Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

It is the purpose of the amendment to give the court discretion, although a practice has been established through the jurisprudence on control orders which informs that process. It is therefore intended to provide the court with the flexibility, as I explained in my introductory remarks.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

May I probe and press my hon. Friend a little further on this point? As he knows, a number of colleagues in the House have the same concern about the TPIMs regime as they had about the old control orders regime: the uncertainty that arises for individuals in the court process. Does he accept that the amendments to clause 8 will increase that level of uncertainty for people who are put under TPIMs? Does he agree that there is scope for providing, if not a seven-day limit, at least a definitive statement about for how long, at each stage of the process, such individuals will be detained?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have already explained, we received this request following the consideration by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. The Government have not been seeking to provide any uncertainty—far from it. The provision is intended to reflect the practice of the courts. Therefore, following consideration of the representations that we received, we have introduced the Lords amendment that is before the House.

[Richard Fuller]

I greatly appreciate the Minister’s clarification. I fully accept that this is not a request by the Government. I am saying, from a political perspective on that role of the courts, that we are talking about the start of a process that imposes penalties on people and that, at almost every stage, has a level of indeterminacy about what is being put in place for them and how long it will last. Will my hon. Friend give some perspective on the suggestion that this change, even though it has been requested by the courts, further exacerbates the uncertainty in the imposition of such controls?

[James Brokenshire]

I do not accept that it provides uncertainty. It provides the courts with the ability to operate the regime effectively. As this matter was raised in the Lords, we are seeking this House’s consideration to ensure that the measure is properly applied. That is the basis on which we have introduced the amendment. I think it is appropriate to provide flexibility in the way that has been proposed.

Amendment 10 relates to the police reporting measure. It makes it clear that in addition to requiring the individual to report to a police station at specified times and in a specified manner, the Secretary of State may require the individual to comply with directions given by the police in relation to such reporting. That is necessary to ensure that the individual can be required to co-operate with the practicalities of reporting—for example, requiring him to report to the front desk of the police station, to speak to the officer there, and to sign to confirm his attendance. That has always been the intention behind the measure, and it is the current practice for control orders. It is necessary to ensure that the provision reflects the reality of how the measure is intended to operate. It is also in line with the general procedures for individuals required to report to a police station for any other reason—for example, individuals on police or court bail. Lords amendment 3 is necessary in consequence. It specifies that the definition of “TPIM decision” at clause 17(3) includes such a direction given by a constable in relation to the reporting measure.

Lords amendments 4 and 5 are essentially technical amendments which are necessary in consequence of changes to other legislation currently before Parliament. Section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which has not been commenced, increases the maximum sentence on summary conviction in England and Wales from six months to 12 months. When the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill was drafted, the intention was that that provision would be repealed by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Because of this, clause 23 provides that the maximum sentence on summary conviction for contravening a measure specified in a TPIM notice is six months. However, section 154(1) of the 2003 Act will not now be repealed. On that basis, these amendments are needed to revert to the previous practice when legislating for offences that are tried summarily. They provide for a maximum 12-month term in England and Wales, but include a transitional provision limiting the sentencing power to six months pending commencement of section 154(1) of the 2003 Act.

Lords Amendments 6 and 9 relate to the overnight residence measure. That is intended to ensure that the individual can be required to reside at a specified address and to remain there for specified periods overnight. The clear purpose of that is to manage risk. As part of that measure, it may be necessary to require the individual to remain within the residence and to prohibit them from entering any garden or outside area that forms part of the property or any communal area in a shared property during the specified hours overnight.

As it was drafted, the provision did not necessarily make it clear that the measure could be applied in that way. These are essential drafting amendments to remove that uncertainty and to make clear the policy intention. They put it beyond doubt that the individual may be required to remain within their residence—that is, essentially, behind their front door—during the specified overnight period. I should make it clear that, where individuals are required to remain at their residence or are electronically monitored in other contexts, they will usually be required to remain in their house or flat and will not be allowed out into their garden. The particular requirements imposed by the Secretary of State in each case must, of course, always be necessary and proportionate. The court will subsequently consider the proportionality of each measure as part of its review of the notice.

On the point about directions hearings that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) made, I should add that clause 8(5) still provides that the substantive hearing is to take place as soon as possible. I just wanted to reassure him in case he thought that the proposal was open-ended. That is certainly not the intention. I hope that the need to act expeditiously in this regard is clear to him.

Lords Amendment 7 deletes subsection (11)(a) of clause 26, which allowed a temporary enhanced TPIM order to amend any enactment. That subsection was drafted on the basis that the temporary enhanced TPIM order would need to amend other legislation to ensure that the enhanced TPIM system would function correctly. The Government considered it further following an amendment helpfully tabled in Committee in the other place by Baroness Hamwee. We concluded that the subsection was not necessary for this purpose and therefore amended the Bill on Report to remove it.

Lords Amendment 8 is necessary to ensure that the power to make a temporary enhanced TPIM order does not impinge inappropriately on devolved matters in Scotland. Clause 26, as amended, provides that a temporary enhanced TPIM order may not make any provision relating to devolved matters in Scotland, other than those already contained in the Bill, without the consent of the Scottish Government. In relation to those provisions touching on devolved matters that are already contained in the Bill, I can confirm that the Scottish Parliament passed a legislative consent motion on 17 November. I am grateful to Scottish Ministers and officials for their help in that regard.

Finally, Lords Amendment 11 relates to the transitional period provided by schedule 8. In the period following the coming into force of the Bill, the control orders in force immediately before the commencement of the Bill will remain in force, unless revoked or quashed before the end of that period. Such a period is needed to ensure that there can be a safe, orderly and managed transition of individuals from the old system to the new system. As the Government have consistently made clear, the police have confirmed that extensive preparations are being made and that arrangements will be in place to manage the move from the control order system to the TPIMs system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for clearly setting out the bulk of the amendments. Having read the transcripts of the evidence sessions in Committee, it is clear that the Government were pushed and pressed, as is right, through effective scrutiny from all members of the Committee and Members in the other place, to table amendments to clarify the Bill’s intention. On that basis, the Opposition are satisfied with Lords amendments 1 to 10.

However, I want to comment on Lords amendment 11 and amendment (a) to it. As the Minister said, the Lords amendment increases the transitional period for which schedule 8 provides, during which a control order that is enforced immediately before the commencement of the Bill will remain in force, unless revoked or quashed before the end of that period, from 28 days to 42 days. The Opposition Front Benchers’ amendment would increase that transitional period to 365 days. It is worth pointing out that those who have put their names to the amendment include two former police and terrorism Ministers and a former Minister who dealt with terrorism in Northern Ireland in the previous Government. Those Members clearly have a lot of detailed information and experience in dealing with such matters, and they thought it appropriate to put their names to the amendment.

Why have we tabled amendment (a)? It is because we want to support the Government in keeping the country as safe as possible as they move to the new regime of TPIMs. I heard clearly the Minister’s comments about his commitment to national security being a top priority. Of course, the Opposition support that priority. However, we believe that a more flexible approach would be a better way forward on the transitional period that is in the Bill.

I certainly do not wish to reopen the debate on control orders, but we know that nine people are currently subject to them—a small number of people who are intent on doing grave harm to this country. It is not possible to prosecute them, but to keep the country safe, we need to impose intrusive restrictions on them. I think that there are 11 control orders in total, but nine have the power to relocate as one of the conditions. We know that the Home Secretary has used control orders with relocation provisions in cases CD and BM. In the case of CD, a challenge to the decision to relocate went to the High Court. It was dismissed and the relocation was upheld.

It is important to quote the Mayor of London, who obviously has a keen interest in those matters. He said on the case of CD:

“It’s clear from the court papers that he rejects and would like to destroy everything that makes this a great city. We don’t want this man in London.”

In moving to the new TPIMs regime, the relocation provisions will not be available to the Home Secretary in future. We want to ensure that no unnecessary risks are taken over the next 12 months. As hon. Members have already said, we will have major events in our city, including not only the Olympics and the Paralympics, but the diamond jubilee. So we need to ensure that London is kept as safe as possible in 2012.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Lady says that we need to ensure that there are no unnecessary risks, and she says, fairly, that she and other Labour Members share the Minister’s commitment to the security of the nation. But the Minister said that the period was necessary to ensure that effective arrangements were in place, and he believes that that period is 42 days. What evidence does the hon. Lady have that the period needs to be longer to ensure effective arrangements?

[Diana Johnson]

That is a very helpful intervention, because I want to move on to the evidence that was given to the Committee by Stuart Osborne, the deputy assistant commissioner for the Metropolitan police service and senior national co-ordinator for terrorism investigations. He also represents ACPO. The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) asked Mr Osborne how long it would take for a new regime to bed in before it becomes law, to which he replied:

“I think I said it would take a year to procure and train sufficient additional assets before it would be ready to do that. We have to order some of the assets so that they are made in advance. To train a surveillance officer and then have them fully able to operate in a challenging environment probably takes at least 12 months before they are deployable. Once they are deployable, they have to work within the environment under a new set of regimes that will need to bed in.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 10, Q31.]

On the basis of that evidence, which mentions the period of a year, hon. Members are concerned that we could be putting ourselves in a risky situation by rushing headlong into the new TPIMs regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hazel Blears]

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

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

[Richard Fuller]

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

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

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

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

[Mark Field]

I entirely recognise the sincerity of what my hon. Friend says and I, too, have many civil libertarian sympathies, but does he not recognise that this regime is not all that much different from the control order regime that it seeks to replace?

[Richard Fuller]

Without getting into the details, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can say that of course many of us would like to go further. The Minister and I have had disagreements on this, but in conclusion may I commend him on the way in which he has seen the passage of this Bill through? I hope that in future we may be able to go further.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I shall be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know that the House is anxious to vote on this matter. I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the evidence on the Olympics given this morning by Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. He called for a central hub to be created to police the Olympics, bringing together resources, intelligence and other aspects of policing. He and others felt that that was necessary.

On the questions raised by others concerning TPIMs and control orders, of course there is concern that some of these individuals will be allowed to return to London just as the Olympics are beginning, and the Government need to monitor the situation carefully.

My final point relates to the request for thousands of additional volunteers to come forward to police the Olympics—there is talk of 10,000 people. All I urge is that they are properly trained before they take on their responsibilities. I am sure that the Minister is conscious of the importance of the Olympics. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) was right to have raised it, and I hope that the Government will bear it in mind when we consider the resources and practicalities of the next few months.