UK Border Force
Paul Goggins Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We will, indeed, be pressing ahead with the establishment of a border policing command inside the National Crime Agency. I am also pleased to be able to tell the House that the new chief executive of UKBA, Rob Whiteman, who has been in place for five weeks, has already done a lot of work in assessing what changes are required to ensure UKBA staff operate the maximum level of security.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary confirm that all airports, including Manchester, were included in the pilot? If so, can she confirm whether those who run Manchester airport and the airlines that operate there were made aware of the pilot?
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Paul Goggins Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash).
I will focus on new clause 14, which stands in my name and the names of the five other Members mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) who served on the Joint Committee on the Draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills, which was appointed earlier this year and whose work on scrutinising the Bills has been mentioned. I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks about the Committee’s work, as I am sure are my colleagues. We are also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, whom I congratulate on his recent appointment to his important new responsibilities.
The Minister referred to the fact that he and I have begun to engage with each other regularly on these issues. What we are learning is that there are no perfect solutions to these problems; they are difficult and challenging, and often we are looking for the least worst option rather than the perfect option. That is the spirit in which I make my remarks this evening.
The six Members of this House whom I mentioned were joined by six highly regarded and experienced Members of the other place on a Committee that was expertly chaired by Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. We met on 11 occasions, had seven public evidence sessions and took evidence from a wide range of experts. New clause 14 reflects our conclusions and recommendations.
For reasons of principle as well as practicality, our starting point as a Committee was that a maximum period of 14 days’ pre-charge detention is adequate, save in exceptional circumstances. For some members of the Committee—certainly for myself—that represented a change of mind, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda pointed out. Despite all the fierce debates that we have had over the years, I and many colleagues have had to face the fact that detention beyond 14 days has only ever been used on 11 occasions, and not at all since 2007. However, the majority of the witnesses from whom we took evidence acknowledged that contingency arrangements were required for extension beyond 14 days in exceptional circumstances. That, of course, is the view of the Government as well, as the Home Secretary made clear in her evidence to the Committee, and again on 3 October in her letter to Lord Armstrong, to which the Minister referred. In that letter, she set out the Government’s response to the Committee’s report and stated that
“it is sensible to acknowledge that longer than 14 days may be required, and to plan accordingly.”
The question of the best way to make the necessary powers available remains. As we have heard, the Government are in favour of new primary legislation—a full Bill, to go through all stages in both Houses. The Committee’s view was that that route was both unsatisfactory and unreliable, and it recommended an order-making power for the Home Secretary, albeit with a number of important safeguards.
In her letter to the Committee of 3 October, the Home Secretary set out the three broad scenarios that the Minister has described. I will not read from the letter, because he has already read into the record the detail of what she said, but in summary, the three scenarios are: a situation in which there is a heightened threat and a likelihood of many and extensive investigations; an ongoing investigation that is so complex that 14 days is not sufficient; and a situation in which arrests have been made, the investigation is ongoing and it is clear that there is insufficient time for it to be completed within the maximum 14-day period. Frankly, I think the Home Secretary’s assessment of those three scenarios is rather more reasoned and balanced than the one provided by Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, who made clear his view that extension beyond 14 days could only ever be justified in the context of what he described as a “national catastrophe”. The balance of the evidence given to the Committee was that that was far too extreme a view to be practically helpful.
The objective of the Committee and the Government is the same, but the question is how to extend beyond 14 days. The Committee concluded that the route of primary legislation was simply too risky and uncertain to be relied upon in what, in any event, would be extremely challenging circumstances. I draw the Minister’s attention in particular to the third scenario that the Home Secretary outlined in her letter, in which arrests have been made, an ongoing investigation is being carried out and the clock is ticking. Perhaps nine, ten or 11 days of questioning have already passed, and only three or four days are left before the maximum is reached.
It is as well to remind the House that during the course of our taking evidence, a number of arrests were made under terrorism legislation in Northern Ireland. Two suspects were held for 13 days and then released without charge, and one suspect was charged on the 14th day of his detention. We are talking not only about matters of theory and principle but about real-life situations that are ongoing in the current climate.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
In the example that the right hon. Gentleman has just used, we do not know, of course, whether the police could have charged before 14 days. That they charged on the 14th day does not mean that they did not have the evidence to charge on the seventh day.
Paul Goggins
I respect the hon. Gentleman and he and I have had exchanges on this issue, but I contest strongly his assertion. When an ongoing investigation requires detention to be extended beyond seven days for any further period up to 14 days, there is very close scrutiny by the courts. It would be impossible for the police to detain a suspect beyond seven days—for 10, 13 or 14 days—without the court’s explicit approval. A court would certainly not approve the detention of somebody who could have been charged earlier, so I completely refute his argument.
The Committee had a number of specific concerns about the primary legislation route. First—others have touched on this important point—parliamentary scrutiny of such primary legislation would be so limited as to be rendered completely unsatisfactory and ineffective. By definition, such a Bill would be fast-tracked through the House, with very little time for debate. The circumstances in which the legislation would be introduced would dramatically limit what Ministers could say without jeopardising the suspect’s right to a fair trial, or without compromising national security.
I am sure that the Minister would come to the House very well briefed on what he could and could not say—he usually does, and any such future debate would not be an exception—but neither he nor anyone could guarantee that a Member of the House would not say something that could lead to a subsequent trial being compromised. I ask hon. Members present to put themselves in this position: what if 50 or 100 of their constituents had just been blown up and they had to participate in a debate on a request that the suspect who is potentially responsible for those explosions is held for longer than 14 days? We would all be exercised in that situation and might be prone to say something out of place, which would be reported in the media and lead to further speculation that, in turn, could compromise a trial. Both Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, and Keir Starmer, the current Director of Public Prosecution, told the Committee that putting too much information into the public domain could prejudice a fair trial. Alternatively, so little information might be given by the Minister in the context of the debate that the whole process would be completely meaningless.
The Home Secretary is right to draw a distinction between a debate and a decision on the principle of extending the powers beyond 14 days and the practical application of those powers in each individual case. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) reminded the House earlier, the application is a matter entirely for the courts and not for Parliament. However, in practice, particularly in relation to the third scenario that the Home Secretary gave, the debate on the principle and the debate on the practical application in an individual case would become very blurred. There is a real danger of confusion between the role of Parliament and the responsibilities of the court. Parliament could be asked to vote on legislation, and within days, the court has to decide whether that legislation can be applied in a specific case in specific circumstances. In paragraph 84 of its report, the Constitution Committee concluded:
“It is ill-advised to create a decision-making process that requires Parliament and the judiciary to ask and answer similar questions within a short space of time—or at all. Far from being a system of checks and balances, this is a recipe for confusion that places on Parliament tasks that it cannot effectively fulfil and arguably risks undermining the rights of fair trial for the individuals concerned.”
That is an important point. The close proximity of the parliamentary debate and decision, and the application in an individual case, is fraught with difficulties.
Then, of course, there is the practicality of emergency legislation, which others have touched on. Normal business could be set aside if Parliament was sitting, but there is the question of what happens if it is not sitting but in recess. The Clerks advise us that a minimum of 48 hours would be required to recall Parliament during a recess. Of course, it was recalled very speedily this summer in the aftermath of the riots, but that was for a statement and debate, not to pass legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), a former Home Secretary, advised the Committee that after the worst atrocity in the history of the troubles in Northern Ireland, when 29 people were killed and more than 200 were injured, it took nine days to reconvene Parliament. In the context of an ongoing investigation into particular suspects in a particularly urgent inquiry, that would make the whole process of primary legislation completely impractical.
Paul Goggins
I have enough confidence in the current holder of that position to know that he would set aside his personal opinion and deal with the legislation as he saw fit. It is interesting. I am asked about the Attorney-General and I am often asked about the Home Secretary. It sometimes appears that Opposition Members have more confidence in the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary than some of their own colleagues, because we want them to have these powers to use when they are absolutely necessary. It is important to have that confidence.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I apologise for missing the earlier part of my right hon. Friend’s speech—I was at a meeting in another part of the building. I understand what he is saying, but very few other countries go beyond 14 days for detention periods and some go much less. Why does he think that we should legislate to allow an extension to 28 days?
Paul Goggins
My hon. Friend knows enough about this matter to know that we cannot draw simple comparisons between our system and other systems. Other systems sometimes appear to hold suspects for shorter periods when in fact they are held for longer periods. We have a system that reflects our own judicial culture but also recognises the fact that we face enormous threats and challenges from terrorists in this country, perhaps particularly in this city. We have had to work our way through this, but if he missed the earlier part of my speech, he will not have heard me say that I have had pause to reflect and that I have changed my mind. I think that 14 days should be the maximum in most circumstances, apart from the exceptional circumstances that I am referring to.
Paul Goggins
I shall give way one more time, but then I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion.
Mr Winnick
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I accept that he is a convert to 14 days, although I suspect that if we were debating 42 days, he would not necessarily be up on his feet protesting. On the point about the Attorney-General, are we really to believe—this is not a reflection on the Attorney-General in any Government—that if the Home Secretary told the Attorney-General, in the usual way that these things are done, that it was necessary to increase the 14 days in exceptional circumstances, the Attorney-General would say to the Home Secretary, “No”? It is unrealistic.
Paul Goggins
I do not accept that it is unrealistic. It would depend on the individual judgment of the Attorney-General linked to the judgment of the Home Secretary, who would have been briefed by the Security Service and others. On its own, it is not a total safeguard, but it is one among several, and I shall briefly go through the others. The Secretary of State would have to give a statement to both Houses as soon as possible. There would have to be a review by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation of any case in which a suspect was detained for more than 14 days. There would have to be an annual report by the Home Secretary listing any orders that had been made; that report would have to be debated and voted on in six weeks. Finally, the Director of Public Prosecutions would have to give his personal authorisation to any application to the High Court for a further warrant for detention. We know that that already happens in practice, but it should be on the face of the legislation. Members of the Joint Committee will be pleased that the Minister has tonight confirmed that he will introduce legislation to make the order-making power available during the Dissolution of Parliament, and that he has acknowledged the importance of an independent review of each case and of the personal authorisation of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Minister is a reasonable man who genuinely seeks to strike the right balance, but I believe that he has landed in the wrong place on this issue. His preferred route of primary legislation is too risky: time might be against him, and a subsequent trial might be prejudiced. This measure is exceptional, and we all hope that it will never have to be used, but if it is required, it is important that it be absolutely reliable and available as soon as possible.
The Committee’s recommendation respects the Government’s view that 14 days should be the normal maximum; frankly, I think that that is the settled view of Members on both sides of the House. That would give greater certainty in the face of extraordinary challenges, threats and attacks. On behalf of the six members of the Committee, I am happy to commend our recommendations to the Minister, and I hope that, even now, he will give them further consideration.
Tom Brake
I shall speak briefly in support of new clause 13. I welcomed the Government’s review of counter-terrorism security powers, which concluded that the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorists should be 14 days. I had anticipated that conclusion, but I had not anticipated that the review would further conclude that there might be exceptional circumstances in which it was necessary to increase the limit on pre-charge detention to 28 days. I cannot foresee the exceptional circumstances in which that might be needed, but I suppose that exceptional circumstances are, by definition, very hard to foresee.
Once the review had concluded that there might be such exceptional circumstances, measures had to be put in place, and I support the Government’s approach to fast-track primary legislation. My concern is that, if we had not done that, we might not have had in place the necessary safeguards to ensure that we would seek an extension to 28 days only in exceptional circumstances.
Clearly, this is not as elegant a solution as simply opting for 14 days. In requiring the additional step, we must ensure that pressure is maintained during the first 14 days to ensure that cases are very actively pursued. I have been told that, in some cases, there has not been quite the necessary degree of energy and commitment during those 14 days. Creating a significant hurdle for exceptional circumstances that requires a parliamentary legislative process should ensure that the necessary safeguards are operated, and it reflects the fact that we have not used 14 days since 2007.
I welcome what the Government are doing. They have identified the need for emergency legislation to be available not only while Parliament is sitting but when it is in recess, and the issue that was correctly identified with regard to Dissolution has also had to be addressed. I am happy to speak in favour of new clause 13 and to welcome it this evening.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
Paul Goggins Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Brokenshire
I have made clear the assurances that we have received. I know how the hon. Gentleman approaches these matters, and we have had numerous debates on numerous issues over the years. We have sought assurance. In preparing the Bill and the change to current practice, the Government have proceeded by seeking to assure ourselves that appropriate measures are in place to mitigate the risk posed by those who are suspected of being involved in terrorism but cannot be deported or prosecuted. As I have said consistently in relation to TPIMs, the legislation and the enhanced capabilities that the police and the Security Service will have ensure that there is a balanced package of measures that will operate as we intend. We are satisfied that the preparations in hand will lead to the changes envisaged by the Bill following Royal Assent.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for the visit that he made to the Metropolitan police, but his assurances this afternoon go nowhere near far enough. Since his visit to the Metropolitan police, has he had a chance or has his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had a chance to talk to the Prime Minister about the matter? On 11 August, when Parliament was recalled, I asked the Prime Minister to consider delaying or preferably cancelling the new provisions, particularly in relation to relocation. The Prime Minister said:
“I will certainly look very carefully and closely at what he says.”—[Official Report, 11 August 2011; Vol. 531, c. 1074.]
I have not had a chance to speak to the Prime Minister about that, but I am sure the Minister has. Will he update us?
Paul Goggins
it is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who always speaks with great wisdom and judgment on these issues, and who chairs the Home Affairs Committee.
I do not intend to detain the House long. We have already had a good debate on the amendments. The Minister quoted remarks that I made on Second Reading; he quoted them accurately, and I stand by them. I believe that the terrorist threat that we face is one that we are likely to face for a considerable time, that the emphasis should be on trying to reach a consensus on what we should do about it, and that, if we can reach such a consensus, we should make provisions and make them permanent.
I do not think for a minute that making provisions permanent means that everyone will forget about them; far from it. There would still be an opportunity for Government reviews if Ministers felt that that was appropriate. My right hon. Friend would still have his Select Committee inquiries, and he might well pick counter-terrorism as one of the issues to be discussed. I venture to suggest that no one would silence my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) if there were not an annual debate on the renewal of counter-terrorism provisions. All those things would still happen—and, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) pointed out, legislation could be repealed at any time. That option is always open to the Government. Therefore, in saying that I believe that such provisions should be made permanent, I do not believe that we should take our eye off the ball or stop considering and scrutinising those things, although I tend to agree with Lord Carlile that the sense that annual renewal is part of the scrutiny process is a “bit of a fiction”.
It is evident, however, that we do not have consensus on the Bill. In fact, I venture to suggest that the gap between us is larger now than when we started to consider the Bill. We have seen the issues that are at stake, so the differences between us are quite substantial.
I welcome the steps that the Minister has taken to bring forward the opportunity for review and renewal by each Parliament. I also welcome the amendment proposed my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) that calls for annual renewal. Even more important, I support her amendment 20, which would not allow any of the provisions to come into operation before the resources were clearly in place and the police and Security Service were signed up to that.
My amendment 8 is intended to be a practical amendment to give absolute clarity in relation to the implementation and commencement of the Bill. My concern throughout the passage of the Bill—on Second Reading, during the Committee stage, during the summer and still now—is that the Bill weakens protection. It is not as robust as what went before it. When we add that to the likely threat and risks that we will face next year, the year of the Olympics, which we celebrate and want to be a great success, we have a toxic mix that could put lives at risk.
Let us look at the facts. We know that 12 individuals are subject to control orders. We know from the Minister’s latest report to the House that three of those individuals already reside in the Metropolitan police area. We do not know where the other nine would call their home, but we suspect that a large number of them are from the London area, so that would be a huge move back to London by people who are very high risk individuals indeed, when terrorists who have been convicted of serious crimes are coming out of prison. I have had answers from Ministry of Justice Ministers showing that 45 convicted terrorists will have a release date in 2010-12, or at least that is the earliest release date. Add those potential 45 to the potential 12 and all their associates, and we have a substantial risk. To take that risk when we could delay the implementation of this Bill is a risk too far.
Bob Stewart
Surely anyone under a control order or under TPIMs is under surveillance. It would be very silly for someone under surveillance to do something related to terrorism because it might be found out. I would have thought that, once someone was under TPIMs or under control orders, their chances of being an active terrorist were hugely reduced. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?
Paul Goggins
I commend the hon. Gentleman for his earlier comments on surveillance, the need to ensure that people are properly trained and the need not to pretend that we could introduce the level of skill that is required in a very short time. It takes time to train an individual. There is no perfect solution, because someone who is under surveillance can, if they are very skilled, slip that surveillance until such time as the people carrying out the surveillance catch up with them.
Bob Stewart
Some people have got away from control orders, and that is likely to happen again under TPIMs.
Paul Goggins
If the hon. Gentleman is referring to people who have absconded from their control order, I think he will remember from our discussions in Committee that that relates principally to the very early days of control orders. From recollection, there has not been an abscondence for four years, and that related largely to foreign nationals who were the subject of control orders. However, he made a powerful point earlier on the need to ensure that people are properly trained to carry out surveillance.
Given the toxic mix that I described, on 11 August I raised with the Prime Minister the possibility of delaying this Bill—certainly some elements of it in relation to relocation. He said that he would look “carefully and closely” at what I said. I have written to him since. I have not yet had a reply but I hope that I will soon. I will look carefully at his argument if he, as the Minister earlier suggested he would, sticks to the Government’s current position, because I think that that is a risk too far.
I am happy to pay tribute to the principled position that the hon. Member for Cambridge holds and sticks to doggedly. It is different from the principled position that I hold but, because he is consistent it allows us to have a good debate. He accused me of using amendment 8 as a last-ditch attempt to keep control orders going. I humbly put it to him that that is not the case. I believe that the risks associated with the early introduction of this weakened legislation, in a year of great risk, are too great. I join hon. Members on both sides of the House when I put public safety above all else.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Listening to the debate and arguments about the comparative merits and demerits of TPIMs compared with control orders, and listening to the exchanges on whether a sunset clause for five years is better than annual review and renewal, I am reminded of what Talleyrand is meant to have said about Voltaire and Robespierre: when I think of either, I prefer the other. We are all caught in a situation where there are clearly problems with control orders, but we should be under no illusions: there will be serious problems with TPIMs too—problems of principle and of practice.
May I deal first with the sunset clause and the question of renewal? I have a lot of sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others that the practice of Parliament in annual renewal and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 has not exactly inspired huge confidence in the robustness of that challenge or the thoroughness of that review. But just because Parliament has perhaps had a habit of being derelict in its duty in relation to annual reviews, we do not have the right to dismiss the case for subjecting measures as exceptional as these are to annual review.
We are always told that one Parliament should not bind another. When it comes to exceptional measures, one Parliament simply should not discharge itself from due consideration. It is not enough for us to say, “If we go for the five-year sunset clause in the absence of annual reviews, Members such as the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and other concerned Members will be diligent enough to create opportunities for themselves by way of Adjournment debates or use of the Backbench Business Committee to subject these things to review.” There are things that we as a Parliament should hold in common responsibility. The due protection of civil liberty, alongside the due protection of public safety, are among them.
I accept that these measures—whether control orders or TPIMs—will be put through, but for exceptional measures that depart from the normal criminal law and give Executive power to use secret intelligence and to deploy strict controls on an individual’s freedom, this Parliament should not just say, “We are content to let that run for five years and see where we stand thereafter.” If Parliament is going to approve these measures, it should at least give itself the duty to look again in a year to see whether they are still needed in this form or whether there should be improvements.
James Brokenshire
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s case, and care will be required, but the House often considers topics in relation to which matters are before the courts. The emergency legislation deals with the principles, not with individuals. The House has demonstrated clearly that it is able to do that and to consider and debate matters where care is required.
Amendments 1 to 4 address situations where more stringent measures are needed to protect the public than those available under the Bill. Amendment 1 would in effect place a version of the enhanced TPIM proposals formally on the statute book through the Bill. We debated an almost identical amendment in Committee. It would add a new paragraph to schedule 1, allowing the Secretary of State to impose any measure, in addition to those otherwise specified in schedule 1, on an individual where
“there is a serious terrorist threat”
and where such measures are
“necessary for the protection of the public.”
It reflects the position in the enhanced TPIM Bill that the test for imposing such additional measures would be raised from “reasonable belief” of involvement in terrorism-related activity to being satisfied on the “balance of probabilities” that this is the case.
Amendments 2 and 3 offer an alternative approach to providing for the use of additional measures to that set out in amendment 1. Instead of provision being made on the face of the Bill, the Government would be able to add further measures to schedule 1 by order. Amendment 2 envisages that Parliament would approve those measures in advance; amendment 3 provides for retrospective parliamentary approval and so seeks to address other concerns. Amendments 1, 2 and 3 highlight a difference in approach between those on the Opposition Benches and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Benches.
The Government’s position is that the Bill provides a robust and effective set of measures to manage the risk posed by suspected terrorists whom we cannot prosecute or deport, and it will be complemented by additional funding for the police and Security Service for covert investigation. The Government consider that more stringent powers will be required only in exceptional circumstances. So although the Government agree with the Opposition that there may be a need for additional measures to those contained in schedule 1, we believe, as we flagged up in our counter-terrorism review, it is right that those more stringent powers are not on the statute book or available at all times through an order-making power, as amendments 1, 2 and 3 would provide, but are contained in draft emergency legislation that is introduced only if required. This is also reflected in the Government’s approach to extended pre-charge detention.
Furthermore, the Government consider that it is appropriate for the measures available to the Secretary of State to be set out on the face of primary legislation, and to have been agreed in advance by Parliament. That is the clear approach adopted in the Bill before us, and it is also the approach that we have taken in the enhanced Bill. Indeed, I would argue that the more stringent nature of measures available under the enhanced Bill is an even greater reason for them to be clearly defined and agreed by Parliament, rather than decided on an ad hoc basis by the Secretary of State. The Government are therefore not in favour of amendments 1, 2 and 3. For the reasons that I have set out, I ask hon. Members not to press them.
Amendment 4 is specifically concerned with what would happen if the additional measures are required during a period when Parliament is dissolved. The same issue was raised during pre-legislative scrutiny of the emergency Bills for extended pre-charge detention. The Government have listened to the concerns expressed and new clauses 5 and 6, which I have already outlined, directly address the point. I trust that this means that Opposition Members will be content to withdraw their amendment.
Paul Goggins
I shall speak to amendments 1 to 4 and voice my support for Government new clauses 5 and 6. Throughout Second Reading and consideration in Committee, I have supported the principle of placing in schedule 1 a list of conditions that would be available to the Secretary of State under the TPIMs regime. Under control orders there is no such list. The Home Secretary can impose any condition, subject to accountability to the court. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) has continued to remind the House throughout the debate, there is that continued oversight over the existing regime.
The problem with schedule 1 is that the list of conditions that it provides is inadequate. For example, it requires that the Home Secretary must—not may, as I hope we will discuss later—allow someone subject to a TPIM to have access to the internet and to have a mobile phone and a land line. There is no option; the Home Secretary must do that. Equally, the Home Secretary has no power to relocate an individual away from an area if she judges that to be necessary. I hope that we will soon debate that aspect as well.
The nagging concern that hon. Members—on both sides of the House, I hope—have is what happens when the Home Secretary has intelligence about an individual that requires a certain measure to be put in place, and she cannot do so because it is not in schedule 1. The good news since we considered the issue in Committee is that the Home Secretary has clearly recognised that there may be circumstances where the list of measures in schedule 1 is not sufficient, and she has now published draft legislation, the enhanced TPIMs Bill, that will allow relocation and curfew and will prevent access to mobile phones and the internet where that is necessary. I support the fact that in that Bill she is giving herself the powers to introduce an enhanced TPIM if Parliament is dissolved and she judges it necessary at the time.
The bad news is that the only way that the Home Secretary could exercise these enhanced powers when Parliament is sitting is via fresh primary legislation. I assume that the Home Secretary intends that there should be a rigorous process of pre-legislative scrutiny in relation to the enhanced TPIMs Bill that has been published. Presumably it will be scrutinised by a cross-party Committee and presumably the Committee will be made up of Members from both Houses. Perhaps the House will consider making the Committee Chair a well-respected Cross Bencher, such as a former Cabinet Secretary with huge experience of Government business. The Committee would be expected to take evidence from all the experts and, on the basis of that evidence, it would then be asked to come to a unanimous view on the matters before it.
Dr Huppert
I am following the right hon. Gentleman very carefully. Is he arguing that the Secretary of State should be able to do anything that he or she wants, but that, if Parliament later gets around to saying that it disagrees, because of course there is no time limit on when it has to agree, the condition has to end? Until that point, any measure whatever could be imposed on somebody who had not been convicted of any crime. Is that what he is arguing for?
Paul Goggins
I want the Home Secretary, having the insight, information and intelligence that she has and knowing the risks involved, to have the power to do something about the situation—and to do so immediately. It is important that there is some accountability to Parliament at a later date, and under amendment 3, when Parliament considered the matter at a later stage, it would be possible for either the House of the Lords or this House to decline to give an affirmation, at which point the power would lapse. It is important also, however, that the Home Secretary has the power to act.
This is a very interesting situation. Here am I, an Opposition Member, trusting the Home Secretary to exercise her judgment as the Home Secretary in relation to individual cases, and, by the way, her record on relocation in particular is first-class, and I applaud the way in which she has pursued the two cases that we know about. So I trust her judgment. Interestingly, however, her right hon. and hon. Friends do not seem to share my confidence in her. I trust her to exercise her judgment. She has access to intelligence and information, and she has a huge responsibility. I do not want to tie her hands so that she has a limited range of powers and is unable to exercise her responsibilities properly; I want to give her the powers that she needs.
Hazel Blears
Government Members seem to forget that because we live in a country that has a proper judicial system, should the Home Secretary exceed the reasonable use of her powers and impose a condition on somebody who is subject to a TPIM that is not justified by the evidence, it would be a matter for the judges. An application could be made to say that the specific measure was outwith the terms of the legislation. In every order, the Home Secretary has to show that the particular measures that she is imposing are necessary for the protection of the public. The idea that the Home Secretary could act in an arbitrary manner, without reference to the information and intelligence that she has, is absolutely ludicrous. The process will be subject to proper judicial oversight in our democratic country.
Paul Goggins
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has once again had the opportunity to remind us all of that oversight, which is not flimsy, but stringent.
Dr Huppert
First, I was going to comment that I have perhaps had experience of more Home Secretaries whom I did not trust on these issues than those I did. Perhaps that will change over the years and there will be more Home Secretaries who are more trustworthy on civil liberties. I hope that that is the case.
There is a point about judicial oversight, but there is also a point about Parliament having the chance to comment on what powers it thinks are acceptable. There is a range of things that the Home Secretary could argue are necessary but that Parliament would find simply unacceptable. Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that under—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The interventions in this debate are rather long. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be generous enough to let the hon. Gentleman in for a second bite.
Paul Goggins
I am bringing my remarks to a conclusion now, Mr Deputy Speaker. In response to the hon. Gentleman, I have worked with a number of Home Secretaries and I have seen this Home Secretary in operation. They—even those colleagues in my party—have represented a range of different political views, but I have trusted every single one of them with the difficult decisions that they have had to make about terrorist suspects and others. That is bar none, including the current holder of the post. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on that. We have to trust our senior politicians sometimes. That has to be within limits, of course, such as the judicial scrutiny and the powers in the Bill.
Frankly, I think that this Government are in the worst of all places. They have acknowledged that the measures in schedule 1 may not be sufficient in certain circumstances, yet they are tying the Secretary of State’s hands behind her back and will not give her the powers that she needs against the risk posed by a small number of individuals. The Government are in a terrible place and they need to think intelligently to get themselves out of it.
Dr Huppert
Thank you very much for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, particularly given that I went on slightly too long. I apologise for that.
I agree to some extent with the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) in that I am uncomfortable with new clause 5, but it is for completely different reasons, as he might imagine. On the issue of trusting the Home Secretary, it is not a question of trusting an individual; I would not trust anybody with that kind of power unchecked by this Parliament. For me, that is a matter of principle, and it is not a reflection on any individual. I am quite sure, despite what was said earlier in the debate, that I will never have that responsibility—I am sure that he is very glad about that—but I would not trust myself to have those powers either.
I would like the Minister to clarify some issues, because we have not had the chance to go through this in detail in Committee. I am uncomfortable with the idea of having emergency legislation to step up the powers, because I simply cannot envisage any circumstance in which I would want to see it used. However, in the review the Government have taken the line that there are some hard to foresee possibilities where it might be needed. If that is the case, I think it is right to proceed in this way. I do not necessarily agree with the Government and would have liked the review to have gone even further, but I can understand where they are coming from.
If that is where we are coming from, there is clearly a need to have some way of installing the measure when Parliament is not sitting. Some have misunderstood this point as meaning that the power will be available to the Secretary of State when Parliament is in recess. It is clear that if the situation was so urgent that we needed to reduce the civil liberties that we give people during recess, we should be recalled. It would be important that we were recalled. However, there is a difference when there is no Parliament that can be recalled. If there is to be such a system, although I am not happy about it, I am pleased with this system and understand it. I am also pleased that the Government have accepted the need for parliamentary scrutiny. That is a move forward from their previous position, as I mentioned earlier.
James Brokenshire
I know that the hon. Member has made that point before. I responded to him then as well. I think that the House is able to debate the principle of the underlying issues, although in relation to detailed, confidential briefings and so on, we would seek to provide more detailed information to Opposition spokespeople on privy counsellor terms, as appropriate, in order to assist debate. However, we believe that Parliament is able to consider emergency legislation in that way. In many ways, it is important to put out the draft legislation now to ensure that there is a mechanism—a tool—that has been considered coolly and calmly outside some of the febrile situations that understandably arise in the sorts of horrendous situations that, sadly, we have seen in the past. That is why it is important that we have the scrutiny that would be applied by a Joint Committee—and obviously it is for the House to resolve the matters around that. That is an important way of ensuring that legislation is considered in a more rational way.
Paul Goggins
The Minister has been very generous in giving way this evening. He has refused to be drawn on “second-guessing”, as he put it, the level of threat that would lead him or the Home Secretary to believe that these enhanced TPIM powers were necessary. However, he said that part of his consideration would be whether the threat was “imminent”—that was the word he used. An “imminent threat” could mean the next 12 hours, the next 24 hours, the next 48 hours or the next week. How does he square that level of risk with the fact that he is prepared to put measures in the Bill that would require separate primary legislation that might take at least a week to procure—perhaps even longer during recess? How can he square those two things? In my view, they simply cannot be squared.
James Brokenshire
It was precisely to ensure that legislation could be secured quickly that we have published the draft Bill now—to aid in that consideration and to ensure that matters could be dealt with swiftly. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the principle of emergency legislation, and I know that he has taken that approach consistently. There is a difference of view about the enhanced powers and the basis on which they are set, and I do not think that we are likely to resolve that difference between us.
Hazel Blears
I have not used any other country as my inspiration. What I have used, as my commitment in new clause 1, is a genuine analysis of the evidence provided by the police and other experienced people in the field in asking what measures we can take to ensure that the public are properly protected from the serious harm intended them by some of the most dangerous people in this country. It is right and proper that our Parliament should decide of its own volition what the appropriate measures are. We do not always look to other countries, which have very different legal systems to ours. I am absolutely convinced that the power of relocation can add to the security of this nation, which is my prime and most important concern when looking at this legislation.
I want to emphasise the point that the kind of people subject to either control orders or, in future, TPIMs are unfortunately some of the most dangerous people we could ever have to deal with in this country. There has been some suggestion that people who have been prosecuted through the criminal justice system are somehow more dangerous than those who are subject to administrative orders. If hon. Members looked at the judgments of High Court or Court of Appeal judges who have seen the intelligence and the information about the people upon whom we seek to impose such orders, they would perhaps revise their position. There are currently only 12 such individuals subject to control orders, and the expressions used by judges in relation to them include “trained soldiers” and “committed terrorists”, determined to be martyrs to their cause and determined, whatever steps we take, to cause the maximum harm to innocent people in this country. Those are statements by judges, not given to florid language, having seen the intelligence that the services hold in relation to some of those people. We are talking about a maximum of a dozen people who are very dangerous indeed. That is the measure that we must use in asking what powers we seek to use, whether they are proportionate and whether they are the right powers. It is my submission that the power of relocation of some of the most dangerous people in our country—committed terrorists—is a proportionate.
Paul Goggins
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give more details later about the case of BM, which involved one of the two relocation appeals challenged by the Home Secretary, successfully on both occasions. To underline what my right hon. Friend has just said, BM conceded in the hearing that took place—this was not a point made by the security services; he conceded it—that he is indeed
“committed to terrorism, in particular to terrorism in Pakistan”,
and that he
“wishes to carry out that commitment by travelling to that region”
to take part in terrorist acts himself. It is by his own admission that that is the level of threat that he poses.
Hazel Blears
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: in that case BM did concede that he was determined to carry out terrorist activity, and it was right that the power of relocation, which the Home Secretary had imposed relatively recently, was upheld as a necessary power to protect the public. This is not a case of draconian Governments, or authoritarian or totalitarian regimes wanting to impose controls for their own sake; it is always a matter of balance, and trying to mitigate the risk and draw the line in the correct place, so that we can maintain essential freedoms in this country, which include the freedom of the public to go about their law-abiding business without being threatened with death and destruction by some of the most committed terrorists in this country.
Paul Goggins
I thank the Minister for his generous remarks about right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. In return, let me say that whatever differences we have had—and we have had a few, in Committee and again today—he has been courteous, generous, thoughtful and constructive throughout. I thank him for that. Indeed, it is quite ironic that Opposition Members keep arguing that he and the Home Secretary should be trusted more. It is Members on the Government Benches who do not seem to want to do that.
When the Bill was first published and when we debated it on Second Reading, some commentators described it as “control orders lite”. Many comments were made to that effect and, indeed, on close examination much of the wording in the Bill appears—shall we say?—to be very similar to the wording of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. However, it has become absolutely clear in our debates that there are substantial differences between us in relation to the two-year limit, relocation, which has been debated again today, access to telephones and crucially—this is increasingly important—the timing of the commencement of the Bill’s provisions. We in the Opposition have tried through amendments to make constructive suggestions.
Let me say that party advantage in this case is cast aside, and I know that the Minister understands and believes that. This is about protecting the public: that is the only thing that motivates me and my right hon. and hon. Friends to get the legislation right. However, I now fear that the Government are in the worst of all places, because in publishing the detailed draft legislation last week they conceded that the provisions in the Bill that we are now debating are not sufficient in certain circumstances. There may be circumstances where the enhanced powers would be required, yet because primary legislation would be required to bring them into force, the hands of the Home Secretary are tied. Time is crucial, and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would certainly want to give the Home Secretary those powers, so that she can use them when she judges that to be appropriate. I hope that further consideration in the other place will lead to at least some changes, so that the Home Secretary is empowered to protect the nation rather than having her hands tied behind her back.
I would caution hon. Members on pre-legislative scrutiny, because, as I told the Minister earlier, I was on the Committee that considered the draft legislation for pre-charge detention. That Committee came to a unanimous view—that such legislation is unsatisfactory and unreliable —but apart from one concession, I do not think that it found a listening ear among Ministers.
Let me finish. I have paid tribute to the way in which the Minister has conducted these debates, but surely he must find it at least ironic, if nothing else, that two days after we completed consideration of the detail of the Bill in Committee the Home Secretary wrote to the court in the case of BM to say that a relocation condition was essential. Thank goodness she was successful and the judge found in her favour. Relocation may be necessary on occasions; it should be in the Bill, as should the other measures I have mentioned.
Metropolitan Police Service
Paul Goggins Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
Indeed. My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As I said at the police bravery awards a couple of weeks ago, we have the finest police officers in the world—I believe that—but it is our duty to all those honourable, hard-working police officers and staff across the country to ensure that we get to the bottom of these allegations and sort this all out.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The year 2012 was always going to be a very challenging one for the Metropolitan police, with the Olympic games, with convicted terrorists returning home from prison, and with relocated suspects being allowed to go back to their own homes. Given the events of the past 24 hours, will the Home Secretary now give urgent consideration to delaying the implementation of the new, weaker terrorism prevention measures in order to reduce risk and give the new commissioner time to prepare properly?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the package that was agreed involves not just the TPIMs—terrorism prevention and investigation measures—but extra money, with tens of millions of pounds for the Security Service and the police to put in place extra surveillance so that they are able to mitigate any risk that has come about through the change in those orders. Yes, next year will be a challenging year. The Met police have themselves accepted and said publicly that it will be a very challenging time for them in having to ensure the security and safety of the Olympics. That has been worked on for several years—it is under the very competent leadership of Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison—and extremely good work has been done, but we continue, of course, to ensure that we are putting in place what is necessary to do what we all want to do, which is to ensure that everybody can enjoy a secure and successful games.
Police (Detention and Bail) Bill
Paul Goggins Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I thought I had made the position clear to the right hon. Lady. Those who were party to the initial legal proceedings were able to grant a stay, and Greater Manchester police were able to make a decision—which they did at a certain point in the timetable—on whether to apply for one.
If the right hon. Lady is trying to play party political games with the question of the application for a stay, she should consider the comments that have been made and the decision of the Supreme Court, which, as I have just said, suggests that there is considerable doubt not about the timetable for a stay, but whether the court even has the power to order one in this case. The right hon. Lady should think about that very carefully.
I think it important that the Home Affairs Committee has had an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill and also, fortuitously, an opportunity to ask me questions about it during the evidence session that I held with the Committee on Tuesday. I also note the support of leading legal figures such as Professor Michael Zander—who was mentioned earlier—and Liberty, which has said:
“Liberty supports the Government’s intention to amend the law as proposed. In our view the proposed reform is clarificatory and would do nothing more than return the law to the original intention of Parliament and the way in which it has been interpreted—by judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers—for the best part of 25 years.”
I could not agree more.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I fully support the Bill, but may I take the Home Secretary back to the last session of Home Office questions and her surprisingly dismissive comments about the Joint Committee that had been considering her proposals for emergency legislation in relation to pre-charge detention? The Committee had described those proposals as unsatisfactory and unreliable.
In the light of the experience of the last few days, is the Home Secretary beginning to revisit her views on the role of emergency legislation in dealing with pressing and urgent issues? In particular, will she tell us what she would have done if all this had happened two or three weeks later, and the House had been in recess?
Mrs May
The premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is that I was dismissive of the Joint Committee’s views at Home Office questions, but I was not. Indeed, I have not been dismissive of its views because I have made it clear that we are accepting one of the points it raised on the emergency legislation, and I hardly think accepting one of its points can be described as being dismissive of its views.
The Bill seeks to restore the law on police detention to the position as it has been understood for the last 25 years. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 set out the rules governing detention and bail prior to charge.
Paul Goggins
I am sorry to exasperate the Home Secretary, but I was rather hoping she would address the point I made at the end of my intervention: what would have happened if all this were taking place when we were in recess?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me to debate hypothetical situations. It is right that we are introducing this legislation today, precisely so that it can be debated on the record and, we hope, receive Royal Assent before the House goes into recess. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well about the debates we have had on the emergency legislation for pre-charge detention and what would be applicable and possible for Parliament to do during a recess, and I am sure we will continue to have such debates. As I have said, I have accepted one of the Joint Committee’s points on this issue, and that can hardly be described as dismissing its views.
As I was saying, PACE set out the rules governing detention and bail prior to charge. It provides that once a person is arrested and brought to a police station, that person must not be detained for longer than 96 hours in total without being charged with an offence. Within the overall maximum permitted 96-hour period, continued detention must be authorised by a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent after the initial 24 hours, and by a magistrate after the initial 36 hours, with fresh warrants required at 36-hour intervals.
There are numerous other safeguards. For example, ongoing detention must be subject to periodic review, and an individual can challenge their detention at any time by bringing an action for habeas corpus in the High Court. The idea some have put forward that this judgment means the police should in some way just “work quicker” to gather evidence ignores the reality of policing and the necessity of the police being able to, for example, take forensics tests, and identify, contact and interview witnesses. The judgment effectively takes away police time in which to do such things.
The Bill seeks to reverse the effect of the High Court’s ruling, but it only seeks to reverse that. It amends PACE to make it explicit that in calculating any period—whether a time limit or a period of pre-charge detention—any periods spent on bail shall be disregarded. The Bill also amends PACE to make it clear that periods of police detention before and after a period of bail are to be treated as if they form a single continuous period. This is an important safeguard that the High Court judgment had overturned, and, again, it restores the position to what it has been understood to be for the past 25 years.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
Paul Goggins Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who, early in his speech, mentioned the 9/11 attacks. In three months, we will mark 10 years since those horrific attacks took place in America. At that time, I undertook the role that is now undertaken by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson); I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). Over the following nine years, in that role and as a Minister in the Home Office and then the Northern Ireland Office, I worked closely with successive Home Secretaries and other Ministers who were seeking to deal with the deadly threat that was emerging from international terrorism. There was no book on the bookshelf entitled, “Rules of Engagement with al-Qaeda”, but I saw every one of those Ministers make every effort to defend the people of this country against new forms of international terrorism, including the dreadful prospect referred to by the hon. Member for Keighley of the so-called home-grown terrorists who are prepared to blow themselves up as well as their victims.
The debate that has gone on since 9/11 has created great tensions in the Chamber and outside it as we have tried to balance and rebalance the equation between individual liberty and collective security. The previous Government received much criticism for the measures they brought forward but I believe that, without exception, the Ministers who introduced those measures did so with total integrity. The current Home Secretary also displays that integrity and she has my full support in taking the difficult decisions that she has to take about specific individuals.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
In my right hon. Friend’s years in the Home Office, in which he must have been involved in many discussions about anti-terrorism legislation, how much consideration was given to the implementation of the criminal law in open court rather than the creation of a series of special courts, special measures and all the suspicion that surrounds them?
Paul Goggins
Considerable consideration was always given to those issues. As the Home Secretary said earlier, prosecutions should always be brought where possible. Those who engage in terrorist activity should feel the full force of the law and where possible—where the evidence is there—they should be convicted and go to prison for a very long time. The problem is that sometimes the evidence and information that the Home Secretary and other Ministers have is not enough to secure a prosecution because much of it is protected or secret information that could not, of itself, sustain a successful prosecution. That is the territory we are dealing with, but I assure my hon. Friend that that consideration was always at the foremost of Minister’s minds at that time.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I have the highest respect for the work that my right hon. Friend undertook during his time at the Home Office. I have tried to get a parliamentary answer to my question, but I did not get anywhere. I understand that no one who has been subject to a control order has later been charged with a terrorist offence. That seems rather odd and, if I may say so, rather disturbing.
Paul Goggins
My hon. Friend has well-known views on this issue and has expressed them frequently in the Chamber from both the Government and Opposition sides over the years. He forms his own conclusions but my conclusions about such individuals is that they are a small group of people for whom it is necessary to have some form of control outside the normal judicial process because of the risks that they pose. My hon. Friend has put forward his point of view on this before and he has strong views—I respect that.
Naomi Long
The right hon. Gentleman’s experience in Northern Ireland will also colour his view on these issues. One of the experiences that we had is that the use of unusual measures can often act as a rallying point for radicalising other young people, rallying them behind the cause, because people are seen as being persecuted rather than being tried under the law. Does he agree that such experiences show that these measures should be seen as unusual and that, for this reason, their ratification each year in Parliament is an important part of reinforcing that?
Paul Goggins
The hon. Lady speaks with great authority on this issue and I agree with every word she says. These powers—whether the control order powers that have been in place up to now or the new powers that the Home Secretary is bringing forward—should be used absolutely exceptionally and we should always bear in mind the risk that the hon. Lady mentions that their use can become a rallying point and can assist in the radicalisation of people whom we are trying desperately to keep in the mainstream of society. That should always be kept in mind. These powers should not be used generally; they are very specific powers to be used in very specific circumstances.
Let me deal with the circumstances in which the powers should be used. We are talking about a small group of individuals who are suspected of involvement in terrorist activities and who are either foreign nationals who cannot be deported because of a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights or they are individuals who cannot be prosecuted successfully because, as I said earlier, the compelling information about them is secret intelligence that could not alone sustain a successful prosecution. Over the past six years, control orders have been the best—some have used the expression “least worst”—set of powers to deal with that group of people.
As I have said before, we should always seek to gain consensus in the House on the important issue of counter-terrorism. The formation of the new Government last year gave us all an opportunity to reflect on the previous decade and see whether changes were required that would bring greater consensus and get an even better balance between individual liberty and collective security. I have changed my mind about pre-charge detention, having previously voted for 28 days and, indeed, for 42 days. I agree that the normal maximum should now be 14 days, provided that in exceptional circumstances it can be extended to 28 days. I am currently serving on the Joint Committee that is considering the emergency legislation that the Government have brought forward on this, and I have changed my mind on this issue.
Paul Goggins
My hon. Friend is always very persuasive—one way or the other.
One area of policy on which I remain absolutely clear is the need to be able to control the activities of that small group of people who pose a serious threat and who cannot be deported or imprisoned, and I am pleased that the Government appear to have come to the same conclusion. We should seek consensus. There is much in the Bill that I can readily support. Conditions A to E, which are set out in clause 3, are welcome. They confirm the need for these TPIM notices to be focused on protection and prevention and they provide that the terrorism-related activity must be new activity. However, it is important that when a first application for a notice is made, that new activity can well predate the application.
A general time limit of two years is not unreasonable given the provisos that further notices can be made if there is new activity and that where a further notice is made, the older activity can be taken into account in addition to the new activity of which the Home Secretary has become aware. However, I caution her and her ministerial colleague against making that a general rule which can never be excepted. As I said about the maximum pre-charge detention period of 14 days, there might be exceptional circumstances. I hope that the Minister will be prepared, in Committee, to see whether some amendments can be framed to allow extensions beyond two years in specific and exceptional circumstances.
On making the powers permanent, I heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said about that reducing parliamentary oversight, but we could also see it as a positive development if Parliament can reach a consensus and settled view. Given the constant arguing and bickering on this issue year after year when we should be seeking consensus in the face of the terrible threats that terrorists bring, there is some merit in Parliament’s reaching a settled view. There is a balance to be struck.
I agree strongly with condition A, that the Secretary of State must have a reasonable belief
“that the individual is…involved in terrorism-related activity”.
That is a higher threshold than the reasonable suspicion threshold that has previously operated for control orders, but in reaching my conclusion I have referred to the opinion of Lord Carlile in his most recent report that the higher threshold of reasonable belief was, in practice, always achieved anyway for each control order that was taken out under the existing system. It is a standard that was already being met, and I see no problem in including that formally in legislation.
It is right, given that we have six years’ experience of operating control orders, to set out in more precise form the measures that can be imposed as part of the new TPIM notices. Schedule 1 includes a list of measures, including accommodation, travel, communications, association and so on. I urge the Minister to see whether there ought not to be a catch-all power, because there may be a condition that is not caught by schedule 1. It might be sensible to leave an opening so that the Home Secretary can impose such a condition if circumstances allow. It is not a power that I would expect to be used frequently, but if we do not have that power, and unusual circumstances occur, there is nothing we can do about it. Perhaps that is something that could be considered.
I have four serious difficulties with the Bill and in relation to other pertinent issues. The first was mentioned by my right hon. Friend—the overnight residence measure. She was right to point out that in schedule 1, which says that the Secretary of State may impose a requirement
“applicable overnight…for the individual to remain at a specified residence”,
there is no definition of “overnight”. It may be possible to go into that in Committee to see whether it is possible to include something a little clearer.
The really important issue is the specified residence itself. My right hon. Friend made a powerful argument in relation to that. Paragraph 1(3) says that the specified residence must be
“premises that are the individual’s own residence, or…other premises…that are situated in an appropriate locality or an agreed locality.”
An appropriate locality is one in which the individual has a pre-existing connection. In the case of CD, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, it would not be possible under the new legislation for the Home Secretary to impose the conditions that she rightly imposed on the control order governing that individual. If it is possible, I would welcome an explanation on that from the Minister in his winding-up speech.
Let us reflect on who CD is: a leading figure in a close group of Islamist extremists based in north London. That conspiracy of individuals was planning attacks and seeking to acquire weapons. He was a real threat, and the Home Secretary was quite right to take action, and to insist that he live in the west midlands. It is not just me who says so, as Mr Justice Simon supports her view. My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear when reading from paragraph 53 of Mr Justice Simon’s judgment that the relocation obligation is a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the public from an immediate and real risk of a terrorism-related attack. The Bill as drafted would not allow the Home Secretary to force that individual to live outside London in the west midlands, and the people of London and elsewhere would be at much greater risk if she could not do so.
My second concern relates to electronic communication, which is dealt with in paragraph 7. Sub-paragraph (1) sounds quite tough, as the Secretary of State may impose
“restrictions on the individual’s possession or use of electronic communication devices”.
However, under sub-paragraph (3), each suspect may have
“a telephone operated by connection to a fixed line…a computer that provides access to the internet…a mobile telephone that does not provide access to the internet.”
To be honest, I am concerned that that demonstrates naivety about the sophisticated operations of international terrorists. They use multiple mobile phones, and will run rings round the measure, unless paragraph 7 is toughened up and made much more specific and much less confusing. There is a real job of work to be done by the Committee.
Dr Huppert
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that one purpose of the measure is to enable more evidence to be gathered for prosecution? The point of allowing people to have that communication is partly for the sake of civil liberties but partly because it can be monitored. What we want to see is prosecution, not indefinite or even two-year detentions.
Paul Goggins
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that an international terrorist is sitting there thinking, “Thank goodness they have given me the internet so I can reveal all my contacts and conspiracies,” he is quite naive. We are talking about highly sophisticated people, and I am concerned that the provisions in paragraph 7(3) are not as sophisticated as they need to be to deal with the threat.
Paul Goggins
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) was saying that international terrorists would rush off and use it and reveal all their sources and contacts to the authorities monitoring the measure. I shall make the point again: I do not think that the provisions as set out reflect the sophistication with which international terrorists operate.
My third difficulty relates not to the Bill but to a wider issue that is significant to the powers in the Bill—the whole business of rules on the disclosure of evidence. I welcome the fact that under the Bill there will still be closed hearings which can continue as before under control orders. That is needed, because if a judge is going to review the material or hear an appeal from a particular individual, he must consider the information available to the Home Secretary when she made the initial application. If some, if not all, of that information has to be protected, that must be done in a closed hearing. Special advocates will still be needed. The gist of the case must be provided to the individual.
As we recognise, however, the AF judgment makes it increasingly difficult to protect what in the interests of public safety and national security must remain secret information. That issue caused problems for the previous Government, and it has caused problems for this Government. It has ramifications for our relations with international partners with whom we share important information and intelligence. I applaud the fact that the Government are seeking to address that problem and deal with it in the Green Paper. May I tell all Front Benchers that we should do everything we can to resolve the issue, because if we do not do so the TPIM system will simply not work, as there will be an ever stronger demand that information that should remain secret is revealed in open court to the individual concerned? It is important that we resolve that issue so that we know what can be disclosed and what can be protected.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again. Does he not accept that there is a major concern about anti-terrorism legislation with special courts and special advocates, and in which information is withheld from the defendant? The barrister acting on behalf of the defendant is not allowed to reveal to them the nature of the evidence or the case against them. Therein lies a road to something very, very dangerous in a democracy that prides itself on open prosecutions and open justice, and thereby a much wider acceptance of the judicial system and the rule of law.
Paul Goggins
My hon. Friend again makes his point with great care. Of course, these are exceptional powers that should be used sparingly. We have all this apparatus in relation to control orders to ensure that the suspect’s interests can be protected. That is why we have special advocates who can consider the information and argue on behalf of the suspect. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Cambridge wish to intervene?
Dr Huppert
I should be delighted to do so, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The problem is that the special advocate is not allowed to communicate the nature of that evidence to the person involved. That fundamentally means that they cannot advocate fairly on behalf of their client.
Paul Goggins
It is true that special advocates cannot share the intelligence directly, but they are there to represent the interests of the individual. To the hon. Gentleman, that might not be a perfect solution, but it is better that the individual has somebody to speak for them than nobody to speak for them. That is why that system was introduced.
I say again to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who put his point very fairly, that these are exceptional mechanisms to assist in making sure that the rights and interests of the individual are protected, but in the end, the entire Bill is designed to ensure that the rest of us are protected against the threats that those individuals pose. We must not forget that. As we have these debates about the liberty of the individual, we must balance that against the need for the protection of the wider public. That is the dilemma that goes right through the debate. We should never lose sight of one or the other side of that argument.
My final point is whether the whole new TPIM system represents the same level of risk as we had with control orders or a greater level of risk. I can only assume that the Home Secretary believes there is an increased risk from the new TPIM system, otherwise why would she be committing a serious level of resource—whatever that level is—to the police and the Security Service to help them deal with the additional work and the additional pressures that will result from the new system?
I was somewhat concerned to hear the Home Secretary quote Jonathan Evans as saying that the additional money would—I think she said—mitigate against the additional risk. That is an interesting phrase worthy of further exploration. I am extremely concerned that new gaps will open up. The question is whether there will be sufficient resource to fill those gaps and whether those gaps will pose an additional risk. No one in the House should be complacent about the possibility of an increased risk. I know that the Intelligence and Security Committee on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and I sit will take a very close interest in that.
I am sure that the last thing this Home Secretary would want to do is increase the risk to public safety. I mean that genuinely and sincerely, but Parliament must help her. One immediate way in which it can help is by tightening up the Bill in the way that I have suggested and as others will, I am sure, suggest, and then by monitoring closely what happens when the Bill and any amendments that are added to it are put into practice.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate this evening and I think that all the contributions made so far indicate how serious the issues we are dealing with are and how difficult for everyone, whichever side of the House they are on, because it is a case of trying to weigh the balance and make some very difficult judgments. When dealing with matters of national security, it is important that we try as far as possible to reach a consensus, because these matters are incredibly important for the country, and that we try to start from the evidence base, which in my experience leads to better decisions on where the balance of judgment should rightly lie.
I want to think about the evidence we face at the moment. First, that concerns the nature of the threat. Sometimes these issues are discussed in the abstract and are not necessarily rooted in the reality of the threat that the country faces. For some years the threat level has been “severe”, which is only one step down from “imminent”. That means that this country faces a very significant threat from al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-inspired terrorism, often originating abroad but also involving people who were born and brought up in this country and are enmeshed in a series of worrying plots. It is important to put on the record the nature of the threat that the country faces.
Secondly, we should consider the extent of the problem. People sometimes feel that, because we have been dealing with this threat for 10 years and have had the control order regime in place for the past six, the extent of that threat has somehow reduced. At any one time, the security services are dealing with tens of plots, which are often very complex and interrelated, with a web of international and domestic actors and many technologies, and involving incredibly complex organisations. Between 1,600 and 2,000 known terrorist suspects are involved in these plots, and those are the ones we know about. There may well be other organisations, other plots and other individuals who, as we speak, are intent on organising the kind of terror that can wreak mayhem and destruction on our communities. The sustained nature of the threat and its extent ought to be a backdrop to some of the difficult decisions that we have to make with regard to this legislation.
There is therefore a clear need for surveillance and the gathering of intelligence and evidence on the intentions and actions of those involved in planning and conducting terrorist operations. It is of course right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and others point out in an eloquent and genuine way, that in a free democracy such as ours we should always seek to bring those involved in terrorism before the criminal courts. That should be our starting point. We should bring prosecutions where the evidence can be adduced and tested, where witnesses can be cross-examined and where a jury can reach a verdict on whether the accused is guilty or innocent. That must be the starting point in any democracy—that we have a criminal system that allows all that to be done as openly and transparently as possible.
One of the reasons we brought in some of the new offences now on the statute book, such as committing acts preparatory to terrorism, was to enable us to interrupt plots at the earliest possible stage and still be able to bring a criminal prosecution and go through the conventional criminal system and bring those people to justice. Those offences have been very useful in giving the police powers to interrupt early and ensure that they disrupt the plot and prevent any damage while still using the conventional criminal justice system, which is obviously what we want to encourage.
However, we must recognise that there are—and, unfortunately, likely to be for the foreseeable future—a small number of people involved in terrorism who pose a serious threat to the safety of our citizens and country and who cannot be brought within the ambit of the conventional criminal justice system. Much as we may dislike it, that is the situation we face. For several years there have been discussions, or attempts at discussions, between various Home Secretaries and Ministers and the judicial system, and in many cases the judiciary have been reluctant to engage in any discussions on whether the way the criminal justice system operates can be amended. I understand their reluctance because of the separation of the Executive and the judiciary, and they want to avoid confusion, but I feel that the criminal justice system is not necessarily able to cope with the nature of the threat and the offences we face in the world we now live in.
Many of the suspects cannot be subjected to the traditional judicial system because to do so would mean bringing forward intelligence and evidence that could put at risk the lives of those who seek to protect us. We cannot allow that intelligence to be revealed as doing so would reveal those agents and their personal security would be jeopardised. Those people put their lives on the line for the people of this country and we have a duty to protect them. Bringing forward that intelligence would also reveal the surveillance methods and techniques that the security services often use to gain it, which would also undermine their ability to keep us all safe.
Control orders have been used in a small number of cases and I think that we should get that number to its irreducible minimum. We imposed only 48 control orders in the six years that they have existed and there are only eight or 10 now in place. It is a very tightly managed and controlled regime, so those powers are not sprayed around and used loosely as a way of rounding up the usual suspects. That is absolutely not the intention. I am afraid that the reality, which we should all be grown up enough to acknowledge, is that the threat we face is such that we have to have a system that, however distasteful we as democrats find it, can protect the people for whom we are responsible.
It was for that reason that in 2005 the then Home Secretary and I, as the Minister responsible for policing and counter-terrorism, brought forward the original control order legislation, which the Bill seeks to alter in some significant respects. I will never forget bringing forward that legislation. I remember being in this House at 4 o’clock in the morning debating that hugely contested legislation. In some ways that was very difficult, but in others it was very encouraging as it indicated the depth of commitment on both sides of the House to a free democracy in which people felt strongly about those issues. I was very glad when we finished at 10 o’clock that morning; nevertheless, it was an inspiring occasion and a good one for the House.
I want make it crystal clear to the House that, whatever some Members might say, that original legislation was not introduced in some kind of knee-jerk overreaction to the events of 9/11 or 7/7. It was a genuine recognition of the inability of the criminal justice system to accommodate the situation we faced. I am a lawyer and I have huge respect for the rule of law—
Hazel Blears
Steady on, absolutely.
I also know how important it is to have a practical and workable system in place. We must ensure that those who pose a significant threat to ordinary people’s safety can be tracked and prevented from pursuing their plans to cause death and serious harm in pursuit of their warped political ideology.
We all want to achieve consensus where we can, but I have some serious concerns about some of the Bill’s proposals, with regard to their effectiveness, their ability to disrupt those who will be subject to TPIMs, as they are so elegantly called, and whether they will provide us with a proper level of security. Lord Carlile is always called in aid in these debates, and I want to place on the record my thanks to him for the fabulous job he has done over the years as the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. He said just last year:
“In stark terms, the potential cost of losing control orders is that the UK would be more vulnerable to a successful terrorist attack.”
He does not say such things lightly. He has huge experience in trying to weigh the balance and get the judgment right. He also said:
“Unless control orders were replaced by some equally disruptive and practicable system… the repeal of control orders would create a worryingly higher level of public risk.”
We ought to have serious and close regard to what Lord Carlile has said and test the Bill against the concerns he has expressed.
In a powerful contribution, my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary expressed her concerns about some of those issues, so I will not speak about them at length. The relocation issue is a genuine concern. It may be characterised as internal exile or a soviet-style imposition, but if it is necessary for someone to be located away from the networks that they have established in order to improve the safety of ordinary citizens, I do not think it should simply be ruled out on principle.
We have discussed whether access to mobile phones and computers might enable us to obtain further evidence for prosecution, but I am very doubtful that it will. I am concerned that people will have access not simply to one mobile phone: once they have one, it will be very easy indeed for experienced people not to dupe the security services, as I hope they are not capable of being duped, but to create the sense that it is normal to have access to a computer and a mobile phone. The prospect of a security risk is therefore higher than I would feel comfortable with, so I seek reassurance from the Minister on access to electronic equipment. We know how much terrorist business is done online and with technology. It is a massive issue for us, and this measure could present us with an increased risk.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who brings to this subject not only a great deal of common sense but a great deal of experience. As she said, our liberties depend on our security. The two are inextricably linked; we cannot have one without the other.
As the right hon. Lady also rightly said, we sometimes lose the sense of why we are here having these debates in the first place. Over the past few days, four of our fighting men have been killed in Afghanistan, and it is worth bearing in mind that a police officer was recently blown to pieces in Omagh. They died for two things: not only to guarantee our physical security and protection but to guarantee that our liberties remain pre-eminent in our society. I would therefore, with the greatest of respect, ask that we all lift our sights a little—that we stop arguing about telephones, computers, curfews and other technical things and remember why we are here. We are here to honour the memories of those young men and young women who have died for us so that we can have a debate such as this in complete freedom and comfort. The single most important freedom that I would iterate on this occasion is the freedom for the accused man or woman to be innocent until he or she is proved guilty. Control orders do not do that. Control orders deny the very liberty, the very freedom, the very values for which our young men are this evening facing death and destruction in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and I remember the difficult times of the mid-2000s. I have jousted with him many times and always enjoy his contributions. He made a fascinating point when he said that there was no rule book; I think that “instruction book” was his precise phrase. Indeed there was not, but there was a history book; in fact, there were lots of history books. Over the past 60 years or so, this country has allowed itself to make two grave errors at times of serious national emergency. On the first occasion, we were in a war of national survival, when we banged up tens of thousands of people during the period of wartime internment and assumed that they were guilty without giving them any form of trial. Because of the circumstances, that was not as serious a mistake as that which we made in the early 1970s when we interned hundreds of people in Ulster. I do not want to try to drag the argument into a simple, narrow one about Irish republicanism. None the less, it is important that we understand that control orders fly in the face of every lesson that we learned in the ’70s, for which many of my comrades died and others, including me, shed our blood.
Internment was wrong for all sorts of reasons. It was a straightforward denial of liberty, but much more importantly, it left behind a legacy of hatred that continues up until this day. I do not need to tell the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who lives with this on a minute-to-minute basis, that we are currently facing a threat in Ulster that is no less than that which we face from Islamist fundamentalism on these shores. That is because we got the issues and arguments that we are discussing wrong decades ago, and we must now make sure that we get them right. There is no place for control orders in a civilised society that wishes to counter terrorism intelligently, thoughtfully, and based on practice from the past. I therefore say to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East that we should have used the history books before we started to compose these sorts of laws, which have done such damage and wasted so much time and so much life. We should have looked more carefully at where we got it wrong in the past.
Let us stop arguing about telephones, computers and all the technical things and ask ourselves what we can do to get rid of a pernicious system that denies the very thing in which we all believe—freedom and the ability to be innocent until proven guilty. Let us re-inject energy into our decision to negotiate memorandums of understanding. Let us talk to foreign Governments in more detail. Let us re-approach the European courts with greater energy. Let us try to insist that if an individual from another country commits a crime, or is thought to be about to commit a crime, or is even thought to be guilty of a crime, although not proven to be so, he or she is sent back to the country from which he or she originates. If it seems we cannot do that, let us then inject more energy into trying to do it—let us not give up. At the same time, let us look at the techniques that we can apply to make sure that intelligence on these individuals is turned into evidence that can be used in court to convict them and to get them behind bars if they are guilty, or, if they are not, to give them their liberty back.
I ask the Minister what has happened to the process of intercept evidence. Even as early as 1977, we were concerned about whether we could use that in court as evidence. To the best of my second lieutenant’s knowledge, it was being reviewed in the mid-’70s. Why can we still not use intercept evidence in court? I refuse to give in to the foot-dragging approach that the previous Government took on this issue. When I served on the Home Affairs Committee, we were told, “This is not a silver bullet, but by golly it will help.” What about questioning after charge? I think we have made some progress on that; the Minister can tell me whether I am right or wrong. Surely it is a tool that we can use, is it not?
Lastly—I have told people not to be too technical, and here I am delving into all sorts of technical things—there is plea bargaining, which the Americans and the Canadians use very successfully. Where do we stand on that? Have we given it enough thought? Have we had a refreshed insight and looked carefully at how we can use it? If we raise our eyes above the parapet of the specific argument, there are devices that we can use to produce evidence to get people into court and put them on trial. That has to be the aim rather than the current mish-mash of illiberal nonsense that we have within the democracy that we sometimes pretend to be.
My heart bleeds less than most people’s, but the fact remains that we cannot deal with these individuals improperly for two reasons: first, because of their basic human rights, about which I feel strongly; and secondly, for practical reasons. If we continue to subject minorities in this country to measures such as control orders, all of which are being applied to a very small number of people who come from a similar sort of background and believe in a similar sort of cause, we are bound to disaffect the wider societies from which they hail. We need look no further than what we did to the Roman Catholic population in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. We imposed not the same, but similar measures on those people—not entirely, but almost exclusively. The effect was that a military campaign by the Irish Republican Army that was pretty well over by the end of the ’70s extended itself well into the ’90s and killed hundreds more people than it needed to.
Paul Goggins
The hon. Gentleman has returned to the parallel between internment in the 1970s and control orders and TPIMs now. I acknowledge what he says about the impact of internment in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, but to draw a direct parallel between that and control orders and TPIMs is erroneous. The authorisation and oversight system is much more rigorous in relation to control orders and TPIMs than ever it was for internment.
Patrick Mercer
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I accede to that point. I will go with him, sit on a Committee and talk about all that good stuff. However, that does not make a difference in the eyes of the violent republican and the Islamist fundamentalist. They will make the parallels completely and perfectly, and they will use them to twist the mind and to suborn the innocent. That is exactly my point, and I am grateful to him for making it, because we are in danger of becoming over-technical.
I will not extend the point much further. It is simple: if we are not careful, we will impose on the very people whom we are trying to recruit and to persuade to come to our side the same sort of measures that we imposed on the Roman Catholic population in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. I will quote a song that summarises the point:
“Being Irish means you’re guilty, so we’re guilty one and all.”
Irish republicans were able to write that line because of internment. Irish republicans were able to write that line because their society had been suborned by a Government who were misguided. The parallels are not exact, but they are there. This is illiberal, this is improper, this is impractical, and this is wrong. We must get rid of control orders as soon as we can.
Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Goggins Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Herbert
I think it was Harold Wilson who said that royal commissions take minutes and waste years. More recently, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has said that there is no time for a royal commission. There are important and urgent decisions that we need to take in relation to police financing and enhancing accountability, which is what the Government intend to do.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Ministers have confirmed in parliamentary answers that in the period 2010-12, 45 individuals with terrorist convictions will be released back into the community. Can the Home Secretary assure the House that all relevant agencies will work closely together, that they will have the necessary resources to manage those offenders back into the community and that she and the Justice Secretary have a clear understanding that anyone in breach of their licence conditions will be returned to prison immediately?
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. It is, of course, essential that the various agencies involved work together. I can assure him that they will be working together, as they have been. One of the developments of recent years, which is very welcome, is the way in which the Security Service and the police have worked together on counter-terrorism matters. They will continue to do so and are very conscious of the issues relating to the release of offenders who have completed their prison sentences.
Quilliam Foundation
Paul Goggins Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
You will realise from my dulcet tones, Mr Dobbin, that I am struggling with my voice this morning, but I hope at least to get to the end of my introductory remarks. It is good to see you in the Chair. This morning’s debate takes us to the heart of an important issue in which I know you are interested, as are many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am pleased that so many from both sides are already present, and am particularly pleased to be joined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). She speaks on these issues with considerable experience, as a former Minister with responsibility for police and counter-terrorism and a former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. She learned a great deal in both those roles and I look forward to hearing her comments later.
This debate takes us to the heart of a complex and crucial issue, namely, the need to take on the extremist ideology that underpins the activities of those who are opposed to our society and seek to destroy it. I want to keep my remarks and the debate simple, because what is at stake right now is the future of an organisation that is playing a vital role within that debate. My straightforward request, which I seek to put as constructively as I can to the Minister, is that transitional funding of £150,000 be made available to the Quilliam organisation, which will fold in the next few days unless interim support is made available. Although I realise that a debate in Parliament is not the time for line-by-line negotiation of every aspect of an organisation’s budget, I hope that, by the debate’s conclusion, the Minister will have given us cause to hope that a resolution will be found to the problem and a way forward established.
Five weeks ago, the Prime Minister made an important speech at the Munich security conference. He argued that we need to differentiate between Islam—the world religion that teaches and practises a belief in peace and a loving God—and Islamist extremism, a political ideology which is opposed to western democracy and is linked to and underpins terrorist violence. He explained that radicalisation is a process that turns non-violent Islamists into people who are prepared to kill human beings, including themselves, in pursuit of their perverted ideology. The Prime Minister pointed out that vulnerable individuals become terrorists not overnight, but as a result of the constant pressure placed on them, whether in internet chat rooms, in prisons or, indeed, on university campuses. He went on to state that we need to work with Muslim-led organisations that are willing to confront that Islamist ideology, provided that, at the same time, they defend human rights, equality and integration. He said:
“So let us give voice to those followers of Islam in our own countries—the vast, often unheard majority—who despise the extremists and their worldview. Let us engage groups that share our aspirations.”
I agree very firmly with what the Prime Minister said.
Quilliam is a secular think-tank that was set up in 2008 by two former Islamist extremists, Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz. Since then, it has become a unique centre of knowledge of such extremism. It is not an exaggeration to say that its research and networking have had at least as great an influence on the debate about Islamist extremism and terrorism as any other organisation in the UK. It has gained an international reputation for its work. It is interesting that, this very morning, an important conference on counter-terrorism will be addressed by the Minister for Security, Baroness Neville-Jones. Further down the agenda, a senior spokesperson from Quilliam will speak about the same issues and agenda as a senior Government Minister.
Controversy is, predictably enough, never far away from such an organisation. It has made enemies as well as friends. Those associated with Quilliam face considerable threats and abuse as a result of the stance that they take. Quilliam was initially funded by money from private donors in the Gulf. However, that money was withdrawn when Quilliam’s founders publicly criticised Yusuf al-Qaradawi and the use of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. After that, Quilliam began to receive money from the Home Office and the Foreign Office under the Prevent programme. Quilliam always intended to become financially self-sufficient and was close to achieving private funding on two occasions, only to lose it at the last minute—first, as a result of the credit crunch, and secondly, because of the 2009 uprisings in the middle east.
The money given to Quilliam by the Government has had an immediate and visible impact. Quilliam is one of the few Muslim-led organisations willing to confront extremism directly, to name and shame extremist organisations, and to remain unequivocal in its defence of British values, including free speech, freedom of religion, gay rights and respect for others.
Quilliam has been the most vocal Muslim-led organisation to condemn, without equivocation, suicide bombings and acts of terrorism, and to challenge extremist groups in the United Kingdom. Its bold approach has paved the way for other Muslim groups throughout the United Kingdom to follow suit. By acting as a leader within Britain’s Muslim communities, Quilliam has encouraged other Muslim groups to initiate real debates about issues such as terrorism, religious belief and secularism.
A few days ago, for example, Quilliam issued a statement publicly defending Usama Hasan—a progressive London imam who received death threats for stating his belief in evolution—and criticising the total silence of the Muslim community in the face of the threats against him. The statement encouraged more than a dozen major British Muslim organisations to issue their own statements defending Hasan and his right to free speech.
Quilliam’s staff and supporters make regular media contributions to mainstream UK programmes as well as to specialist Islamic TV and radio outlets. Their statements demonstrate clearly that not all Muslims are extremists. They also challenge Islamist extremists within their own core constituency. In my experience, no other Muslim-led group in the UK does that more effectively.
As the middle east and Pakistan face ever greater turmoil, I believe that Quilliam can make an important contribution, both to our understanding of what is happening and the forces at work, and to the development of a narrative that counters the extremists. Quilliam can also help to challenge Islamist extremism here in the United Kingdom. It has already done much to influence the debate and get the message across to the British public that the vast majority of Muslims are also against extremism. There is particularly important work to do in that regard with young Muslims, who may be disillusioned, concerned about, and fed up with the world around them, and who may be attracted by the perverted ideology of the extremists. We have to make sure that that is countered, and organisations such as Quilliam are in an ideal position to do that.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I have known for some time some of the people involved in Quilliam. My right hon. Friend has mentioned Pakistan, and one of the things that I have found valuable is a report published by Quilliam about a year ago about the radicalisation going on in Pakistan. The organisation was prepared to go to Pakistan and engage with young people in its universities, and to explain to them the realities of British Muslim life. Very few other organisations in this country are prepared to do that, and to do it without a destructive political agenda that feeds prejudices. Quilliam was challenging prejudices, which is in our national interest. It is, therefore, vital that we continue supporting Quilliam.
Paul Goggins
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. He is a great authority on the issues and has an association with Quilliam—as he has said, he knows some of the people involved. He has raised an important issue. In fact, Quilliam has been involved in establishing a Facebook site called Khudi, which has 40,000 subscribers in Pakistan. There are young people listening to the liberal values and arguments being made through that Facebook page. Quilliam is taking the argument into parts of the world where we would find it impossible as individual politicians or, indeed, Governments to advance arguments that would be listened to with any credibility. I pay tribute to Quilliam for doing that work and thank my hon. Friend again for his intervention.
We will soon learn the conclusions that the coroner has reached in the 7/7 inquest. Whatever findings and recommendations she makes, we cannot escape the fact that those responsible for the bombs were a part of our community. We must ensure that there is no room for retreat into denial about extremism. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles, I was a Home Office Minister when the 7/7 bombs went off. In the months that followed, she and I travelled the length and breadth of the country in a effort to engage with the Muslim community and encourage it to face up to the minority in its midst that had adopted an extremist ideology and was intent on the destruction of our way of life and the values that underpin it.
I learned a great deal from those many encounters, but the most important lesson I learned was that it would not be me who could persuade young Muslims away from those who would try to radicalise them and turn them into extremists; it must be people within the wider Muslim community itself who do that work. Our job—whether as Ministers, other politicians who are interested in the issue or, indeed, non-governmental organisations—is to empower and encourage people within the Muslim community to do such work for themselves. That was the most important lesson I learned.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con)
Like me, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman remembers sparring over this issue in relation to the Prevent strategy and the rights and wrongs thereof. However, the Quilliam Foundation is based on not just common sense, but the historical precedent of using those who were opposed to spread the message back to our opponents. That is a very valuable tool; it is not unique but it is an extraordinary tool. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that that must not be allowed to perish.
Paul Goggins
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He and I have sparred over many issues, including this one. I have a great measure of agreement with him when we debate such matters. Those who speak with not just knowledge, but experience do so with additional credibility and in a particularly powerful way. We cannot afford to lose the experience that is contained within the Quilliam Foundation. I hope that my remarks and arguments—and those that will be made by others later in the debate—will persuade Ministers not to give a blank cheque to the organisation, but to provide sufficient funding to enable it to survive the immediate future and provide its own sustainable funding in the long term.
I was describing the core of the important work that Quilliam does by supporting, encouraging and empowering those within the Muslim community to take this work forward for themselves. Again, I say that I am not asking for a blank cheque. Indeed, I support the strong argument that Quilliam should get out of Government funding in the longer term because that will add to its sense of independence, credibility and power within the Muslim community. In the long run, that is a sensible way forward, but we need an interim solution that will enable the organisation to survive these next few days and weeks.
Quilliam has not simply sat there and demanded money; it has taken difficult decisions in recent days to make its sustainability more likely. It has reduced staff numbers from 14 to six and has made eight staff redundant. Clearly, those are very painful decisions, but Quilliam regarded them as necessary in the circumstances. The small team that remains at Quilliam is working flat out on funding bids to charitable trusts and other funding organisations. It currently has a number of funding bids in but, as hon. Members know, charitable trusts do not deal with funding bids every day of the week; they have their own cycle and programme for deciding such things. Quilliam needs some time to allow those organisations to consider the bids and to respond, I hope, positively. Another important recent development has been the granting of charitable status to Quilliam in the United States. I hope that that will open up more avenues of potential financial support for it in the longer term.
I would also like to inform the Minister that Quilliam has actively been looking for smaller more affordable offices, which is also an important way of reducing the organisation’s overhead costs. Quilliam is not sitting there expecting a blank cheque from Government; it wants independent funding and it is prepared to reduce its costs. However, at the moment, it faces a real crisis. The request is simple enough. In December, Quilliam was told that there would be no more core funding in 2011-12. Three months is just not long enough for an organisation to move from core funding to project funding. We need a more flexible approach. A grant of £150,000 to cover the year ahead should be made. That is a reasonable investment in the kind of project I have been describing. After that, Government funds should be available only for specific projects that are agreed.
I hope that such an approach will find support from all parties this morning. It is certainly supported by Lord Carlile who, of course, is regarded by many as the expert in this area of public policy. He has made it clear in the media and personally to me that he supports having a transitional grant that would facilitate survival and then a path towards sustainable, independent funding. Quilliam is prepared to confront Islamist extremists. We should be prepared to ensure that it remains in business.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. It is a delight to be involved in a debate that has none of the partisanship we would expect when talking about organisations’ funding.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) on securing the debate. I also congratulate other right hon. and hon. Members on their contributions, which they made with passion. They have shown their credibility and the experience they have gained in an individual capacity, although as the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, they also represent almost half the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Minister would do well to take that experience on board. In that respect, I was impressed to hear that Lord Carlile, who has been the independent adjudicator on counter-terrorism matters, also supports Quilliam. As my right hon. Friend said, the Government have made the wrong decision—I fully understand why, given the cuts to the Home Office budget and the problems Ministers face—but they now have an opportunity to put things right.
I want to put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East and for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) for the work they did as Ministers after 7/7. As a West Yorkshire MP, I am well aware of the mood—the shock and horror—in West Yorkshire when we found out that the bombers were from our area. There was great concern in communities, and I am grateful to Members for saying that the majority of Muslim people support the state and do not agree with the atrocities that have taken place.
Paul Goggins
My hon. Friend takes my mind back to the day I visited Bradford, when he and other colleagues helped to organise an important meeting with the Muslim community. Does he remember that the central focus of our discussion was concerns about the inability of us as outsiders, and indeed of Muslim leaders themselves, to communicate effectively with young people in the community? Is that not something that Quilliam can do very effectively?
Mr Sutcliffe
Very much so. That was one of the key points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles was honourable enough to say that although we got lots of things right in Prevent, we also got lots of things wrong. Communication with the community was one of the things that was difficult; at one point, the community felt that it was under attack by the state and that we were describing it as the enemy, for want of a better term. The reality was that we needed to get into the community, and particularly to young people who felt isolated. Quilliam can do that.
What strikes me about the debate is that Quilliam has been acknowledged as an organisation that speaks its mind. In speaking its mind, however, it can also create enemies and problems, including with officials in Departments, although I do not mean that in a critical way—that is just the way things develop and operate.
As has been said, Quilliam has set about these issues and produced important research on a complex and controversial subject. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, its research and reports on radicalisation on university campuses has been important. It has also done work in British mosques and the prison system. As a former Prisons Minister, I was interested in what Quilliam said about the radicalisation of prisoners.
Quilliam’s reports have been enlightening and important. Just yesterday, it produced a considered and thoughtful report on the situation in Libya, arguing for action by the international community. It has also done important work overseas, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) talked about the work that it did in Pakistan, challenging extremism and promoting a democratic culture. Although Quilliam is not universally popular, it is clear that many of its critics are apologists for radical Islamism.
I have listened to the debate with interest. Accepting Government funding can give rise to the thought that people are betraying themselves as Government stooges. If people rely only on Government funding and have no other funding, are they putting themselves in a difficult position? Such thoughts have undoubtedly alienated some in the Muslim community from Quilliam. It is not surprising that Quilliam is not universally popular, however, because it tackles controversial issues and it is not afraid to tell it like it is.
When we look at Prevent, it is right that we look at all the issues. This is not the time to argue about Government cuts or the timetable for the review of Prevent. However, we should recognise that Quilliam is a powerful organisation, which is supported by many Members of the House with expert knowledge of these issues. People could argue that this is special pleading, but it is special pleading for an organisation that could, as I said in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles, slip through the net if nothing happens; indeed, Quilliam is already making redundancies and looking at its finances.
Ministers face difficult decisions in good times and bad times; they have to deal with budgets and other issues, and they rely a lot on support from their officials. However, if decisions are not taken quickly in this case, Quilliam will be lost, and if it is, it will not be rediscovered, as Members have said. We cannot readily call on such expertise.
I hope that the Minister will answer the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles in the spirit that she asked it. We need to know what is going on. Is this a political decision? Have Ministers reflected on the issue in light of the support for Quilliam? The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is right to say that we have to look at every area of spend in these difficult times, but it is important that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I fear that the Government’s good intentions in reviewing Prevent could put an end to an organisation that has credibility and support in the UK and internationally. In that respect, I am heartened to hear that it has charity status in the US, which shows its willingness to go out and look for other funding. It is important that it retains credibility in terms of where it gets its funding. As has been said, it could get funding from many different organisations, but would that be the right funding for Quilliam, given the context of its work?
I hope that the Minister will reflect on the debate, which has been excellent, well-informed and non-partisan. I understand that difficult choices have to be made, but I hope we can make sure that this organisation does not slip through the net.
Damian Green
I am trying to come to that point. The principle we want to uphold is that Quilliam should be free to contribute to the wider debate, but not depend on Government funding to do so. The other think-tanks that have also published on radicalisation—including Demos, the Policy Exchange and the Centre for Social Cohesion—all operate on that basis. It is the way that all successful think-tanks need to operate. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) asked a reasonable question about whether think-tank work can contribute to countering radicalisation. That is done by a number of think-tanks. There is an important point of principle about whether think-tanks should continually depend on direct state funding for their core activities to continue their work year after year.
Paul Goggins
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way: all of us who have been Ministers recognise that the timing of winding-up the debate is a fine art, and there is much ground to cover.
The Minister has recognised the contribution that Quilliam has made. He talked about an offer running into tens of thousands of pounds. We have argued for £150,000. If there is good will, a real interest in making sure that the organisation can survive, will the Minister agree to meet me and other colleagues to pursue that, to see if what may be a narrow gap can be closed?
Damian Green
I am always willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman. I know he met the Home Secretary yesterday, and the situation on the subject has not changed radically in the 12 hours since he met her.
Let me address the issues. The Foreign Office and the Home Office fund a number of small organisations, charities, civil society organisations and faith communities to deliver the Prevent programme, overseas and in this country. There are more than 130 such organisations. To protect them and their credibility we do not disclose their names. I am sure everyone will recognise that they are sometimes working in high-risk environments. Their credibility needs protection because research that appears to be British Government-inspired will inevitably have less credibility.
The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles asked about RICU. It has clearly received staff and resources from the Foreign Office, from the Department for Communities and Local Government and from the Home Office, recognising the challenge of producing a coherent narrative overseas, nationally and among local communities. I will write to her on the details.
Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Goggins Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Herbert
I thank my hon. Friend. That provides a very good example of innovative ways of working that can increase the visibility of policing, and the co-operation between the police force and other agencies provides a perfect example of the way we need to go.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
When asked to justify the cuts to policing in Greater Manchester, the Minister for Policing, and Criminal Justice said that cuts could be made to the back office. May I tell him that at least 1,600 police staff are being made redundant in Greater Manchester on top of the 1,377 uniformed officers? I ask him again how he can justify that.
Mrs May
We are looking to police forces first and foremost to take cuts in the back office, but that is not just about individuals; it is about improving procurement and collaborating with other forces to make savings. Significant sums of money—hundreds of millions of pounds—can be saved by better procurement, better IT services and collaboration between forces.
Sex Offenders Register
Paul Goggins Excerpts(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the rigorous approach that the Home Secretary is taking, and I say that as the Minister who took the Sexual Offences Act 2003 through Committee. Does she agree that given the highly secretive and manipulative behaviour of many sex offenders, it is highly unlikely that the offence of which they were convicted is the only crime that they have committed? Will she ensure in any review process that there is a clear onus on the offender to demonstrate beyond doubt that they are no longer a risk to the public?
Mrs May
I have a number of points to make to the right hon. Gentleman. Throughout the House, we all agree that Parliament needs to get the answer right for the sake of public protection. The police will be able to take other offences into account when they consider whether an individual should remain on the sex offenders register, and they will look as widely as possible at the behaviour of the individual in question, consulting as wide a number of agencies as possible to ensure that they make the best possible decision for the public.