Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and Julian Lewis

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman can be reassured that the whole purpose of this UK-wide legislation is not to discriminate between different types of terrorists. It would be wholly wrong for this legislation, for example, to focus on so-called Islamic terrorism, as opposed to far-right terrorism, the Provisional IRA and irregular republican, or indeed, irregular terrorism of a general nature within Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom. This is not discriminatory legislation. It is designed to deal with terrorism in all its forms, and I believe that this legislation is also agile when it comes to dealing with and anticipating the enduring challenge of how to manage terrorists in whatever form they might come. As we know, terrorism is evolving and taking different forms all the time.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend mentions a couple of cases, including Fishmongers’ Hall. Does that not illustrate the great range of problems that have to be addressed? In recent times, was there not a case where someone had to be released even though people were sure he would reoffend at the first opportunity—he did so, and had to be trailed and stopped by an MI5 team—whereas at Fishmongers’ Hall, was the problem not that the person had claimed to be reformed and that there was no reason, apparently, not to release him? It will have to be a very comprehensive piece of legislation to cope with such a wide range of problems.

[Robert Buckland]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who speaks with experience of these matters. He helps me to outline the point I was about to make about the complex and evolving nature of the threat. He is right to talk about different types of threat: superficial compliance, which we saw, sadly, with regard to Fishmongers’ Hall; and known threat, but with an inability of the authorities, due to the current regime, to manage that within custodial settings, and the paraphernalia, cost and sheer planning that has then to be undertaken to try to deal with and manage the threat in the community.

I must pay tribute to the teams who worked so hard at Streatham to minimise what could have been an even more horrific incident on that Sunday afternoon on Streatham High Road. I well remember looking at the detail of what the teams did that day and being lost in sheer admiration for their bravery and professionalism in dealing with a terrible incident that could have involved very serious loss of life. The work of looking at the detailed facts will go on by way of an independent inquest. We will, of course, look precisely at the outcome of that, and at the serious further offence reviews, which are ongoing but will conclude very shortly. They will help to supplement the excellent work done by Jonathan Hall in his review of MAPPA—multi-agency public protection arrangements.

I was explaining that the announcements we made some months ago were but the first stage of our response. The step-up response to counter-terrorism is very much at the heart of what I and the Government are about. The legislation we are now introducing will ensure that the process for how we at each stage deal with both convicted terrorist offenders and those who pose a concern of becoming terrorist offenders will be strengthened. We are determined to ensure that those who commit serious acts of terror and put members of the public at risk serve sentences that properly reflect the harm they cause.

The Bill will reform the sentences which can be handed down to terror offenders by introducing a new category of sentence. The serious terrorism sentence, for the most serious and dangerous terrorist offenders, will carry a minimum period of 14 years of custody, with an extended licence period of up to 25 years. That sentence will apply to only the most serious and dangerous terrorist offenders who would otherwise receive a life sentence: those who have been found guilty of an offence where there was a high likelihood of causing multiple deaths.

The Bill also introduces further provisions for terrorist offenders who have been assessed to be dangerous, and who have committed a sufficiently serious offence, to spend the entirety of their sentence in custody without the prospect of early release. In addition to spending that full term in prison, the courts will be able to apply longer extended licence periods of up to 10 years for those offenders, so we can continue to supervise them once they are allowed back into the community. Any breach would put them straight back into prison.

In February, I announced that the Government would review sentencing for terrorist offenders, including whether current maximum penalties for terrorist offences were sufficient. Following that review, the Bill proposes to increase the maximum penalty for three specific terrorism offences: first, membership of a proscribed organisation; secondly, supporting a proscribed organisation; and thirdly, attending a place used for terrorist training. The maximum term is currently 10 years, but will be increased to 14, which sends a clear message about how serious the Government consider that type of offending and is consistent with existing penalties for similarly serious terrorist offences.

Another outcome of the review included in the Bill is an amendment to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which will enable the courts to find any offence with a maximum penalty of more than two years to have a terrorist connection. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation noted that that would be a useful change. It will give the courts more flexibility to reflect the facts of each case fully in the sentence that they may wish to pass.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and Julian Lewis

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

The cohort of around 50 are due for automatic early release; the rest will be subject to Parole Board assessment. Different types of sentence are available. We are talking about people on standard determinate sentences. Other types of sentence include extended determinate sentences. Some may still be on the historical IPP—imprisonment for public protection—regime, and there are also sentences for offenders of particular concern, or SOPC. Forgive me for the alphabet soup, but I am afraid that criminal justice sentencing legislation has not been the easiest matter for us to deal with, either as legislators or when I was a practitioner in this area.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for giving way; he is being hugely generous. Does he accept that, while a lot of these people are terrorists and criminals, a significant number of them are clearly insane? The people who were in jail with the latest perpetrator said that that individual was plainly off his head. He had a history of drug abuse, and mind-altering substances clearly played a role. Why is it that if people are secular and insane, they will be locked up indefinitely, but if they can ascribe this to some sort of religious motive, we feel we have to give them a finite sentence and release them, when they might run amok at any stage?

[Robert Buckland]

As ever, my right hon. Friend makes an interesting and thought-provoking point. While I will not go into the individual facts of this case, because it is subject to a police investigation and there is an ongoing inquiry, I will say this. The judgment as to a mental health disorder within the meaning set out in the Mental Health Act 1983 is a matter for two section 12 qualified clinicians—consultant psychiatrists—who will produce clinical evidence that will satisfy a court of the provisions of section 37 of the Act or, indeed, a restriction under section 41, which puts the power of release into my hands. That has to be satisfied on the basis of evidence.

It is important to make a distinction between that clinical approach and the risk assessment that we have to undertake when it comes to those who profess political motivation. It is thought-provoking in the sense that we need to think about a mechanism that would be robust and legally sound but would allow an objective assessment to be made about the risk posed by individuals, even after their sentence has been completed. Public protection has to come to the forefront of our thinking.

I will now describe what we have done operationally since the attack at Streatham. The Prison and Probation Service has taken immediate action to strengthen our operational grip of terrorist offenders and protect the public from any further attacks. The National Probation Service is working closely with counter-terrorism partners. Several offenders on licence have been recalled to prison since the attack, where officers identified concerning behaviour, which relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). We have also instructed prison governors to report any concerns and take any action required. Several terrorist prisoners have subsequently been placed in segregation units as a result of concerns raised by prison staff. The Prison Service is managing the risk of incidents in prisons that may be inspired by, or in response to, the attack at Streatham.

I would like to put on record my thanks to Ian Acheson for his 2016 report on our response to extremism in prisons. In the intervening years, the operating context has changed, and our response has strengthened considerably, but we must go further. We will take all additional steps necessary, including keeping the full list of recommendations in Mr Acheson’s internal report under careful review.

However, we need to take further action urgently to ensure that the public are protected. As we saw in the Streatham attack, we cannot have a situation where an offender—a known risk to the public—is released without any oversight by the Parole Board. The Bill therefore sets out new release arrangements for prisoners serving a sentence for a terrorist offence or an offence with a terrorist connection. There are two main elements to that: first, to standardise the earliest point at which they may be considered for release at two thirds of the sentence imposed; and secondly, to require that the Parole Board assesses whether they are safe to release between that point and the end of their sentence. That will apply to all terrorist and terrorist-related offences where the maximum penalty is above two years, including those offences for which Sudesh Umman was sentenced. Only a very small number of low-level offences, such as failure to comply with a police cordon, are excluded by this threshold, and prosecution and conviction for those offences are rare.

The changes affect those who are serving sentences for a specified offence, whether the sentence was imposed before or after the new section comes into force. Applying this to serving prisoners reflects the unprecedented gravity of the situation we face and the danger posed to the public. The Bill will not achieve its intended effect unless it operates with retrospective effect, and therefore it will necessarily operate on both serving and future prisoners. That does not mean that the Bill will change retrospectively the sentence imposed by the court; release arrangements are part of the administration of a sentence, and the overall penalty remains unchanged. As I outlined earlier, domestic and ECHR case law supports our stance that article 7 is not engaged where the penalty imposed by the court is not altered. The measures in the Bill will also amend the release arrangements for terrorist offenders sentenced in Scotland, which will ensure a consistent approach where possible to the release of terrorist prisoners.

Streatham Incident

Debate between Robert Buckland and Julian Lewis

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, heard what I said. The purpose of the emergency legislation is to end automatic early release at the halfway point. That will apply to serving prisoners, which is why I want to introduce emergency legislation, which will be introduced as soon as possible. That ends the automaticity element, which was the reason why this individual, who posed a risk, was released. There was nothing more that we could do, because the law, as passed by the previous Labour Government, was what we had to apply. That is what we are going to do, and I am more than happy to explain it further to the hon. Lady later.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

How seriously should we take the recent report that one of Lee Rigby’s killers claims to be a reformed character?

[Robert Buckland]

I have not seen that report. It is a matter for those responsible for the assessment of risk within the custodial estate to look at the evidence, to professionally assess it and to understand the particularly unique risks posed by the terrorist cohort. I think the thrust of my right hon. Friend’s question was precisely on that point, and it is well understood.

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Robert Buckland and Julian Lewis

Friday 14th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The equation of mental health problems with weakness is something we must destroy utterly. We all know about that culture in the City, and it exists elsewhere. Organisations such as Legal and General and Swindon’s Mindful Employer network, an excellent organisation that brings together companies large and small in my constituency to encourage and share best practice with regard to employees with stress or mental health and other related conditions, can demonstrate the way to go when it comes to dealing with these conditions.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am greatly enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. His point about the idea of mental illness being equated with weakness brings to mind a famous radio lecture given by Viscount Slim of Burma, who pointed out that even the most courageous warriors will eventually break down if they are not rested and supported by their commanding officers and, indeed, that courage is a little like a bank account: one can be overdrawn for a certain amount of time, but not indefinitely. Some of the bravest and most courageous people are just as liable to mental breakdown if they are not properly understood and supported as somebody who would never for a moment go into those hazardous situations.

[Mr Buckland]

My hon. Friend brings a great hero of mine to our attention: Field Marshal the Viscount Slim, leader of the forgotten army, a man who led an outstandingly courageous operation in the far east. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring that huge experience to bear in this debate, which allows me to make an important point. We must be very careful when we use words such as “vulnerable”, because many people I know who have mental health conditions—I am sure other Members of the House know such people—would not like to be described as vulnerable. Often they are very tough people indeed who have gone through the toughest of circumstances.

I make that point because a good-natured and well-intentioned approach that describes people with mental health conditions as vulnerable brings with it a danger that the vulnerability becomes the basis by which, rather than encouraging and enabling such people to engage fully in society and public life, we assume that they need to be looked after in a different way and separated from mainstream society. Such a view is only a short step away from the old thinking about institutionalisation—the thinking of previous generations, which did so much harm and damage to people with mental health conditions. Although it is undeniable that people with disabilities or mental health conditions can find themselves in vulnerable situations, that is very different from making glib assumptions about their vulnerability.

The Bill would be a straightforward and simple piece of legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) said, it would also reduce and repeal legislation—something that I, as a Conservative, am always happy to support. In three particular respects it deals with provisions that are not only discriminatory, but wholly superfluous. The provision relating to Members of Parliament, as has already been noted, is not only dangerous, with the additional vice of potentially driving hon. Members to deny mental health problems, but in the light of the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which allows for a person lacking capacity to be detained without losing their seat, section 141 is utterly redundant. On the principle that redundant legislation is bad law, we as legislators should act swiftly to remove such a provision.

It has been reported today that people with stressful jobs in which the ability to control events is limited—I most definitely include being a Member of Parliament in that category—are at a 23% greater risk of having a heart attack. We really would be idiots in this place if we denied the possibility that the mental health of hon. Members is not invulnerable. In my opinion the 2005 Act caters well for cases in which, sadly, detention for mental health reasons is the only alternative available but, importantly, it does not allow the automatic vacation of a seat because of the fact of a mental health condition. That is the important distinction that we must draw between the mere fact of a condition and the question of capacity. The two things are very different.

As you probably know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have had more than my fair share of experience of dealing with the great British jury, to quote the words of W. S. Gilbert, whether I have been sitting as a Crown court recorder or appearing as counsel in criminal cases. I say with all the experience that I can muster that the court system is perfectly capable of catering for and dealing with people with conditions—sometimes lifelong ones—that can be managed by the administration of medication.

When somebody with diabetes, or another type of physical condition managed by regular medication, comes to the court, the well adopted practice is for sittings and administrative arrangements to be adjusted so that the person’s needs can be accommodated, they can take their medication and can serve as a juror. In other words, no assumption is made that, just because a potential juror has a physical condition or disability, they cannot serve as a juror.

The assumption in the Juries Act 1974 about mental health is wholly wrong. The blanket ban serves not only to reinforce stigma, but devalues the contribution that people with mental health conditions make to society and can make as jurors. In my humble opinion, there is no more important public service for an individual than to serve on a jury in judgment over their fellow citizen. To drive underground necessary disclosure of some mental health conditions that could affect the capacity to serve is, in my view, what is happening now—inevitably, as result of the outdated provisions in the 1974 Act. That is why those provisions must go and why I particularly welcome the Bill.