Paul
Holmes: Still putting it a little more delicately, I would
not have phrased it in terms of human rights, as the right hon. Member
has. I would use the example that I gave to some Muslims in my
constituency a few years ago after the Underground bomb. They said,
“That means we will be picked on more when we come through the
airports. We will be suspected simply because of the colour of our skin
and where we originate from.” In fact, they were born in
Chesterfield. They did not originate from anywhere else at all. I
pointed out to them that there has to be sensible policing. When they
came to me previously about incidents of BNP activity in the area where
they live in Chesterfield, they expected the police not to stop every
young man on the street, including Asians but to focus on young white
men with skinhead cuts and Rottweilers, who might be the people who
were carrying out the intimidation. They would want a sensible type of
policing, and it is the same in reverse.
Mr.
George: I continue my recently established policy of
agreeing with everything a Liberal Democrat has said. I must cure
myself of this trait. I think he is absolutely right. We must be
tolerant and aware of the requirements and the religion, philosophy and
racial background of others. We must expect tolerance towards us as
well. It needs to be recognised that a lot of Muslims have been
targeted deliberately—a lot—and a lot have died as a
result of the activities of those allegedly co-religionists. It is
delicate. It is easy for us to offer advice, but it is up to the
officers who are faced with the set of
problems.
Mr.
Blunt: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for
giving way. I hope he will join me in taking comfort from the extensive
notes for guidance for officers, which make specifically clear
that:
“When
deciding whether to exercise their Schedule 7 powers, examining
officers should base their decisions on a number of considerations,
including factors such as known and suspected sources of terrorism;
individuals or groups whose current or past involvement in acts or
threats of terrorism is known or suspected and supporters or sponsors
of such activity who are known or suspected; any information on the
origins and/or locations of terrorist groups; possible current,
emerging and future terrorist
activity”. That
is only a small element of the detail that is in the guidance given to
examining officers. That has given me the reassurance that I hope the
right hon. Gentleman can share.
Mr.
George: I have been very nice towards the Liberal
Democrats. I find it difficult to be nice to all political parties, but
I am prepared to be polite even to the Conservative spokesman, who
knows enough about discipline, having worked in the Whips Office and
being the recipient of earlier Whips. He is able to make a contribution
and has clearly read his brief, which I am most impressed
by. There
are dilemmas. The Minister knows them; the immigration officers and
Liberty know them. There will be problems. Ultimately the yardstick by
which we must judge the documentation that we are considering is
whether the intelligence and the staff and all of the factors necessary
are sufficient to meet the challenge of people insinuating themselves
into our country for purposes other than those that we would expect
from any law-abiding member of our indigenous population, whatever
their religious background. We know about people coming here to study
and the bogus colleges—they get in. It is very important that we
bear all factors in mind. Those officers are literally in the firing
line of making life and death decisions. If they get it wrong, the
consequences can be catastrophic. I support the amendments to the code
and wish those who are seeking to enforce what we in Parliament have
passed the best of luck. I am confident that most of them will be able
to meet the onerous challenges that will be imposed on them. I am glad
that there is profound agreement on the matter. I hope that the
amendments will be sufficient to meet the task and that people who will
be questioned will not necessarily feel that their human rights have
been violated or that somehow the officers are racist and picking on
them unfairly. It is up to all communities to unite to minimise the
consequences of failures at border control, because the consequences
can be so
severe. 5.1
pm Mr.
Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) (Lab): I appreciate what my
right hon. Friend has said about the difficulties that police officers
and immigration officers face when deciding whether to stop or arrest
someone. Clearly, if they get it wrong and someone who has been under
surveillance is allowed through or not arrested, but then commits an
offence, they are pilloried for not having dealt with the matter. I
acknowledge that, if someone is stopped or arrested and the case is
proven that that person was not involved in terrorist activity, the
officers tend to be accused of over-reacting. I would not like to have
to make such difficult and delicate decisions.
However, it
is really important, particularly at ports, that the powers are
exercised sensitively, but I am not sure that they always have been.
Not long ago, I dealt with a Muslim constituent of Pakistani origin who
was
stopped under the powers coming back through the airport into the United
Kingdom. If I remember rightly, he had flown from the USA. He said that
he was the only person who was called from the plane, stopped and
questioned. It seemed to him without doubt that the only reason why he
had been pulled out from the queue was the fact that he was clearly of
Pakistani origin and, from his manner of dress, it was pretty obvious
that he was a
Muslim. The
person was held for quite a while before it was accepted that there was
no problem, and he was allowed to continue. He said that he was asked
by the police officer who had been questioning him to sign a register
to agree that he had been questioned and why. He told me that, when he
looked at the register, every single name on the page was obviously a
Muslim name. When people see that sort of thing, it is not surprising
that they react by believing, rightly or wrongly, that they have been
singled out for reasons that were not to do with evidence connected
with terrorist activity, but as part of a fishing expedition on the
basis of their appearance and
religion. One
of the things that followed on after the case was that the person was
concerned, as I am sure are plenty of other people who have been
stopped and questioned under such powers, that his DNA sample and
fingerprints would not be destroyed. A case went through the European
Court, which found against us about the holding of DNA samples and
records of people who had not been convicted of an offence. We are
still awaiting the Government’s response to that. Such action
can leave people feeling aggrieved if there is no question of their
having been involved in any terrorism-related activity, and if they
believe that they are being picked out for the wrong reasons. It is
really important that such powers are used
sensitively. The
order relates to what happens at ports and does not cover other
circumstances. If we were having a broader debate, I would wish to
raise other issues, in particular people being approached when they are
taking photographs in public places, but that is not the subject of the
order, which is specifically to do with ports. However, in all cases,
it is really important that such powers are used sensitively. My
impression is that they have not always been in the past. I hope that
one of the things arising from the changes to the code of practice in
the order might be that that will
improve. 5.6
pm
Mr.
Coaker: It has been a short but good debate, with the
comments of the hon. Members for Reigate and for
Chesterfield, my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South and my
hon. Friend the Member for
Walthamstow. At
the heart of the debate is the proportionality of how the powers are
used, an issue we should continually address and think about. If we are
not careful, we can get into a sterile debate between those people who
care about human rights and those who say that we have to be tough on
terrorists. I have always thought that we can put the two together if
we are careful about it. If we are not careful and do not put the two
together properly, we can get unintended consequences. The code of
practice tries to address concerns that some communities have
expressed about the use of the powers. If we do not keep the confidence
of those communities, we shall find it difficult to use the powers as
we would want
to. Let
me state categorically two concrete things. First, it is not
appropriate for the powers to be used for the recruitment of people to
inform. I know that that issue has been raised. Let me be quite clear;
it is not appropriate for the powers to be used to recruit informants.
Recruiting people to give information is an important part of
intelligence, but not through the use of the powers. That is my first
point. Secondly,
the hon. Member for Chesterfield asked, although I am sure this is of
concern to the whole Committee, about the necessity for an officer or
Customs officer—but most of the time they are plain clothes
special branch officers—to show their warrant card or identity
number. That has fundamentally got to be the case. We all understand
why it is important that they cannot give names. Everyone accepts that,
but there has to be some way of identifying the person. The hon. Member
for Chesterfield is absolutely right; there are no circumstances in
which examining officers should use their powers without ensuring that
the person can identify who they are. I cannot say it any clearer than
that. It is our intention for that to be the case. It is in the code of
practice, which is statutory. Should someone choose not to do that,
they would be subject to the processes and various complaints
procedures, which we were also asked to ensure were laid out in the
code of practice and in the complaint forms that were given out, TACT 1
and TACT 2.
Those two
things are extremely important if the vast majority of people are to
support the powers. If I was stopped, I would expect to know who I was
being stopped by and why. I do not object to being stopped if someone
thinks that I look like a terrorist or has reason to suspect that I
have come from somewhere that might necessitate stopping me. However, I
would object if I was not told—by way of an identification
number—who was stopping me. We sometimes fail to express such
statements of principle strongly enough, and then we get into ludicrous
arguments about whether we oppose the power. I do not think that
anybody does, because we recognise that it is necessary to protect our
borders.
The other
thing that came through strongly—the hon. Member for Reigate
pointed this out—goes to the core of the matter. It is not
appropriate for an officer at a port to stop someone purely because
they look a certain way, which is essentially the criticism. It is
colloquially put, but I think that everybody understands what I mean.
People say that they are stopped purely and simply because of how they
look. That is simply not good enough.
It was said
that the 2001 code of practice did not spell out clearly enough what
should be included in it, and that more needed to be put down. I will
not read it out again, but the notes for guidance on paragraphs 9 and
10, in a sense, say clearly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for
Walsall, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow mentioned,
“Don’t stereotype. There are judgments to be made, but
use other information. Take it into account and think about it.”
It says—I will read it out
again—that “Selections
for examination should be based on informed considerations such as
those outlined above and must be in connection with the threat posed by
the various terrorist groups
active in and outside the United Kingdom. A person’s perceived
ethnic background or religion must not be used alone or in combination
with each other as the sole reason for selecting the person for
examination.” We
live in the real world, and it is difficult, but it cannot be spelled
out any more clearly than that. Frankly, when I have spelled it out and
spoken to various community organisations and groups involved with the
issue, they accept it. What they want is principles laid out in
guidance against which they can hold people to account. They are as
opposed to terrorism as we are, but they do not want the measures to be
applied unfairly. As often as we talk about Muslim terrorist
organisations, we have unfortunately seen some stirring of Irish
terrorism lately. Someone from the Republic of Ireland or Northern
Ireland would say, “Do not just stop me at a port because I have
an Irish accent.” I think that all of us would accept that that
would be totally inappropriate and wrong. The Muslim community is
saying, “Do not do the same with us with respect to other
characteristics that we might have that would lead you to say that we
should be stopped.” That is clearly laid out.
It is
important to say this, and it might be helpful to the Committee, as all
four hon. Members who spoke mentioned it. Alongside the measures is an
ongoing consultation by the National Co-ordinator of Ports Policing
about the guidance that should be issued to officers at ports about the
use of stop and search and similar powers. It is important that they
are trained, because this is difficult. It is not easy. We have to
train them and consider how they are trained. I know that the National
Police Improvement Agency and others are training and working with
officers so that they make good use of the powers through practical
advice on how to use
them. The
hon. Member for Reigate—I am sorry that the hon. Member for West
Chelmsford has gone—asked about counter-terrorism powers. I say
to him categorically that counter-terrorism powers should be used only
to tackle terrorism, full stop. Counter-terrorism powers should not be
used for other purposes, full stop. That is what I said clearly when I
went to the Joint Committee on Human Rights two or three months ago. If
hon. Members have not read the Committee’s very good recent
report on policing and protest, they ought to. I said that clearly. If
CT powers are used to tackle ordinary protest, the support for those
powers is undermined. The hon. Member for Reigate asked about that, and
it is important.
On the use of
those powers, there are no centrally collected figures on the number of
stops at ports, as I said. They are collected locally, not centrally.
However, the number of examinations, which we have defined as those
that are still in progress after one hour, was 11,499 between 2001 and
2008. I shall take hon. Members through it: there are pre-screening
questions, on which we do not collect information centrally, and the
examination is after pre-screening. The examining officer will say,
“We are starting the process of examination”, and after an
hour we centrally record the numbers. We do not centrally record how
many people are pre-screened or the number of examinations that do not
last an hour. I remind the Committee that they can last for a maximum
of nine hours, but after an hour—
[Interruption.] I am being waved at Sir Nicholas
and that is putting me off slightly. The number of examinations is
11,499 and I hope that that information is helpful to the hon. Member
for Reigate. The
Chairman: On a humorous note, the only person to whom the
Minister should respond if he is waved to is
me.
Mr.
Coaker: I would not dare to inform on who was waving at
me. To
conclude, I want to put something on the record about taking
fingerprints and samples under schedule 7, and as it is an
important matter I shall read this piece of paper. Notwithstanding the
mar of the judgment, we will consult in respect to this issue. The
current situation is
that: “A
constable can take finger-prints and non-intimate
samples”, for
example, “a
mouth swab...from a detained person...at any place of
detention defined by the act...only if the person has consented in
writing; or...A constable can take finger-prints and non-intimate
samples from a person detained at a police station only if an officer
of at least the rank of superintendent authorises it, if written
consent is not
provided. Such
authorisation can only be given if the officer is satisfied that the
taking of the prints/sample is necessary in order to determine whether
the person is or has been involved in the commission, preparation or
instigation of acts of terrorism; or The officer can also authorise the
taking of fingerprints if he is satisfied that they will facilitate the
ascertainment of the person’s identity and the person has
refused to identify himself or the officer has reasonable grounds for
suspecting that the person is not who he claims to be...A
constable can also take finger-prints and non-intimate samples from a
detained person if he has been convicted of a recordable
offence...and, where a non-intimate sample is to be taken the
conviction occurred on or after 10 April 1995...An intimate sample
can only be taken if the person is detained at a police station; he has
given written consent and an officer of at least the rank of
superintendent authorises
it.” With
those remarks, I hope that I have answered hon. Members’
questions. The balance between human rights and protecting our borders
is important. This code of practice is a great improvement on the
previous code and provides that balance more
effectively. Question
put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code
of Practice for Examining Officers) (Revision) Order
2009. 5.19
pm Committee
rose.
| 
