Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The independent reviewer’s proposals should be looked at very seriously. As I have said, there may be other options, such as the extension of time limits. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, any set of proposals will involve limitations. This is the kind of debate we ought to be having in Parliament, but it needs to be informed by that proper security assessment.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Yvette Cooper]

I will give way once more, but I must then make some progress, because I know that many other Members wish to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady; I know that she wants to move on. Do I understand from her response to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that her understanding of justice in this case is that the group of people concerned should not be allowed to see the evidence that will be presented in a trial that they will not actually undergo, and that they should then be forcibly relocated from their communities and kept in detention for at least 23 hours a day, for an indefinite period? Is that the Labour party’s view of justice in this case?

[Yvette Cooper]

No. We have made it clear throughout the passage of the legislation that these measures should be used only in very exceptional circumstances, and that there must also be a court procedure. There must be legal safeguards, and there must be judicial processes. I have cited the views of the judges, not just the views of the Security Service and the Home Secretary. However, we must also recognise that there are some cases in which it is very difficult to prosecute in the courts because of secret intelligence, and the risk to human sources who may put their lives at risk by providing that important information.

The Home Secretary should tell us this: does she still believe that each of the six men whose restrictions she is now removing poses a terror threat—yes or no? She told us 12 months ago that the answer was yes, because she renewed their TPIMs, but what is her answer now? We know what she thought of those men when she imposed the restrictions, but surely it is even more important for us to know the risk when she takes those restrictions away. We are not asking her to show Parliament the detailed Security Service assessment—she should show that to the Intelligence and Security Committee—but we are asking her to inform us of her conclusions, and to give us as much detail as she gave publicly to the courts.

The Home Secretary gave us her security assessment when Magag and Mohamed ran off. She told us then that she did not believe they posed any risk to people in the United Kingdom. If she could tell us that much about those two terror suspects once they were out on the streets without restrictions, why can she not do the same now in relation to all the others?

People change and risk levels change. If the risk has been reduced, restrictive measures may no longer be justified, in which case they should certainly be removed. We support the removal of restrictions as soon as they are no longer justified. Over the last decade, control orders have rightly been removed from more than 30 people because they were not longer justified. Terror powers such as these must always be kept under review, but the Home Secretary has removed these restrictions not because they are no longer justified but because of her legislation, the legislation she pushed through Parliament. How can Parliament assess whether that legislation was right, and whether she has done the right thing, without knowing the continued risk that any of these men is expected to pose?

We also need to know what action the Home Secretary has taken to prepare for the end of TPIMs. The independent reviewer warned us some time ago that serious planning should be done to work with those individuals to reduce the risk once the restrictions were removed. Has that happened? Has any work been done with them to address their extremism? Judge Wilkie suggests not. On the basis of the evidence that the Home Secretary submitted to the court, he said that she

“does not accept that there is a general duty to tailor measures towards the end of a TPIM in order to facilitate assimilation.”

What planning has taken place to cope with the restrictions being removed? The Home Secretary has told us that the Metropolitan police have a plan for each person, but will she ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee is shown those plans? Will she also tell us what those plans will cost? When control orders were downgraded to TPIMs two years ago, the Government provided extra funding for surveillance and investigations. However, that extra funding was clearly not enough to ensure that there was sufficient surveillance on Mohamed and Magag, who were able to abscond, or enough to deliver successful prosecutions. That reduction from control orders to TPIMs will have put additional pressure on the resources of the police and the security services, but surely the ending of TPIMs for those suspects altogether will put even greater pressure on those resources now, as there are no restrictions in place. Has any additional funding been made available to cope with the ending of TPIMs for those men, or will surveillance resources have to be redeployed from other important targets?

Before the Home Secretary stands up to answer my questions, let me address some of the points that she usually makes in her defence, as well as some new ones that she has added to her list in the past few days. She usually argues that control orders were not strong enough, and that people absconded while subject to them. She and I agree that the control orders without relocation powers, under the regime that operated before 2007, were not strong enough, but that is why the control order regime was tightened up in 2007 with a greater focus being placed on relocation, after which no one absconded. My response to that was to say that we should keep the relocation powers. Hers was to ditch them. She has lost two terror suspects as a result.

The Home Secretary has now come up with two new defences. She has told the Daily Mail that the problem was the fault of the Human Rights Act, and she has told The Sun that it was the fault of the Liberal Democrats. Both claims are nonsense. She has also tried to claim that control orders had to be reformed because they were being undermined in the courts. The independent reviewer has made it clear, both to the Home Affairs Committee and in other statements, that the courts have repeatedly upheld the principle of control orders and upheld individuals’ cases time and again. The independent reviewer has said:

“The replacement of control orders by TPIMs was a political decision. It was not prompted by any court judgment, either from the United Kingdom or from Strasbourg.”

As for the idea that this was all the Liberal Democrats’ fault, the Deputy Prime Minister is not even strong enough to sort out the problems in his own party. No one believes that he is strong enough to make the Home Secretary put forward legislation that she does not agree with. Let us remember what she said at the time. She made it clear that it was her legislation, not his. She defended every one of the changes, including the two-year limit, the end of relocation and the granting of extra freedoms. Indeed, she was proud that she was

“re-striking the balance between national security and civil liberties.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 71.]

The Home Secretary cannot blame the Liberal Democrats, the Human Rights Act or the courts. She has only herself to blame if she does not like the consequences of her legislation. We need to know what she is going to do now, however. What is the risk to the public from those six men? What is the risk to the public from her legislation? What is she doing about this? She told us three years ago:

“Where successful prosecution or deportation is not possible, however, no responsible Government could allow dangerous individuals to go freely about their terrorist activities.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 69.]

So can she now get up and tell us that she is not doing exactly that? Can she put her hand on her heart and tell us she is confident that she is doing the right thing for the British people by removing those TPIMs from those six individuals this month? And if she is really as uncomfortable with her own legislation as her briefings to the newspapers suggest, is it not time that she backed down and set up a cross-party review to look at this legislation again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Johnson]

Relocation does not have to be part of an order—it would be within the Home Secretary’s box of tools. There would be no argument whatsoever if there was an agreement that that might be counterproductive. I do not think we are over those kinds of threats yet—I take issue with that—but I take the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s point.

It would be a different matter if relocation was objected to by the courts, but that is not the case. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) quoted David Anderson and others. It would be a different matter if the removal of relocation was required by the Government’s independent advisers, but David Anderson thought we were going backwards on protecting the public. That is what he said in his first review, in so many words. Those on the Liberal Democrat Benches do not like to listen to Lord Carlile, and neither would I if I was in their position, but David Anderson’s predecessor said:

“On the evidence available, I am persuaded firmly—I choose my words carefully—to the view that it would be negligent to remove relocation from the main provisions.”

Both Governments’ reviewers said the same thing.

It was me who placed the control order on Ibrahim Magag, who was relocated away from London. Why was he relocated away from London? Because the ruling of Lord Justice Collins was that

“it is too dangerous to permit him to be in London even for a short period.”

That was the courts, not me. Why on earth did the current Home Secretary allow him back into London, enabling him to hail a taxi and disappear? In times past, media pressure would have meant a taxi being ordered for the Home Secretary.

[Richard Fuller]

As the right hon. Gentleman is making such a substantial point on relocation, and as he is experienced in the use of control orders, can he advise the House which other European Union countries have relocation as part of their protections against terrorism suspects, and, if it is not used in other EU countries, why does he think it is particularly apropos in the United Kingdom?

[Alan Johnson]

We could have a seminar for hours on other European countries and their much better abilities to detain, and to detain for many years, as we have seen with suspects in France. The hon. Gentleman’s Government reviewed this and decided that they needed an element that they could call a control order. The “T” in TPIMs did not stand for temporary; it stood for terrorism. Having concluded that, why would relocation be removed? That is a mystery to me. The Home Secretary herself placed the control order on Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, before control orders were changed to TPIMs. Humiliatingly, he has absconded.

The two-year limit is completely arbitrary—that is the mystery. It is not as if a terrorist who has served a sentence is about to be released after a period in prison. TPIMs relate to people who, we had cause to believe, posed a danger. The question we have asked consistently of the Home Secretary is why, after this arbitrary period, do they suddenly not pose a threat?

I am very familiar with the activities of three of the people covered by TPIMs. Incidentally, one of them is known as DD. I am not sure if that is a reference to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who may well have been put under one of these orders by his own Front Bench. Those three people do not have to be engaged in any fresh activity for me to be extremely worried about their release. Indeed, it is a curious point that TPIMs come to an end if people subject to them are not engaged in any fresh terrorist activity. That suggests that TPIMs are so weak that people on them could be gaily getting involved in fresh terrorist activity. However, it is not the fresh terrorist activity I am worried about, but the original reasons for the order.

Let us go back for a moment to the Home Secretary’s words, which we have heard before. She said that there are

“a small number of people who pose a real threat to our security”,

and that

“no responsible Government could allow these individuals to go”—[Official Report, 26 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 307-8.]

back on the streets. The motion is genuinely trying to reach a consensus. This matter is too serious for us to score political points. Parliament is concerned that people previously thought too dangerous for our streets will now be released. We need to find a solution, and I urge the Treasury Bench and Government Members, if not to support our motion, which might be too much for them, at least to find a similar way to reach a consensus on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

The hon. Gentleman can have a look at the report of the debate in which I described the method that I should prefer, which is far more focused on prosecution, and note the amendments that I tabled.

The system that was set up by the last Government involved secret evidence. People did not know what their orders were based on. There was a huge range of punishments, including long curfews—virtual house arrests—and there was this awful internal relocation. People were not even allowed to be in their own homes. All that could continue for an indefinite period. To me, internal exile without trial does not sound like what I would expect this country to be doing; it sounds like the way in which the Soviet Union would behave. In the review that he carried out for the Government, Lord Macdonald said of relocation:

“This is a form of internal exile, which is utterly inimical to traditional British norms…It is disproportionate and there is no justification for its retention.”

That view was expressed on the basis of a detailed study.

[Richard Fuller]

Is it not also the case that whenever that regime is in place, the Government of the day—acting as judge and jury in the case of people who have never been brought to trial—will see the Opposition trample over our civil liberties in order to look tougher than the Home Secretary, and try to scare people about what may happen with no evidence that it will happen at all?