern Ireland. By placing the Home Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary under a statutory duty to publish and act on the conclusions of their reviews, it would allow them to resist those who, for reasons of foreign policy or because the topic is simply too difficult, would frustrate the clear application of the law.

The amendment will do nothing to endanger us. On the contrary, it will preserve us from the unfortunate tendency, born of misplaced expedience, to use anti-terrorism powers in circumstances where Parliament itself has decided that they should not apply. I beg to move.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, it is very simple really, is it not? We spent time in Committee rightly debating the problems of trying to criminalise expressions of opinion or belief and identifying that a proscribed organisation should be one that none of us should support or encourage. Fine. The essence of the problem, however, is this. We should be allowed to express opinions and beliefs about organisations which are not proscribed. That is elementary, and this House will not need a disquisition from me about the importance of being able to do so. The problem is this. We are not in a position to express opinions about organisations which are currently proscribed which should no longer be proscribed or whose proscription should have been removed years ago. That is an affront to the rule of law, and I therefore support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am not entirely sure. They are different procedures. I shall write to the noble Lord on the difference because he makes a valid point.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

I am grateful to the Minister. While she is writing to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, could she perhaps answer my question? Even if she is correct that the ability to apply to have an organisation deproscribed is a substitute for my amendment—the track record very much suggests that it is not—and assuming that in her favour, could the Minister explain in the letter, or in person if she prefers, what consolation that could be to the innocent member of the community in London who comes under suspicion for alleged links with a proscribed organisation but who has no connection with it and could not in 100 years have been expected to be the person who makes that application?

I am trying to avoid naming specific communities, although I have spent plenty of time in London with Tamils, for example. For them, the fact that the LTTE remains a proscribed organisation—rightly or wrongly; I have no judgment on that—can be a significant impediment on how they go about their everyday life. What consolation could it be for the Tamil greengrocer in London to know that, had they wished to do so, the top brass of the LTTE, or others intimately connected with it, might have made an application for deproscription?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

They could have done. I do not know whether or not it is a consolation, but they could have done.

The point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, does not conflict with Clause 1 because there is no offence to suggest that a group should be deproscribed under Clause 1. Is that what he was referring to?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The first part of that would not conflict with Clause 1, but the second part of that statement would, as you are then promoting it as an organisation. Perhaps we can talk about that subsequently.

I move on to Northern Ireland, because I want to talk about the amendment in that context. Any change to the current regime must be carefully considered, paying particular regard to the unique historical and current security context and challenges in that part of the United Kingdom. Paramilitary activity has a greater impact in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the UK. Because of this complex environment, proscription remains an essential tool in the wider, strategic approach to tackling the continued and widespread existence and impact of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland.

Terrorism legislation, including the proscription regime, is of course an excepted matter in Northern Ireland—it is reserved to the UK Government—but the impact of this amendment cannot be divorced from what is happening at the devolved level. Any change to the proscription regime would have a significant impact on wider efforts to tackle paramilitary activity currently being undertaken at a devolved level and supported by the UK Government and multiple agencies and bodies through the Tackling Paramilitarism programme. A decision to change the proscription regime in Northern Ireland could not, and should not, be taken in isolation from these other initiatives and without detailed prior consultation with the devolved Administration and security partners.

Given the current suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, the opportunity to undertake such consultation does not present itself at this time. We simply cannot ignore the operational, policy, resourcing and wider political ramifications of this amendment. These implications arise in relation to the proscription of international terrorist organisations, but are particularly acute in relation to Northern Ireland-related terrorist organisations. I know that this is a sensitive area, and that this House is rightly concerned to ensure that we strike the right balance, both in relation to the proposed new clause and to the other clauses in the Bill which amend proscription offences.

Finally, I suggest that noble Lords proceed with great caution in this area, given the considerations which I have just outlined. The learned position which the noble Lord has set out needs to be balanced against the reality that these are serious and, in some cases, unpleasant terrorist groups. They have been proscribed with good reason and the Government are anxious to ensure that they do not pose a resurgent threat to the public. I hope that, at this stage, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, I am grateful for the flattering words with which the Minister began and overwhelmed by the distinguished support for the amendment from so many noble Lords. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I hope that the Minister will not only carefully consider the amendment—as improved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—but see the benefits to the Government of having it enshrined in law and not just in an undertaking, so that there can be no doubt who wins in any future conflict within the Government of the sort that the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and I have experienced in our different capacities.

In case it was in any doubt, I clarify that the amendment seeks not to change the proscription regime in Northern Ireland but simply to ensure that the existing regime, as written very plainly in law, is applied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but fully expect to return to it on Report.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 14th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, the provisions relating to access to a lawyer, so far as they replicate those in Schedule 7, which I understand they are intended to do, should be seen against the background of three matters.

First, the maximum period under both schedules is six hours’ detention, which was reduced from nine hours a few years ago and from much longer periods during the Troubles, when, as now, these controls could be applied to travellers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain—a long-standing example of a border down the Irish Sea. Secondly, some of these seaports and airports are remote, and stops, let alone detentions, are so unusual that it would be quite impracticable always to have a panel of lawyers on tap. Thirdly, a fact long considered obvious by the courts, and now enshrined in Clause 16, is that answers given under these compulsory powers may not be used in subsequent criminal proceedings save in the special circumstances outlined for Schedule 7 by the Supreme Court in Beghal and echoed in the Bill.

The last of those factors caused Mr Justice Collins, in the case of CC, in 2012, to doubt whether there was any value at all in the presence of a lawyer during Schedule 7 questioning, since no responsible lawyer could advise their client to break the law by remaining silent. That view was rejected by the Divisional Court in the case of Elosta, which held that:

“The solicitor does have a useful, if limited, role to play”.


The fact remains that there are differences between an examination under Schedule 3 or Schedule 7, on the one hand, and a classic police interview under caution, on the other. It is perhaps also relevant to have in mind that, unless I am mistaken—I am sure I will be corrected if I am—these equivalent powers appear not only under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act but under Schedule 8, where detention for much longer periods, of up to 14 days, is contemplated.

Before the Minister thinks I have become too tame, let me please make this point. The operation of any powers to delay or impose limitations on access to legal advice, if they are to continue and to be extended, must be subject to effective independent review. This will only be possible if the reasons are recorded, as is correctly provided for in Schedule 3, and if the number of occasions on which they have been used is published, so that concerned citizens are aware and the independent reviewer can investigate individual cases or draw attention to and explore the reasons for any increasing trend in the use of the powers.

The number of occasions on which access to a solicitor has been delayed for those detained under Schedule 8 is logged meticulously in Northern Ireland and published by the NIO in its annual statistics on terrorism legislation. The latest figures tell us that between 2001 and March 2018, only five persons in Northern Ireland were refused immediate access to a solicitor. However, effective review requires the equivalent figures to be available for the whole country.

I was given to understand four years ago by the Home Office—not for the first time—that this was work in progress, at least where Schedule 8 was concerned. Will the Minister undertake that the statistics relating to delayed and conditional access to a solicitor on the part of those detained under the Terrorism Act and the new hostile state activity powers will be published across the country; and will she tell us whether there is anything she can do to speed things up a bit?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments on these amendments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I hope that by the end of my remarks, your Lordships will be more satisfied about the progress of the Bill in this area.

The amendments in this group raise the important issue of a detainee’s right to access a solicitor when detained under the ports powers in Schedule 3 to the Bill or Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. These amendments seek to ensure that where an individual has been detained under these schedules, the examining officer must postpone questioning until the examinee has consulted a solicitor in private.

I am aware that the right to access a solicitor under these ports powers was the subject of much debate as this Bill was scrutinised in the House of Commons, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out. The good speeches at Second Reading in this House served as a fitting reminder that, as new threats emerge, we must continue to be steadfast in our commitment to the principles that our laws and practices are founded on.

The powers under these schedules would afford any person formally detained the right to consult a solicitor, privately, if they request to do so. In the vast majority of cases where an individual has been detained under these powers, there will be no reason to interfere with that right. In exceptional circumstances, however, there may be a need for a more senior police officer to restrict that right where the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that allowing the detainee to exercise his or her right to consult a solicitor privately will have certain serious consequences—for example, interference with evidence or the gathering of information; injury to another person; alerting others that they are suspected of an indictable offence; or hindering the recovery of property obtained by an indictable offence.

I have listened carefully to the debate; it is clear that there are particular concerns about the restrictions under these schedules that would allow an assistant chief constable to require the detainee to consult their solicitor within the sight and hearing of another police officer. Let me explain that the intention behind this restriction is to disrupt a detainee who seeks to exploit their right to consult a solicitor by using the solicitor as a conduit to pass on instructions to a third party, either through intimidation, willing collusion or the use of a coded message, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, pointed out. Reasonable grounds for belief might develop where prior intelligence indicates that the individual may seek to obstruct an examination, either because they have a history of doing so or they have been trained to evade, frustrate or subvert police examinations. The officer might also witness interactions between the individual and their solicitor that alerts them to the possibility that the detainee is intimidating their solicitor.

Amendments 85, 86 and 88 and the equivalents in the new clause proposed by Amendment 63 would see these restrictions removed from Schedules 3 and 7 in their entirety. I understand the rationale for these amendments and recognise the force of the arguments that have been made in defence of the principle of lawyer-client confidentiality. At the same time, we are all here because we recognise the threat that we face from hostile state actors and terrorists and the risk of leaving loopholes to be exploited.

As alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, during the debate on similar amendments on Report in the House of Commons, the Security Minister undertook to consider the proposal of the Opposition Front Bench to allow a senior officer, in such circumstances, to direct that the detainee use a solicitor from an approved panel—a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who reiterated this same proposition in today’s debate. Such an approach may offer an acceptable way through this issue and I can undertake to give sympathetic consideration to his amendment in advance of Report.

However, I cannot be so accommodating about Amendment 84 because it would remove the power under Schedule 3 to delay a consultation between the detainee and their solicitor where a senior officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the exercise of this right will result in the consequences I have previously described. Powers for an officer to delay the communication of the fact of a person’s detention to a named person and to delay that detainee’s access to a solicitor have been enshrined in PACE for many years. These powers are therefore not novel but are familiar in the wider policing context and allow the police to delay contact with a third party or consultation with a solicitor where there are reasonably founded concerns that knowledge of the person’s detention may result in serious consequences. Removing this power of delay would undermine the ability to mitigate these risks.

I have already addressed part of Amendment 63 but let me now respond to the proposed changes to the other powers that allow an examining officer to restrict a Schedule 7 detainee’s access to a solicitor. These restrictions under Schedule 8 to the 2000 Act currently allow an examining officer to question a detainee without a consultation having first taken place with a solicitor in person. However, I must point out that this does not preclude the detainee from consulting a solicitor via another means—for example, by telephone.

These powers can be exercised only where the officer reasonably believes that to wait for the solicitor to arrive in person would prejudice the determination of the relevant matters. Amendment 63, however, would limit the availability of these restrictions to a situation where waiting for the solicitor to arrive in person could create an immediate risk of physical injury to any person. This is contrary to the intention of the powers, which were designed to mitigate the risk of a detainee using their right to consult a solicitor to obstruct and frustrate the examination and run down the short detention clock. As noble Lords will be aware and as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out, the maximum period of examination is limited to six hours. It would not take a trained terrorist or hostile actor to work out that if they were to insist on speaking to a solicitor, in person, who happens to be located many miles away from the port where they are being examined, they have a means of significantly delaying their examination.

The current powers under Schedule 8 provide a practical solution to mitigate that risk by allowing the person to consult that solicitor over the phone. If the person refuses that alternative, or the solicitor is unavailable, the officer can continue questioning the person while they wait for the solicitor to arrive. Any decision by the officer to apply these restrictions must be clearly recorded.

Before using these restrictions, the examining officer will exhaust all other means to ensure that the detainee has been able to consult a solicitor in private, including directing them to a solicitor of the duty solicitor scheme. The changes proposed in Amendment 63 would resurrect the risks that I have described and undermine key powers for countering terrorism.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked about recording when restrictions are used in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We will consider with our operational partners which statistics it would be appropriate to publish with regard to Schedule 3. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with that response and I will keep him updated.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

The noble Baroness has asked whether I am satisfied with the response. As the independent reviewer, I was told four years ago that this was happening, and it was not the first time that I had been told it was happening, in relation to Schedule 8. I am sure that the Minister did not mean to backtrack on that commitment, but I would be very grateful if she felt able to give someone a bit of a push.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I was going to use the word “shove”, but I will give them a push instead, which is probably more in keeping with your Lordships’ House.

Perhaps I may move on finally to Amendments 83 and 87. I draw the attention of the Committee to the draft Schedule 3 code of practice, which I have already circulated to noble Lords. Like its equivalent for Schedule 7, the draft code is clear that a person detained under either power must be provided with a notice of detention that clarifies their rights and obligations. The examining officer must also explain these rights and obligations to the detainee before continuing with the examination. In addition, at each periodic review of the detention, the examining officer must remind the detainee of any rights that they have not yet exercised.

The Government are in complete agreement that any person detained under Schedule 3 should be informed of their rights before any further questioning takes place. It has always been the case through the exercise of Schedule 7 powers and it is why we have made it explicit in the equivalent draft code of practice for Schedule 3. While the Government are clear that the intention behind these amendments has already been satisfied through the provision of the draft code, I am now ready to consider further the merits of writing such a requirement into Schedule 3 and Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act.

With those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, will be content to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, as has been said, the Bill provides for a person to be questioned and detained under Schedule 3 powers and makes it an offence to refuse to answer questions in examinations. The draft code of guidance, which we have now seen, recognises that there may be a preliminary stage of questioning during which people may be screened before an officer chooses to officially question them under the schedule. During screening, a person is not required to answer a question they do not want to and the code of practice states that a person must be told when the screening ends and an official examination begins. The purpose of this amendment is simply to put the screening process, the right of a person not to answer questions and, equally importantly, the right of a person to be told when screening ends and questioning begins on to the face of the Bill.

The screening does not appear to be an insignificant process. The draft code of practice, which we have sought to enshrine in the amendment, sets out the kinds of questions that can be asked and the issues that can be raised during the screening process. It states that there is no requirement for officers to keep a record of a screening interaction unless the person is subsequently selected for a Schedule 3 examination. There will be circumstances in which there is a requirement to make a record of a screening interaction. Indeed, it also says that while the screening of persons should take only a few minutes—I do not know what “a few minutes” is in this context—it states:

“If it appears that this period will take significantly longer, the examining officer must conclude the screening process and either commence a Schedule 3 examination or notify the person that they have no further questions”.


Again, in a situation where they run out of time and decide to commence a Schedule 3 examination, a record of the screening interaction must be made.

It is not clear to us at the moment why no reference to this process has appeared in the Bill. One purpose of the amendment is to get an answer to that question since it would appear to be a part of the process under Schedule 3, which we have been discussing. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, for every person who is subject to a Schedule 7 examination, as I often used to report, some 10 to 20 others are asked light-touch screening questions on a consensual basis, as a result of which it is determined that a Schedule 7 examination is not necessary. The prevalence of screening questions may explain the discrepancy between the low and rapidly declining incidence of Schedule 7 examinations, on the one hand—I think they are running at around a quarter of the level they were when the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, handed over the post of independent reviewer to me—and, on the other hand, the perception of some people that they are stopped on a routine basis when they travel abroad. I reported in 2016 the example of a security-cleared government lawyer with a Muslim-sounding name who had been stopped by police on each of the last five occasions that he had left the country and on the majority of occasions when he re-entered it. On each occasion, as he acknowledged, he was stopped for screening questions only. Because screening questions are not recorded, there was of course no way of alerting ports officers of the previous fruitless stops.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the parameters applicable to screening questions need to be clearly set out under Schedule 3 to the Bill, as under Schedule 7. The draft code of practice, which I thank the Minister for providing well in advance, goes a long way towards doing that, although I am not sure that it cracks all the old chestnuts, one of them being how, if at all, one can administer screening questions to a coachload of people who are on their way to a possibly troubled part of the world.

As to whether screening questions should go into statute, the noble Lord is not alone in his provisional view. Senior ports officers have said to me—as I have recorded in the past—that if screening questions appeared in Schedule 7, we would all know where we stood. Against that, one thinks of the provisions in PACE Code C relating to “voluntary interviews”, which are not enshrined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, no doubt because of the moral and social duty, as it has been described by the courts, that every citizen has to give voluntary assistance to the police. I approach this issue with an open mind and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. In particular, can she tell us whether she has consulted the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who is to have oversight of Schedule 3 and, if so, what he had to say, because I suspect that his view may help to inform mine?

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Anderson tempts me to say a few words on this matter. He is absolutely right that the number of Schedule 7 stops declined dramatically over the years, and there was a very good reason for it. When I became Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, a phrase commonly used with me was “copper’s nose”. I was extremely concerned, because—if the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will forgive me—coppers do not always have the same-sized noses nor the same air throughput into them. Some officers started to develop them for themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is no longer here, but some officers in Scotland Yard with what is now called SO16 demonstrated to me how they had refined copper’s nose into a series of behavioural analyses that led them to decide whether and how to ask screening questions. A whole behavioural science has built up around this; it is called behavioural analysis. It emanated from America, but it has been well used by police officers here—I have been to a number of lectures about it.

I regret that the formalisation of screening questions, as suggested in the amendment, is completely impractical. My noble friend Lord Anderson referred to a coachload of passengers. One place that I used to visit quite regularly was Dover port, where buses come through at speed. Officers go on to them and ask questions such as, “Where are you going?” or “When did you come to this country?”, usually based on a reason that they have derived from the methodology they use for the people they are questioning. Formalising this process would make it very slow and more oppressive in the minds of those asked simple screening questions. They do not mind being asked a simple question or two, but they would mind if it were done in a way that suggested that it was part of a formal police process.

The police generally do this very well. They should be left to do it as they do it. We should not over-formalise something which has evolved to a point where the people who are stopped, asked a series of questions and detained for a time, and whose attention is demanded for a time, are usually those of whom there are good reasons to ask more detailed questions.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

66: Schedule 3, page 38, line 41, leave out “hostile act” and insert “serious crime”

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, this amendment goes to the purposes for which the Schedule 3 power can be used. It raises what I believe is an important point of principle, to which there may, however, be a pragmatic solution. Schedule 3, like Schedule 7, contains perhaps the most extensive police powers anywhere in the statute book, extending to questioning, with no right to silence, detention, the taking of fingerprints and DNA samples, and the downloading of mobile devices and the long-term retention of their content, all without the need for any objective or even subjective suspicion of wrongdoing. Those powers are already used under Schedule 7 by police of all ranks, at very short notice, in seaports and airports both large and small, and anywhere within a mile of the Northern Irish border. Their extraordinary strength makes it all the more important that the purpose for which the powers can be used is clearly defined and understood.

Schedule 7 is limited to the purpose of determining whether someone is a terrorist. Having learned from intelligence reports that it was in practice being extensively used also for the purpose of determining whether people were involved in proliferation or espionage, I suggested some years ago, as independent reviewer, that the reach of the power could usefully be extended to these other purposes. This would have put practice in accordance with the law, and it would have avoided the absurdity of having to pretend that David Miranda, stopped under Schedule 7 when carrying documents through Heathrow Airport stolen by Edward Snowden, might have been a terrorist, when more obvious explanations, falling outside the scope of Schedule 7, suggested themselves.

After the Salisbury incident, this suggestion found favour with the Government. Schedule 3 powers, it is proposed, may be used for counterproliferation and counterespionage, and to determine whether persons crossing the border are involved in other forms of hostile activity, such as assassination, whether or not with biological weapons. For myself, I entirely support that objective. Where I part company with the Bill is in the suggestion that these very extensive powers, memorably described by my noble friend Lord Carlile in his regular talks to the police as a Ming vase—precious and to be treated with very great care—should be used in order to determine whether a traveller has been engaged in activity which is perfectly lawful.

That is the consequence of paragraphs 1(6)(a) and 1(6)(b) of Schedule 3. National security, as is well known, is nowhere defined in legislation, or even in the draft code of practice. The concept of threats to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom is more nebulous still and as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, it is not even linked in Schedule 3, as it is in other contexts, to the concept of national security, let alone to a concept as specific as the critical national infra- structure, to which the Minister referred earlier. Acts falling into these categories need not be crimes. Indeed, they need not even be carried out for or on behalf of a foreign state; it is enough that they are judged by the officer on duty to be in the interests of such a state.

It is quite true that MI5 is tasked by Section 1 of the Security Service Act 1989 with the functions of protecting national security and safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom from foreign threats. No one would quarrel with that. My unease stems from the proposal that the police be given new and very strong coercive powers, powers that intrude into civil liberties and that are not allowed to our intelligence agencies, for the purpose of determining whether persons may have acted in ways that are not contrary to the law.

I am concerned by that. The police are entrusted with executive powers for the purpose of detecting crime and enforcing the criminal law. We have a wide range of offences relating to CBRN materials, espionage, sabotage and other types of hostile state activity. If that range is insufficient, or if the sentences are too short, as the Minister indicated she thought might have been the case with some of the lesser offences under the Official Secrets Act 1989, it is open to the Government to seek change. They could change the law on official secrets or change their own definition of serious crime for the purposes of the Bill, as they apparently had no difficulty in doing in the Data Retention and Acquisition Regulations. I see the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, nodding ruefully: those regulations were considered only very recently by the House. I think that in that case the definition was reduced to 12 months, so if the issue is the sentences of only two years for lesser offences under the Official Secrets Act 1989, that is worth thinking about.

The Bill as it stands would allow these strong coercive powers to be used by any police officer for the purpose of defining whether people have acted in undefined ways that the Government may not like but have not chosen to make unlawful. I am not sure that I can think of any precedent for this, and I would be grateful if the Minister would tell me if she knows of any. In their human rights memorandum, the Government rely heavily, in relation to Schedule 3, on the majority decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Beghal on Schedule 7, but in Schedule 7 the scope of non-consensual police powers is strictly defined and limited to the detection of serious criminal activity. That is certainly not the case here.

My noble friend Lady Manningham-Buller, who I know cannot be in her place at the moment, thought that the current version of the schedule could perhaps be swallowed as a temporary patch—perhaps pending the amendment of the Official Secrets Act or a change to the definition of serious crime. I am not very reassured by that. Temporary patches sometimes have a way of turning into slippery slopes. I shall listen carefully to the Minister, but I wanted to signal by this amendment that I am troubled.

[Lord Judge]

I support this amendment, as I have supported every one of my noble friend Lord Anderson’s amendments to the Bill. Every time he has spoken during our debates and said things that are agreeable to the Government, he is wise and elegant—I cannot think of all the many complimentary adjectives that have rightly been paid to him. When he raises a point with which the Government do not agree, can they please reflect that he is wise, elegant and so on and so forth, so that his submissions to the Government are taken with the seriousness they merit? I entirely support the noble Lord’s expressions of anxiety about the breadth of this provision. If I may say so, we could make life much easier for everybody who has to administer it, not least the examining officer, if we just reflected on a way of amending it slightly.

I added my name to the noble Lord’s amendment. I support it. But I have listened to the debate this afternoon and I see that there are problems with it, in particular the problem raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who, as has just been said, is not now in her place. But we really could turn sub- paragraphs (6) and (7) into a much simpler piece of legislation by saying that an act is a hostile act if it is an act of serious crime and then at sub-paragraph (7)(d) defining serious crime—I know it is defined differently in different parts of terrorism legislation, but this is a new power, in effect producing a new scheme and a new way of administering it—if on conviction the offender would be liable to a term of imprisonment of two years. That, I think, would cover all the various matters raised earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, and it might make life much easier for everybody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge: the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is indeed wise and elegant in his words. As the noble Lord has explained, this group of amendments deals with the definition of “hostile act” in Schedule 3.

It is important to emphasise that the design of any new power should be specific to the threat it is seeking to mitigate. The scope of this power has been designed to do just that; namely, to mitigate the known threats from hostile state activity. The danger of these amendments, therefore, is that they will limit the scope of the power, thereby limiting the range of threats that it has been designed to combat.

For the benefit of the Committee, the ports powers under Schedule 3 will be used by examining officers at UK ports or the border area,

“for the purpose of determining whether the person appears to be a person who is, or has been, engaged in hostile activity”.

A person is engaged in hostile activity if they are,

“concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of a hostile act that is or may be … carried out for, or on behalf of, a State other than the United Kingdom, or … otherwise in the interests of a State other than the United Kingdom”.

Under this schedule, a hostile act is defined as an act that,

“threatens national security … threatens the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, or … is an act of serious crime”.

By replacing “hostile act” with “serious crime”, these amendments would significantly narrow the range of hostile activity that these powers are designed to counter. It would undoubtedly limit the ability of our ports officers to detect, disrupt and deter hostile actors. Serious crime is defined in the Bill as being an offence which could reasonably be expected to result in,

“imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more, or … the conduct involves the use of violence, results in substantial financial gain or is conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose”.

Some of the activities which I believe noble Lords would expect to be captured through these new powers would not fall within the scope of the truncated definition of hostile activity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, explained earlier, some offences under the Official Secrets Act 1989 attract a maximum penalty of only two years’ imprisonment and may not involve the use of violence, result in financial gain or involve a large number of people acting in pursuit of a common purpose. Consequently, an examining officer would not be able to exercise Schedule 3 powers for the purpose of detecting, disrupting or deterring this type of hostile activity even if the activity threatens national security or could be prosecuted for offences under the Official Secrets Act. This is simply not acceptable.

There may even be occasions when we have intelligence to suggest that a person linked to hostile state activity is travelling to the UK for a hostile purpose but the intelligence we have is incomplete and the nature of the hostile purpose cannot be determined; therefore, we cannot assess whether the purpose is linked to a serious crime. In this circumstance, it would be very important to have a power to stop and examine them at the port to establish the nature of the hostile act.

As noble Lords will know, following the appalling acts in Salisbury, the Government are undertaking a review of legislation to combat hostile state activity. Hostile activity, by its very nature, is often covert and undertaken by foreign intelligence officers or their agents seeking to acquire sensitive information to gain an advantage over the United Kingdom and undermine our national security. On occasions this activity may not be considered criminal under the law as it stands; for example, if a foreign intelligence officer intended to travel to the UK to maintain or build a relationship with employees contracted to work on UK defence projects with the aim of acquiring sensitive information, this may not be a crime but it would be imperative to detect and disrupt this activity at the earliest opportunity, before irreversible damage to our national security occurred.

It is entirely plausible that a hostile actor should want to visit the UK in order to collect classified documents from an agent who had committed acts of espionage on their behalf. It is not a crime for the hostile actor to receive these documents and leave the country but, although the individual has not committed a crime, a Schedule 3 examination would enable an examining officer to make a determination as to whether they have been engaged in a hostile act. An examination would also allow the examining officer to remove the classified documents from the hostile actor, preventing the disclosure of potentially damaging information.

Even though the purpose of a Schedule 3 examination is to make a determination as to whether the actor has been engaged in a hostile act, exercise of the power may provide a number of secondary benefits. In instances such as the example I have just talked about, it would provide the first leads into an investigation to detect who the agent is—if we did not already know—and prevent the documents from ever being disclosed. These investigations may or may not lead to future prosecutions. It is therefore right to give the police the power to investigate hostile state activity, even at a preliminary stage before we have reasonable suspicion that a foreign intelligence officer has committed an offence. I know that noble Lords do not really think that the police should not have the power to stop someone who is from, or acting on behalf of, a foreign intelligence service as they enter or leave the United Kingdom.

If we were to accept these amendments, traditional behaviours undertaken by hostile states which have the potential to have such a detrimental effect would fall out of scope of the power and we would not be able to detect, disrupt or deter them. I put it to noble Lords that such activity should not go unchallenged. The definition of “hostile act” is necessarily broad to ensure that the powers capture the full range of activities which hostile actors engage in. We recognise the concerns that have been raised and I reassure the Committee that these were considered in the drafting of Schedule 3. This is why we have explicitly restricted the definition to an act that is carried out for, or on behalf of, or otherwise in the interests of, a state other than the United Kingdom.

I also recognise the concerns about the term,

“economic well-being of the United Kingdom”.

As has been pointed out, there may be instances where an act undertaken by a hostile state actor threatens that economic well-being yet does not threaten our national security; it is also true for acts of serious crime. Economic well-being, like national security, is a term already used in UK legislation. The intention of this limb of the definition is to ensure that these powers can be used to mitigate hostile acts which could damage the country’s critical infrastructure or disrupt energy supplies to the UK. For example, if an employee in the banking sector of the City of London discovered a serious vulnerability in computer networks and shared this information with a hostile state, it would drastically undermine confidence in the City of London and cost the UK economy millions, if not billions.

I hope that with these explanations, the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate, including the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who made her remarks earlier.

I asked the Minister whether she could give another example of the police being given strong, coercive powers for the purpose of determining whether people are acting in a way which may be undesirable but which is perfectly lawful under the law of the land. I do not think that I had an answer and, if there is no answer, I would suggest that the Bill as written constitutes a new and very dangerous departure. That is the point of principle behind this amendment and, with great respect to the Minister, she did not address it in her reply. I hope that the Minister will consider this carefully because my concerns, as she has heard, are shared by lawyers far more distinguished than I—and not only by lawyers.

As to the pragmatic solution, the Minister has heard suggestions as to how the scope of this power could be reduced in a way that achieves its objectives in a manner more consistent with the principle of legality. I hope that she will deliberate further on those suggestions. I would be more than happy to discuss them with her but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 66 withdrawn.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 3rd December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

Clause 4 inserts, in new Section 58B of the Terrorism Act 2000:

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for entering, or remaining in, the designated area”.


We have been told by the Government that the wording in this new section does not mean exactly what it says and that the burden of proof that they had a reasonable excuse will not rest with the person entering or remaining in the designated area. However, the Government have so far resisted the idea that, if that is the case, it would be better that this new section actually said what it apparently means—which, I understand from the Government, is that the person concerned would have to provide only some evidence that they had a legitimate reason for being in the designated area and it would then be for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that was not the case for the defence to fail.

Our amendment intends to set that out as the position and puts in the Bill wording used in the Terrorism Act 2000, which the Government say is what would apply, rather than the wording on its own in new Section 58B, which I quoted earlier. The amendment would add to new Section 58B the following words:

“If the person adduces evidence which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to the matter, the court or jury shall assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not”.


The wording in our amendment clarifies what the proposed wording currently in the Bill actually means when it refers to the person charged having to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for entering or remaining in the designated area. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment—or, if they cannot, will agree to bring forward their own wording at Third Reading. Surely it is in everyone’s interests to make legislation as clear as possible to all in its meaning. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, the burden of proof should be on the prosecution and should be seen to be on the prosecution. Lawyers who know where to find Section 118 of the Terrorism Act 2000 may be untroubled by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. However, the existence of that section is not widely known. Indeed, only last week I found myself in that great deliberative assembly, Twitter, correcting the damaging and widespread misapprehension, advanced in good faith, that the Terrorism Acts reverse the burden of proof. I support the idea behind the amendment, although—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would accept—if it is to produce clarity, it would have to be applied a little more widely to a variety of existing offences under the Terrorism Act, including Sections 57 and 58.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I agree with both noble Lords. The amendment seems to be common sense. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, said, while Section 118(2) places the burden of proof on the prosecution to disprove the reasonable excuse, you have to hunt pretty far to find it. Currently it does appear, if one takes an ordinary, common-sense meaning from what the legislation says, that the burden is actually reversed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, although, I hope, properly grateful for Amendment 11, I support Amendment 15. Also in this group, I support Amendment 12 on peacebuilding, and the Government’s Amendment 18 on the sunset period, subject to Amendment 19 in my name. I shall take them in that order.

Amendment 15 tracks the Government’s Amendment 11 with one important difference—the carving out of conduct rather than the provision of a reasonable excuse—in that it echoes the amendment that I tabled in Committee with the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I do not believe that Amendment 15 makes the job of the police or the CPS any more difficult. Where it is not clear whether the reason advanced for travel is true, there should be no more obstacle to a suspected person being questioned and, if necessary, prosecuted under this scheme than there is under the Government’s Amendment 11. However, the listed grounds are reasons to travel to dangerous areas, not excuses. The Australian law recognises this and so should ours. The only fault in Amendment 15, if I may say so, is that it makes no reference to peacebuilding, which brings me to Amendment 12, which I support and to which I would have put my name had I been alert enough to see it in time.

As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others have said, there are charitable groups based in this country with a remarkable track record in peacebuilding and conflict resolution, which might include talking to or negotiating with active terrorist groups in areas where conflict is never far away. I should like to share the conviction of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that their work can be described as humanitarian, but this should surely be put beyond doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said. Their efforts and even their successes are not always well publicised but they are no less useful and important for that.

I had the privilege of speaking for such groups for several years—notably the group Conciliation Resources—and helped them to initiate a dialogue with the Home Office, the purpose of which, perhaps partially achieved, was to allay some of their fears of contravening the existing anti-terrorism law. However, the new designated area offence could hit some of their most sensitive and valuable work if they are not exempted from its scope or at least, as a second best, brought expressly within the scope of reasonable excuse. That is why my amendment in Committee, now overtaken by Amendments 11 and 15, made express reference to peacebuilding.

It is hard enough for charitable trustees to manage the physical risks to their staff of this kind of work, and it would be wrong to add to those risks the possibility of being convicted or imprisoned in the UK for doing it. Surely no one engaged in such work would really be prosecuted for it, so why not acknowledge that in the law?

I turn to Amendments 18 and 19. Once an area has been designated, it will be a brave Secretary of State who gives priority to its dedesignation. It is important to acknowledge the freedom of travellers, including adventurous ones, to go to places that are still at least moderately dangerous, but one can imagine how aversion to risk might in practice be given priority.

For that reason, in Committee I tabled an amendment that would have provided for annual review. It was a little more elaborate than Amendment 17 but with the same aim in mind. Although that way of doing it did not find favour with the Government, I welcome the sunset provision in Amendment 18, as well as the Minister’s words regarding the rigour of the review that will take place under new Section 58C(4). My reservation, which I have expressed in Amendment 19, is that three years seems too long to wait for the sunset.

It is hard to believe that annual review would be unduly onerous, as the experience of Australia and Denmark has been that very few areas are designated and as one would hope that, if the Government were doing their job, the degree or risk attached to those areas at any given moment would be well known. However, Amendment 19 goes for the very moderate option, as I hope your Lordships will see it, of two years.

I am sure that the Minister will respond that the provision is modelled on the Australian criminal code, which provides at Section 119.3(4) for a three-year sunset. However, the Australian law has other protections that are not present in Clause 4: a ban on designating an entire country; an express duty on the Minister to revoke a designation if he ceases to be satisfied that a listed terrorist organisation is engaging in hostile activity there; and provision for Australia’s Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—the equivalent of the Intelligence and Security Committee of this Parliament—to conduct its own review of declarations.

Therefore, I invite the Minster, whether today or subsequently, to look kindly on what I venture to call an improvement to the welcome Amendment 18.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 3rd December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, Amendment 28 repeats an amendment I proposed in Committee on behalf of the JCHR, which gathered considerable support from the noble Lords, Lord Anderson, Lord Judd and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, as well as my Front Bench and the Labour Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said that he was,

“not convinced that the Government have got the proportionality of this right”.— [Official Report, 31/10/18, col. 1409.]

That has encouraged me to raise the issue again.

This amendment is in connection with the search and entry provisions. It would provide that, rather than allowing search and entry to assess risk, it would be far more specifically to assess whether the subject of a warrant was in breach of the notification requirements applying to him.

The Minister said that the provision was proportional. The terminology used in Committee included “home visits” and the police “keeping in touch”, which sounds much gentler than a power to enter and search under a warrant. I talked about what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, called the human element—the impact on an individual’s family—but, as other noble Lords pointed out, the impact is often much wider in such a situation.

We will consider the Prevent policy on the next day of Report and no doubt noble Lords will raise the importance of how a policy is perceived by the community affected. The infringement of the privacy of the individual and of the individual’s family, who I think are at risk of considerable distress, which is part of the Government’s proposals, is not just a matter of a lack of proportion. It also carries a significant risk of damaging, if not destroying, the trust of the community, which in turn impacts on everyone’s security.

I acknowledge that there has to be a warrant. I am sorry if this sounds cynical, but can we be confident that a magistrate will always ask for details of compliance or otherwise with the notification requirements on the part of the subject of a requested warrant? Will a magistrate ignore the police’s wish to go on a fishing expedition, if you like?

The Minister drew a comparison with registered sex offenders. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is here, perhaps I should let him speak for himself if he wishes and intends to do so, having pursued this with Professor Clive Walker. I am looking to see whether he is going to because if not then I am going to quote Professor Walker—I am being told to go ahead. I am grateful to him for pursuing this matter. Professor Walker looked at the comparison with people on the sex offender register and distinguishes this situation from that one because of the additional ways of mitigating the risk where terrorist offenders are concerned. He also made the point that if he had realised what the provisions applying to sex offenders were, he would have been critical then. As he says,

“a bad precedent should not be used as a basis for more bad law … I still argue that it is unwarranted to treat terrorism offenders in this way in comparison to sex offenders because of the different designs now being applied to terrorism offenders … in terms of their periods of endurance and also possibilities of review”.

He refers particularly to the extent of the respective orders—currently scrutiny over identity, residence, travel— and to the fact that the Bill imposes requirements as to mobile phone details, email addresses, vehicles, banks and identification documents. He says:

“If such information is provided, all of which can be checked against external records, should this not reduce the residual risk and so reduce the need for entry in order to check ‘risk’? … If these extra demands do not adequately reduce risk, what is their value?”


That is another way of asking the question that I asked in Committee on whether the notification requirements in themselves were insufficient. If the answer is no, they are sufficient—and I would expect the Government to say that—then what is the justification for this, as I say, potentially damaging provision? I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment for the reasons that the noble Baroness has given. The only additional point that I would make, and I made it in Committee as well, is whether the person to whom the warrant relates being in breach of notification requirements constitutes a sufficient ground for the entry and search of the home of a TPIM subject—among, one must assume, the most dangerous of terrorists or suspected terrorists in this country. It is a little hard, at least for me, to see why it should not be sufficient in relation to the prisoners and those remanded in custody who are dealt with under this part of the Bill.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness pointed out, Clause 13 confers on police the power to enter and search the home address of a registered terrorist offender, under the authority of a warrant issued by a justice, for the purpose of assessing the risk the offender poses. Amendment 28 would narrow the purpose for which the power of entry and search may be operated, limiting it to assessing whether the offender is in breach of the notification requirements. There was a good debate on this in Committee, so I will not detain the House by setting out again the underlying purpose of the terrorism notification requirements, and their importance in helping the police to manage the risk posed by those convicted of serious terrorism offences. However, it may assist your Lordships if I briefly rehearse the purpose of this power, and why it is needed in its current form.

The purpose of the power of entry and search, as currently drafted and as intended by the Government, is to allow the police to assess the risk posed by a convicted terrorist who is subject to the notification requirements. The police consider that home visits are an important tool in managing and risk-assessing registered terrorist offenders during the time they are subject to the notification regime. Such visits allow them to ascertain whether the offender does in fact reside at the address they have notified to the police, and to check their compliance with other aspects of the notification regime. Home visits are also helpful, as they allow a broader assessment of risk to be made. They allow the police to identify any other factors that might contribute to the overall risk an offender poses to themselves or their community, and their risk of reoffending. This might include their general living conditions, as well as any signs of mental health decline, or of drug or alcohol misuse.

It seems an entirely appropriate purpose for the police to wish to keep in touch with a registered terrorist offender. Indeed, given that the police are charged with protecting us all from such serious offenders, it would surely be irresponsible to do otherwise. However, Amendment 28 would mean that the new power could not be used for that purpose. The police will, of course, always seek to conduct such visits on a voluntary basis and the clause requires that this approach must be attempted at least twice before a warrant is sought. A positive and co-operative relationship is always preferable, and leads to more effective management of risk. However, a power of entry and search is needed because this is not always the reality, and registered terrorist offenders will often not comply with such home visits voluntarily. They will often be generally unco-operative and refuse to engage constructively with the police in conducting necessary checks.

In previous debates, I have highlighted that an identical power exists in relation to registered sex offenders. It was introduced by the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, by the then Labour Government. Indeed, the then Home Office Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said at the time in reference to sex offenders that,

“we are now of the view that further powers are required to enable the police to gather all the information they need about a small but, it has to be said, determined group of offenders who, while in apparent compliance with the notification requirements, do all they can to frustrate the risk assessment process”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/06; col. 678.)

I can only echo the noble Lord’s words.

The police report that their experience with registered sex offenders, as a result of this power being available, is that the offenders will normally comply voluntarily and that they are able to build a far more constructive relationship with them. This is simply because those offenders know that if they refuse to engage on a voluntary basis the police will be able to return with a warrant. We anticipate this power bringing similar benefits in the management of registered terrorist offenders, who are equally in a particular category of risk, such that monitoring of this kind is appropriate following a conviction. I cannot see that there is a rational argument for why the police should have less effective powers to monitor the risk posed by registered terrorist offenders than they do for registered sex offenders. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment in light of this explanation.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

Before the Minister sits down, perhaps she can explain whether she is saying that, if there is no rational basis for providing this power in a different way from the way it was done in the case of sex offenders, the TPIM Act 2011 was not rational in how it approached the issue, and what does she say about that parallel with the TPIM Act?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I would not like to say that the TPIM Act was not rational. I can write to the noble Lord to outline the significant differences here, but I think that the parallel with sex offenders that I posed is pertinent.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this is an issue that we debated in Committee when an independent review of Prevent was called for. The Prevent programme introduced by the Labour Government in 2003 has undoubtedly done much valuable work. My moving of this amendment should in no way be seen as not recognising that fact. As when we last debated this issue, I pay tribute to all those who work to keep us safe, to divert people away from a life of terrorism and to support people who contribute positively to the community. We should all recognise the good work that has been done. I am not aware of any specific problems that give rise to concern, but that does not in itself negate the fact that it is good practice to review matters.

The amendment does not specify who should carry out the review. I would be happy for it to be placed under the remit of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. It seems preferable to do that rather than appoint another person to carry out the review. Prevent has not been the subject of an independent review; I very much believe that the programme would benefit from that sort of oversight.

Clearly, questions have been raised over the programme’s operation and effectiveness. Some are justified, but other criticisms have been stirred up deliberately to undermine the programme. I see my amendment calling for review not as seeking to undermine the good work that has been done but as a sound, sensible, careful look at an area of policy and a programme that deals with matters of the utmost concern to the country as a whole and to individual communities.

In addition to the review, my amendment calls for a report to be laid before Parliament within 18 months of the Bill becoming an Act, and for the Secretary of State to produce a statement to accompany the report. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, we should have pride in the achievements of the many excellent people who work locally in Prevent, and in the increased transparency that has been a notable feature of the past few years. I have in mind not only the helpful publication of statistics but recent initiatives such as the staging in the West Midlands of simulated Channel panel meetings through which outsiders have been brought in to witness the process of decision-making.

As the noble Lord, Lord West, has indicated, triumphalism about the successes of Prevent would be quite out of place. In its report last month, the Intelligence and Security Committee noted that the failure to pick up attack planning by the Parsons Green tube bomber, Ahmed Hassan, despite him having been an active Channel case, highlighted what the committee called,

“deep-rooted issues in the administration”,

of Prevent. Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu described Prevent in an interview this February, when he was senior national co-ordinator for counterterrorism, as “hugely controversial”. He went on to say:

“Prevent, at the moment, is owned by the Government, but I think it should be outside central government altogether ... Rather than the Government handing over a sum of money and then it becoming state-sponsored with accusations of demonising communities, it should be locally generated. We have gotten all of that messaging the wrong way around, it should be grassroots up”.


I mention this to encourage noble Lords to avoid complacency on this subject and because the Minister quite rightly expressed in Committee her strong respect for Mr Basu’s views. Perhaps it shows that the best of us are not monolithic in our views; with great respect to my noble friend Lord Carlile, that is true also of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, whose recent book is both nuanced and constructive in its approach.

The legitimate questions raised by Mr Basu could be multiplied: how should Prevent relate to other safeguarding mechanisms on the one hand and to the Government’s Counter-Extremism Strategy on the other? How robust are the mechanisms for measuring success? To what extent should concerns derived from Prevent contacts be shared with counterterrorism police and others? Decisions as to the future direction of Prevent are of course for Ministers. It was encouraging to hear from my noble friend Lord Carlile that the Prevent oversight board might be showing signs of renewed life. But independent review of the operation of Prevent by a security-cleared person, based on the widest possible engagement with those affected, could help to inform those decisions. It could also provide much-needed public reassurance about an initiative which is so hotly debated that it has been described as “5% of the budget and 85% of the conversation”.

As Mr Basu said in February:

“Government will not thank me for saying this, but an independent reviewer of Prevent … would be a healthy thing”.


I agree, and I hope your Lordships will too.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, I do not disagree with much of what has been said by my noble friend Lord Anderson. However, I have some concerns about a proliferation of independent reviewers. My suggestion to the Government is that, if there is to be an independent review of Prevent, it should be done by the new Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation who I understand is about to be appointed. After all, Prevent is part of the four-strand counterterrorism policy; it seems logical that the independent reviewer should be able to consider all strands of that policy. My only reservation would be if there were serious national security implications of any such review. That said, all independent reviewers have had to be “subtle and nuanced”, to adopt a phrase from my noble friend, about national security issues. This has been taken into account in the production of all reviews.

Of course I accept that Prevent is not a perfect policy. All policies can be improved, particularly in counterterrorism. If it would give greater confidence to the public, or rather—as I suspect the public are not too worried about this—if it would give greater confidence to those who spend a lot of time in the Palace of Westminster and the couple of square miles around it, then I see no disadvantage in an independent review being carried out by somebody already vetted and expert on counterterrorism policy as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

32A: After Clause 20, insert the following new Clause—
“Amendment to the criteria for proscription
For section 3(4) of the Terrorism Act 2000, substitute—“(4) The Secretary of State may exercise the power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an organisation only if—(a) he or she is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that it is or has been concerned in terrorism; and(b) he or she reasonably believes that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, for the organisation to be proscribed.(4A) For the purpose of subsection (4), the public includes the public of a country other than the United Kingdom.””

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, the amendments in this group have their origins in a fact admitted by the Government, published in more than one of my reports as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and, I am afraid, mentioned more than once to your Lordships: at least 14 of the 74 organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, not including the 14 Northern Irish groups, are not concerned in terrorism and therefore do not meet the minimum statutory condition for proscription.

The question is: what do we do about that mismatch between law and practice? The pertinence of that question is greatly increased by the fact that a major theme of the Bill is to widen the scope, both substantive and geographical, of the proscription offences—membership, inviting support and so on.

Amendment 32B was designed to apply the law we have, by providing for an annual review of the activities of proscribed organisations—as happened routinely until four years ago—and the de-proscription of those lacking a statutory basis for continued listing. That principled course was chosen by Theresa May, as Home Secretary in 2013, when the irregularity was brought to her attention. With Amendment 32B, action on the conclusion of such reviews would be required by statute and could not be defeated by Foreign Office policy priorities, as was the case on that occasion, and indeed previous ones, judging from my noble friend Lady Manningham-Buller’s speech in Committee.

Since that seemed not to be enough, I tabled Amendment 32A in an attempt to make things easier. This would allow organisations to be proscribed if they are or have been concerned in terrorism, so long as the Secretary of State reasonably believes it necessary for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism.

That two-stage formulation is tried and tested. It was used in the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 and the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. It would allow the continued proscription of groups which have a powerful history and terrorist brand, but in respect of which ongoing terrorist activity cannot be demonstrated. This could be particularly useful in Northern Ireland, where groups that have laid down their arms do not satisfy the current test but, depending on the Secretary of State’s assessment, could satisfy the new one. More fundamentally, it would have the merit of ensuring that the Government’s actions in relation to proscription are in accordance with the law; currently, they are not. This would be a useful example to set the rest of us.

I convey to the House the apologies of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who has had to leave his place and I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, to which I have added my name. I really am intrigued to hear what the Minister will say about the fact raised by the noble Lord that at least 14 organisations still proscribed by the Government are not involved in terrorism and are therefore effectively proscribed illegally. The noble Lord’s amendments are designed to rectify that situation, requiring the Government to take action once a review has determined whether organisations currently proscribed should be proscribed or not.

It is not just a question of the organisations themselves; going back to previous measures in the Bill, anybody who supports these organisations could be convicted of a criminal offence, even though they are supporting an organisation that should not legally be proscribed. I am also very interested to hear from my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench why they would not support these amendments were the noble Lord to divide the House. We certainly would support him were he to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, the first thing to say is that organisations can apply to be de-proscribed; that should be on the record in this part of our debate. As I understand it, only one organisation has applied to be de-proscribed in recent years: the People’s Mujahedin of Iran. It was de-proscribed. The decision before the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, or POAC, was contested on appeal by—

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

I did not mean to interrupt the noble Lord mid-sentence but, on a point of information, the Minister may like to confirm that at least two other organisations have applied to be de-proscribed: the International Sikh Youth Federation and the Red Hand Commando in Northern Ireland. De-proscription of the International Sikh Youth Federation was achieved when the Home Secretary failed to defend the legal proceedings. I know nothing about the progress of the application from the Red Hand Commando and it would be helpful if the Minister could enlighten us.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I am very grateful to my noble friend, who is more up to date than I am. My understanding is that the only fully contested application was from the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, which won in front of POAC. The Government appealed and the Court of Appeal issued a judgment comprehensively disagreeing with the Government. The People’s Mujahedin of Iran—or the NCRI, which includes the PMOI—now functions openly throughout Europe, although its leader, Mrs Rajavi, is not allowed by the Home Office to enter the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Pannick and I remember this to our cost, because we were involved in a Supreme Court case on that very subject.

There is a method of seeking de-proscription. It is expensive and quite clunky, it has to be accepted. Secondly, I absolutely agree with my noble friend that there may be some organisations that have almost no membership, which do not have the resources to apply for de-proscription, and which individuals would not wish to expose themselves as being interested in by applying for de-proscription on their behalf.

However, there is another point I wanted to mention. This is a very subtle matter, particularly in Northern Ireland. It is very difficult to read the minds of some former paramilitaries, both big and small. For all we know, they may have reasons for wishing to remain proscribed. My concern about Amendments 32A and 32B relates to the wording of proposed new subsection (6A)(d), which requires the Government to “publish each such decision”. Having been involved from time to time in the area we are talking about, I believe that would potentially raise compromises for national security and undermine the stability of Northern Ireland, if that part of the amendment was required. That said, the addition of the words,

“that it is or has been concerned in terrorism”,

in Amendment 32A, which I understand from my noble friend was tabled in the last fortnight or so, provides some welcome clarity. I will give way, and then I will continue briefly.

--- Later in debate ---

I have set out the Government’s position at length on these issues. I have given a clear commitment today that the Government do not regard proscriptions as fixed, and that if the Government become aware of fresh information which casts serious doubt on whether proscription remains appropriate for a given group, this information will be given serious consideration. On that note, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Paddick, Lord Carlile, and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for their interventions, and to the Minister for her response, although its content was disappointing. I will respond briefly to the principal points that she made.

The Minister undertook or indicated that, if it came to light through fresh information that a proscription was inappropriate, then it would be reviewed. She said a lot about balance, discretion and appropriateness, but this really is not the area we are in. We are in the area of a hard legal requirement only if an organisation is concerned in terrorism. Is there even any question of getting into that area of discretion, balance and appropriateness? What these amendments seek to address is the mismatch between what the law requires and what the Government do.

The Minister raised the prospect of organisations that might engage, disengage and then re-engage, and I am sympathetic to that. It is precisely the difficulty I was seeking to address with Amendment 32A. That is the one which, by making it a condition to be concerned or to have been concerned in terrorism, elides and removes that difficulty. I would think it was helpful in addressing the problem to which the Minister referred.

The Minister said that annual review is not needed to ensure justice. I say with great respect to her that the evidence during the past 15 years is that nothing else has a hope of ensuring justice. It is not enough to rely just on the ability to apply for deproscription, because, as we have all heard, very few organisations over those years have applied to be deproscribed and one can understand why. It is very expensive. The PMOI case to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred cost some £300,000—perhaps that is lawyers for you. Someone has to put their head above the parapet and say that they want to apply. Some organisations for their own reasons might not want to apply. In any event, what comfort is that to the individual who is disrupted or investigated by police for possibly being connected with a terrorist organisation and who would never have been the person who would have applied for deproscription?

The Minister insisted particularly on Northern Ireland, where, like my noble friend Lord Carlile, I have had the privilege of spending a good deal of time over recent years with the security services. Surely at the root of the Northern Ireland settlement is respect for the rule of law. Continuing to ignore the law, which is what the Government are doing and propose to continue to do, is no substitute for enforcing and, if necessary, changing it, as the amendments propose.

The injustice about the law as it applies is that it exposes people in Northern Ireland, Great Britain and, after Clause 6 becomes law, in other countries as well to a range of police and prosecutorial powers in relation to activities that Parliament never intended should be criminal. The names of the groups that do not meet the statutory condition for proscription are not known to me, and I very much doubt that a secret list of them has been provided to police or prosecutors in the United Kingdom or that such a list would be provided to police or prosecutors in other countries. In those circumstances, there can be no reassurance that the law will be properly applied in practice.

I would have liked to divide the House on these amendments, not least because they concern the whole insecure basis on which much of the Bill is constructed—I am thinking particularly of Clauses 1, 2 and 6—but having heard from the respective Front Benches, I suspect that that could be a futile exercise. I shall not press my amendments and hope that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, have constructively suggested, they may find favour in another form or on another day.

Amendment 32A withdrawn.