Let me deal with the duration of the legislation and the Government’s sunset clause. Our starting point was that this legislation was not being considered in a fevered state but in a measured way so, like other legislation, it did not require a sunset clause. However, we listened carefully, we reflected on the Bill’s measures and the
5 Sep 2011 : Column 83
impact they could have on individuals, and we judged it appropriate that each Parliament should be able to review the measures in the context of the security situation at the time and consider whether their continuation was appropriate. That is why we have introduced the five-year sunset clause in the way that we have.
It has been interesting to hear this evening’s debate about annual renewal. The hon. Member for Islington North has been a consistent participant in these debates—I respect the contributions that he has made year on year—and he implied that some of them have been “perfunctory”. That is not what we would wish in relation to legislation such as this, which is why the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) about the need for a serious and considered review of legislation was well made and strongly put. We took that approach when we sought to conduct a counter-terrorism review in preparation for this Bill.
I understand the point that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) makes. In some ways, she sympathises with the line of argument taken by the hon. Member for Islington North. She makes a point about Executive action, but I repeat that circumstances and situations continue to arise that mean, sadly, that legislation of this type is necessary and continues to be required. She made a point about secret evidence, and the Government will shortly be introducing a Green Paper to consider further its use in court and to consider this matter in further detail, given a number of associated issues that have been raised.
Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister explain why he is so certain that the TPIMs regime will be effective, given that it is very similar to the control orders regime and nobody who has been placed under a control order has ever subsequently been prosecuted for a terrorism offence?
James Brokenshire: In some ways, this relates to the package of the measures before us. This is about not only this Bill, but the capabilities and resources being made available to the police and security services to allow them to monitor people and seek to bring them to justice. I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, and it is our preferred option, that people who commit acts related to terrorism should be prosecuted and brought to justice in the normal way. However, the Government need to assess risk and seek to protect the public, and we judge that, for a number of reasons, it is not possible to achieve that aim in all circumstances. That is why preventive measures of the type contemplated in this Bill are required and will continue to be needed for the foreseeable future. We therefore argue that it is for Parliament to consider, on a per-Parliament basis, the necessity of these types of measures. I am aware that the hon. Lady has raised the issue of bail in this context, and we considered it in the counter-terrorism review. However, we had clear guidance from the police who recommended against bail being available for terrorist suspects because of the risk to public safety that might be involved.
Mr David Davis:
If I may, I will pursue the point raised by the hon. Lady. Will the Minister tell us why he thinks that the number of convictions in this country is
5 Sep 2011 : Column 84
so low? In the 10 years or so since 9/11 there have been about 230 convictions relating to terrorism offences, which is less than 10% of the number in the United States during the same period, and similar comparisons can be drawn with other countries. Why does this country have such a low conviction rate compared with everybody else?
James Brokenshire: My right hon. Friend has taken a very consistent line on ensuring that those suspected of terrorism offences are brought to justice and that the courts are used appropriately. We need to do all we can to ensure that that happens, which is why we are taking forward measures such as post-charge questioning, which he has advocated clearly, and why we are continuing to examine the way in which intercept evidence might be usable in the courts and how the Privy Council review continues in relation to that. I agree with him that we need to be looking at a package of measures, that this is not about one instrument in itself and that it might be appropriate to take a range of steps. I would not want to suggest in this evening’s debate that this is about one issue. The Government are taking forward a range of measures as part of their counter-terrorism review and this Bill is just one part of that.
Richard Fuller: Before the Minister moves on, may I ask about the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)? The hon. Lady mentioned that there had been no convictions of people on control orders. By supporting the Government today, we will be extending the TPIMs regime by five years. What comfort can the Minister give us that that record of no convictions will be improved by a more thorough prosecution of the evidence and by bringing to trial the people under control orders? Can he say anything to give us some assurance that that system of containment rather than prosecution will change to one of prosecution and bringing to justice rather than one of just containing a problem and leaving people on one side?
James Brokenshire: I would point my hon. Friend in the direction of the Bill’s provisions, which clearly underline our desire to prosecute people when the evidence is available. That is part and parcel of the additional investigative capabilities intended to be available to the police and the security services. I believe that this approach will contribute to our being able to achieve the sorts of steps that he is advocating in terms of seeking to prosecute where there is admissible evidence that could be brought before the courts.
I deal now with some of the other issues raised in this useful and constructive debate, which has been a symbol of some of the other consideration of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge raised the issue of Libya and he will doubtless have heard clearly the comments made by the Prime Minister during the statement preceding this debate. It is the Government’s long-standing policy not to comment on intelligence matters, but I can make it absolutely clear that the Government’s clear policy is not to participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or inhumane or degrading treatment for any purpose.
5 Sep 2011 : Column 85
James Brokenshire: May I just finish the point? We have published the consolidated guidance to intelligence personnel, including on the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees. The Government took early and decisive action to set up the Gibson inquiry, precisely to examine whether Britain was implicated in the improper treatment of detainees so that we can better understand what happened and allow all involved closure.
Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for giving way and I am grateful to him for allowing this point to be made. Is he concerned that the exchange of letters made by former Prime Minister Blair with a number of countries that allowed removal to those that had not signed the convention on torture should be ended? We should only ever remove people to a country that recognises the relevant sections of that convention and that would not carry out the death penalty against those people.
7 pm
James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Prime Minister said in his statement about the investigation being undertaken by the Gibson inquiry. These matters will be looked at closely, but I certainly do not intend to expand this debate to cover them in such a way because time is pressing and we have a number of other issues to do with this mini-debate to get through.
The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked me about a couple of issues. The first was to do with the role of Lord Macdonald, who was not appointed to review counter-terrorism legislation generally or on an ongoing basis but was asked to oversee the counter-terrorism review, which completed in January. It is obviously open to him to look at and comment on the draft Bill; we have published it with the purpose of allowing it to be considered.
Let me turn to the central issue raised by those on the Opposition Front Bench as well as other Opposition Members. I want to make it very clear that the TPIM system will provide appropriate, proportionate and effective powers for dealing with the risk posed by suspected terrorists whom we can neither prosecute nor deport. The new system introduced by the Bill will be accompanied by an increase in funding for the police and security services to enhance their investigative capabilities. As I have said, this will complement the new regime and, we believe, maintain public confidence. To repeat what I have said, the Metropolitan Police Service has confirmed that arrangements will be in place effectively to manage the transition from control orders to TPIMs. I have heard what Opposition Members and other Members have said and I can say to the right hon. Member for Leicester East—or I would have done, if he was in his place—that I will take the issue away and consider further with the police what further information may be provided.
As right hon. and hon. Members will recognise, there is a challenge here and we do not provide detailed breakdowns of what money we provide for specific security activities as that would provide detailed information about our capabilities and techniques that could undermine national security. There is a delicate balance to be struck, but I will certainly consider carefully the comments
5 Sep 2011 : Column 86
that have been made during this debate and consider with the Metropolitan police what further information might be appropriate.
Shabana Mahmood: I thank the Minister for giving way and for the indication that further written evidence will be available. I am still minded to press amendment 20 to a vote later this evening, but I have been advised by the Clerks that if new clause 3 is passed we cannot have a vote on new clause 7. May I clarify that although we would have liked to vote on annual renewal—we still believe it is an important measure—we will not oppose new clause 3? However, Labour Members will take the issue forward when the Bill reaches the other place.
James Brokenshire: I appreciate the hon. Lady’s clarification of the official Opposition’s stance. I have given the House clear assurances about the preparations for the transfer from control orders to TPIMs and we will reflect on the debate further, but we believe that the Government’s amendments for the review are appropriate, and, on the basis of the assurances we have received, we do not believe that the Opposition amendments are required. Even at this stage, I ask the hon. Lady to reflect on the debate and to consider withdrawing those amendments.
New clause 3 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
‘(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers expire or are repealed under section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers).
(2) A TPIM notice which is in force immediately before expiry or repeal is to—
(a) continue in force for the period of 28 days beginning with expiry or repeal; and
(b) be treated as if revoked by the Secretary of State at the end of that period.
(3) Subsection (2)(a) is subject to—
(a) any variation under section12(1)(a) or (b), and
(b) any revocation or quashing.
(4) Except as provided for in subsection (5) or (6), TPIM proceedings may neither continue nor be begun after expiry or repeal.
(5) TPIM proceedings of a kind set out in subsection (7) may continue, or be begun, after expiry or repeal, but only for the purpose of determining one or more of the following matters—
(a) whether a TPIM notice should be quashed;
(b) whether measures imposed by a TPIM notice should be quashed;
(c) whether to make a declaration under paragraph 4(4) of Schedule2.
(6) Proceedings for an award of damages or other relief arising out of any TPIM proceedings of a kind set out in subsection (7)(a) to (c) may continue, or be begun, after expiry or repeal.
(7) The TPIM proceedings referred to in subsections (5) and (6) are—
(a) a reference made under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 before expiry or repeal;
(b) a hearing in pursuance of directions under section 8(2) or 8(5);
5 Sep 2011 : Column 87
(c) an appeal under section16;
(d) an appeal, or further appeal, relating to a decision in any proceedings mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (c).
(8) If, after expiry of the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers, the powers are revived under section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers)(2)(b)—
(a) all TPIM notices, including any which were in force before expiry, are to be taken into account in determining whether there is new terrorism-related activity for the purposes of section3(6);
(b) the expiry of those powers does not prevent them from being exercised after revival in relation to any TPIM notice which—
(i) expired or was revoked before the expiry of the powers or during the relevant 28 day period, or
(ii) is, in accordance with subsection (2)(b) of this section, treated as if revoked at the end of the relevant 28 day period;
and for this purpose “relevant 28 day period” means the period of 28 days beginning with the expiry of the powers that is mentioned in subsection (2)(b).’.—(James Brokenshire.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
‘(1) If the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary to do so by reason of urgency, the Secretary of State may make a temporary enhanced TPIM order during any period that—
(a) begins with the dissolution of Parliament, and
(b) ends with the first Queen’s Speech of the Parliament which first meets after that dissolution.
(2) A temporary enhanced TPIM order is an order which makes provision for, or in connection with, giving the Secretary of State power to impose enhanced measures by notice on individuals whom the Secretary of State is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, are, or have been, involved in terrorism-related activity.
(3) An enhanced measure is a requirement, restriction or other provision which is of any of the following kinds—
(a) a restriction on an individual in relation to the residence in which the individual resides, including—
(i) a requirement to reside at a specified residence in the United Kingdom;
(ii) a requirement not to allow others to reside at that residence without the permission of the Secretary of State;
(iii) a requirement, applicable between specified hours, to remain at that residence;
(b) a restriction on an individual in relation to leaving a specified area;
(c) a requirement, restriction or other provision which corresponds to provision within any of these paragraphs of Schedule1—
(ii) paragraph 7(1) and (2) and (4) to (6);
(d) a requirement, restriction or other provision which corresponds to provision within paragraph 8(1) of Schedule1 (as read with paragraph 8(3) of that Schedule), including—
(i) a requirement not to associate or communicate with other persons without the permission of the Secretary of State, which includes provision allowing the individual (without seeking permission) to associate and communicate with such persons or descriptions of persons as the Secretary of State may specify;
5 Sep 2011 : Column 88
(ii) a requirement to give notice to the Secretary of State before associating or communicating with other persons, which includes provision allowing the individual (without giving notice) to associate and communicate with such persons, or descriptions of persons, as are specified.
(iii) a requirement of the kind referred to in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8(2) of Schedule1, which may in particular relate to association or communication which is allowed by virtue of provision of the kind referred to in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii) above;
(e) provision which corresponds to provision within Part 2 of Schedule1;
and for this purpose “specified” means specified by the Secretary of State in an enhanced TPIM notice.
(4) Except as provided for in subsections (5) to (10), the provision made by a temporary enhanced TPIM order must correspond to the relevant provisions of this Act.
(5) A temporary enhanced TPIM order—
(a) must secure that enhanced TPIM notices and standard TPIM notices are separate notices;
(b) must secure that, at any particular time, an enhanced TPIM notice and a standard TPIM notice are not both in force in relation to a particular individual; and
(c) may secure that the application of a temporary enhanced TPIM order to a particular individual does not affect the application of this Act to that individual (and vice versa).
(6) The provision of a temporary enhanced TPIM order which corresponds to section 3 must include appropriate variations from the provision contained in that section to secure—
(a) that condition A is replaced by a condition which secures that the enhanced TPIM power may not be exercised in relation to an individual unless the Secretary of State is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity; and
(b) that condition D is replaced by a condition which secures both—
(i) the same result as condition D, and
(ii) that the enhanced TPIM power may not be exercised in relation to an individual unless some or all of the measures imposed by the enhanced TPIM notice are measures that may not be imposed by a standard TPIM notice.
(7) The provision of a temporary enhanced TPIM order which corresponds to section5(1) must include appropriate variations from the provision contained in that subsection to secure that each enhanced TPIM notice ceases to be in force at the time when the enhanced TPIM power ceases to have effect in accordance with section (Temporary power: supplementary provision)(1) (subject to earlier revocation or quashing of the notice).
(8) The provision of a temporary enhanced TPIM order which corresponds to Schedule 1 must include appropriate variations from the provision contained in that Schedule to secure that it is enhanced measures which the Secretary of State has power to impose.
(9) A temporary enhanced TPIM order may make appropriate provision (including appropriate variations from the provision contained in the relevant provisions of this Act) in consequence of, or in connection with, the creation, in accordance with this section, of the enhanced TPIM power.
(10) A temporary enhanced TPIM order may make appropriate provision for the purposes of securing that transitional and saving provision relating to a temporary enhanced TPIM order ceasing to have effect may be made (including provision for enhanced TPIM notices to continue in force for a period, which does not exceed 28 days, after the enhanced TPIM power ceases to have effect).
5 Sep 2011 : Column 89
(11) The provision that may be made by a temporary enhanced TPIM order includes—
(a) provision amending any enactment (including an enactment contained in this Act);
(b) provision applying (with or without modifications) any enactment (including an enactment contained in this Act);
(c) provision conferring functions on the Secretary of State or any other person (including, in the case of the Secretary of State or any other Minister of the Crown, functions of a legislative nature).’.—(James Brokenshire.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
James Brokenshire: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 6—Temporary power: supplementary provision.
Amendment 1, page 22, line 31, in Schedule 1, at end add—
‘Additional measures
12A (1) The Secretary of State may impose measures additional to those contained in Schedule 1 if—
(a) there is a serious terrorist threat; and
(b) they are necessary for the protection of the public.
(2) Any measure under paragraph 13(1) can only be imposed if the Secretary of State is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the individual is involved in terrorism-related activity.’.
Amendment 2, page 22, line 31, at end add—
‘Additional measures introduced by Secretary of State
12A (1) The Secretary of State may by order introduce measures additional to those contained in this Part.
(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) may be made only if a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’.
Amendment 3, page 22, line 31, at end add—
‘Emergency additional measures introduced by Secretary of State
12A (1) The Secretary of State may by order introduce measures additional to those contained in this Part.
(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) shall have immediate effect but must be approved retrospectively by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) If either House declines to approve a resolution under sub-paragraph (2), the order shall cease to have effect on the date of such disapproval.’.
Amendment 4, page 22, line 31, at end add—
‘Additional measures introduced by Secretary of State during dissolution of Parliament
12A (1) The Secretary of State may by order introduce measures additional to those contained in this Part during a dissolution of Parliament.
(2) An order under sub-paragraph (1) shall have immediate effect but must be approved retrospectively by a resolution of each House in the new Parliament.
(3) If either House declines to approve a resolution under sub-paragraph (2), the order shall cease to have effect on the date of such disapproval.’.
James Brokenshire: This group of amendments relates to the enhanced TPIM provisions and the circumstances in which measures additional to those contained in the Bill might need to be imposed. The Government and Opposition are taking different approaches.
5 Sep 2011 : Column 90
The Government have made it clear that we believe that in future there might be exceptional circumstances in which it is necessary to introduce additional and more restrictive measures to those contained in the Bill. I emphasise that we hope never to need them, but, in the event of a very serious terrorist risk that cannot be managed by any other means, it would be irresponsible of the Government not to act to protect the public appropriately.
Dr Huppert: Will the Minister make it clear that he and the Government would not consider the Olympics, in and of themselves, to be such an emergency risk? There might be circumstances that would become such a risk, but will he confirm that the simple fact we are hosting them would not be sufficient to trigger the new legislation?
James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that point. The security arrangements for the Olympics are being planned on the basis that the additional powers envisaged under the enhanced TPIM Bill will not be needed. This is about considering exceptional circumstances and exceptional risk, which is why we have sought to take the approach that we have. In exceptional circumstances we will, where possible, bring forward emergency legislation to introduce such powers. That is why we have drafted and published in draft the Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, which will now be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. That will give Parliament the opportunity to examine its terms closely. In some ways, this underlines the point made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) in the previous debate about seeking to do this in a considered and measured way rather than in a febrile atmosphere—the draft Bill has been introduced to facilitate that.
If the enhanced TPIM Bill is introduced while Parliament is in recess, Parliament can be recalled to debate it, but there is a small gap in our ability to introduce this emergency legislation in periods where Parliament is dissolved and where a new Parliament has been appointed but the first Queen’s Speech has not been delivered. This gap was identified during pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft emergency Bills to extend periods of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 28 days.
Government new clauses 5 and 6 take the same approach to addressing that gap as we are proposing to take with pre-charge detention. They introduce a power to the standard TPIM Bill that would allow the Secretary of State—where necessary by reason of urgency—to bring the enhanced TPIM regime into force by making a temporary enhanced TPIM order. This power would be exercisable only in the periods I have mentioned: while Parliament is dissolved and in the period between the appointment of a new Parliament and the first Queen’s Speech. A temporary enhanced TPIM order would make provision directly equivalent to that in the enhanced Bill. I shall not delay the House by reciting the detail of that Bill’s provisions; it has been published and is available to all Members to read. It will be subject to rigorous pre-legislative scrutiny, following which it will no doubt be amended and improved.
Hazel Blears:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for the way in which he has managed so far to present the enhanced TPIM Bill. Would he not accept
5 Sep 2011 : Column 91
that the TPIM legislation, like the control order legislation, is in and of itself exceptional legislation that we have all said should be used as a last resort? It is not something that any party would want to adopt; it is outwith the normal criminal justice system and it is not part of the normal legislative process. Why, for goodness’ sake, does not he include the enhanced measures in the existing legislation—not so that they are required to be used by the Home Secretary, but so that she would be able to use them if circumstances were to arise in which it was necessary to have a power of relocation, curfew, association or exclusion? This is the most convoluted, awkward, difficult and strange way of legislating that I have ever seen. We are going to have exceptional legislation to exceptional legislation in exceptional circumstances. Why cannot the Minister legislate properly and put these powers into existing legislation?
James Brokenshire: I think that underlines the fundamental difference between us on the nature of the powers that are contemplated and their impact on individuals and counter-terrorism. A number of contributions have been made about radicalisation. Given the stringent nature of the powers that are contemplated under the enhanced provisions, we believe it is absolutely right that Parliament should determine whether the circumstances are so exceptional that emergency powers are needed. That is the right way to do things, rather than seeking to suggest that this is all business as usual and that the powers should be on the statute book. That is why I disagree with the right hon. Lady.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): Does the Minister have any idea just how ridiculous the Government look with these enhanced TPIM measures and, more importantly, how disappointed civil libertarian groups are with the Government? The system is probably worse than what the previous, anti-civil libertarian Labour Government proposed. Why cannot we have proper legislation, and why cannot the Government continue the good work they started instead of going down this route?
James Brokenshire: I absolutely reject the assertion that this Bill is in some way more draconian and cracks down more on liberty than the approach of the previous Government. That is precisely why we have sought to rebalance the counter-terrorism legislation, and that has been at the heart of the counter-terrorism review. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman recognised that. We have recognised the very nature of the enhanced measures and why it is appropriate not to have them as business as usual—why it is appropriate to have them in a Bill that can be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and can be considered calmly and rationally rather than rushing and not having powers available to deal with extraordinary and extreme circumstances. That is why we have taken the view that we have in the structure of the approach in the draft enhanced Bill and in this Bill.
Shabana Mahmood: How does the Minister say that control orders or TPIMs are business as usual?
James Brokenshire:
I am saying that because this legislation remains and resides on the statute book, subject to the new clauses that we have rightly put in
5 Sep 2011 : Column 92
place following the previous debate with the five-year renewal. The powers that are available under the enhanced measures are such that they require a further considered approach by Parliament before they are introduced. That is why we have rationally and reasonably, as reflected in the counter-terrorism review, sought to adopt the approach that we have.
Mr David Davis: I have no wish to add to my hon. Friend’s difficulties, but he knows I have concerns about this issue. The simple truth is that had the 90-day measure been put before the House in July 2005, when the atrocity occurred, the House would have taken a much more emotional, rather than rational, decision. I have a general concern—I know that he is thinking through the legislation—that the House does not make its best decisions in the immediate aftermath of atrocities. There is a risk, in going down this route, that we will get not rational, but irrational, decisions.
James Brokenshire: I hear that argument, which is why we have sought to produce the draft Bill—to ensure that it can be considered rationally, calmly and coldly by the Joint Committee. Approaching it in that way means that in circumstances similar to those that have, sadly, arisen in the past, there is a defined mechanism and method that has been subject to scrutiny in advance. In many ways, we are seeking to recognise some of the challenges to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has alluded and to address them by having the draft Bill available now for consideration.
7.15 pm
Hazel Blears: The Minister is being very generous in giving way. May I ask him a specific question? Will we have to wait until this country is subject to exceptional circumstances, which Lord Macdonald has said could be a series of catastrophic attacks in every major city in Britain, until we have a power of relocation on our statute book?
James Brokenshire: I shall not second-guess the circumstances in which the draft Bill and those provisions would be required. Clearly, it would be in exceptional circumstances in which we were faced with a serious terrorist risk that could not be managed by any other means. That is the sort of situation we are contemplating, but I am not prepared to second-guess future developments in the threat picture. The right hon. Lady and I disagree on this, but, as I have said quite clearly, we believe that the TPIMs regime in its entirety—the standard TPIMs regime and the supportive resources around it—is sufficient to manage the threats that we face. Only in exceptional circumstances would the enhanced measures be required. That is the conclusion we have reached as part of the counter-terrorism review. I appreciate that she and I differ on that, but that was the conclusion we came to. The counter-terrorism review recognised that enhanced measures might be required in exceptional circumstances, which is why we have taken the view we have.
Dr Huppert: Contrary to the right hon. Lady’s point, does the Minister share my pleasure that we will be able to keep the powers of internal exile with judicial oversight off the statute book for as long as we can?
5 Sep 2011 : Column 93
James Brokenshire: The counter-terrorism review carefully concluded that there might be exceptional circumstances—a very serious terrorist risk—in which the Government would have to seek parliamentary approval for additional restrictive measures. That is what we are seeking to do and that is why we believe that the overall approach taken by this Bill is appropriate.
Mr McFadden: With the publication of the draft Bill, the Government have conceded that they have no argument in principle against the extra powers in the enhanced TPIMs regime. What will the Minister say to the victims of terrorism in the emergency circumstances that he sets out and that might give rise to their introduction? Will he say that we had the extra powers but we decided not to use them until the incident happened? Does he really believe that the Government could survive in those circumstances? Does he not see the nonsense of that position?
James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman’s question is premised on various assumptions that I just do not accept. He can make his point but the Bill and the enhanced measures that sit alongside it have been part of a very considered approach in relation to the overall legislative framework, which has not been rushed but has been considered. It has very much at its heart our responsibility to protect the public, but it also recognises that there is a balance to be struck. We believe that the balance has previously been wrong and that it needs to be adjusted, as contemplated by the Bill, to ensure that our counter-terrorism measures are appropriate, necessary and focused on delivering safety and security in a way that is judged appropriate on the basis of the evidence.
The draft enhanced TPIM Bill contains provisions that mean that if it is brought into force while a temporary enhanced TPIM order is in force, a decision taken under that order should be treated as a decision under the new enhanced Bill. The regime provided by the emergency TPIM order is intended to be the same as that provided by the enhanced Bill. In other words, the new clauses are intended to be complementary. They set out the various provisions and matters that may, or in some cases that must, be secured by a temporary enhanced TPIM order, to give effect to the regime set out in the emergency Bill. This includes in particular setting out the more stringent restrictions that would be available, and the fact that an enhanced notice may be imposed only where the Secretary of State is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity. Once made, the temporary enhanced TPIM order would remain in force for 90 days, or a shorter period if specified in the order. It must be laid before Parliament as soon as practicable. While it is in force the Secretary of State can repeal its provisions at any time.
The 90-day period is intended to cover, but not significantly to exceed, the period during which Parliament would be unable to pass the emergency legislation. After parliamentary business resumes, the Government can introduce the enhanced TPIM Bill, if they judge it appropriate, to replace the powers conferred by the order with powers under primary legislation.
These are essential provisions. The power that they provide may never need to be used. Indeed, we would all prefer that the exceptional circumstances for which it
5 Sep 2011 : Column 94
and the enhanced TPIM Bill are intended never arise. None the less, it is necessary for a responsible Government to ensure that the enhanced TPIM powers can be brought into force in all circumstances in which they may be necessary.
Mark Durkan: Does the Minister not recall that when the previous Government introduced the Counter-Terrorism Bill with provision, at that stage, for 42-day detention, which was to be the subject of a parliamentary debate and vote when the powers were activated, the then Opposition rightly argued that it would create dangers for Parliament and eventually for the judiciary, potentially, to activate parliamentary control in relation to measures that were being taken against known individuals? Questions were asked, such as how a parliamentary debate in such a situation would be informed. What information would be in the media and in Parliament, and how could we ensure that, if there was a prosecution, that did not destroy the basis for a fair trial? Exactly the arguments that the Opposition used against the previous Government’s measures surely apply in respect of the arguments that the Minister has just made for his enhanced TPIMs.
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”
“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
5 Sep 2011 : Column 95
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
5 Sep 2011 : Column 96
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.
7.30 pm
That is what we did just a few weeks ago in relation to the draft legislation on pre-charge detention—exactly that process. The report, which I know the Minister will have read with great care, concludes that the route of using emergency legislation in that way is unsatisfactory and unreliable. Those are not my words; those are the words of the Joint Committee, having considered the evidence very carefully, indeed.
There are at least three major problems with the route that the Minister wishes to take. First, there is the wide variation in the threshold, or the trigger, that will apply to the emergency legislation, and it is not good enough for him to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that he will not second-guess the circumstances in which it may be necessary. He is the Minister who, along with the Home Secretary, will decide whether the legislation should be brought before the House.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, in evidence to the Joint Committee, said that it would take a national catastrophe before emergency legislation could be brought forward. Other experts thought that such legislation might be necessary in one or two individual cases. In either scenario, it will be wholly unsatisfactory. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) made the point very clearly: if we have had the national catastrophe, we have missed the boat.
The whole point of the enhanced TPIMs legislation is to prevent a catastrophe in the first place, so are we really meant to believe that we need the whole panoply of primary legislation going through this House and the House of Lords, with all the necessary deliberations, on the basis of one or two individual cases? I regard that almost as an abuse of the parliamentary process.
Secondly, the passage of legislation would be fraught with difficulties. The individuals who are subject to control orders now and who will be subject to TPIMs in
5 Sep 2011 : Column 97
future are subject precisely because there is intelligence on them that cannot be shared in an open court and, therefore, certainly cannot be shared in an open debate in Parliament. The Home Secretary would therefore be able to tell us almost nothing about the detail of what had led her to the conclusion that emergency legislation was necessary, and anything that she said in the debate would have to be said with great care.
Members from both sides of the House talk of the need always to prosecute criminal charges where possible, but in such a debate the Home Secretary might say something that prejudiced a future trial—if at a later date there were a successful attempt to bring a prosecution. So the practical passage of any Bill through Parliament would be fraught with difficulty. Parliament would also be none the wiser when it considered such legislation, because it could not be told anything about the specific circumstances that had led the Home Secretary to conclude that such measures were necessary.
Thirdly, and importantly, there is the issue of practicality, on which there is considerable detail in the Joint Committee’s report. I should have thought that this Home Secretary would have learned a lesson from the last few months about emergency legislation because she had to introduce some on police bail, and she got it through to the House by the skin of her teeth—a couple of weeks before we went into recess. I asked her then what she would have done if we had been in recess and had needed emergency legislation, and the question arises again. If she concludes that an enhanced TPIM is necessary and we are in recess, will she recall Parliament so that we can have an enhanced regime for one or two individual cases?
I support the new clauses that the Minister has introduced, and I welcome the fact that he has seen it necessary and important to ensure that, when Parliament has been dissolved, the Home Secretary can make an enhanced order, because Parliament cannot be recalled in those circumstances.
Let me remind the Minister that in Committee on 28 June he said that such an enhanced power
“should not be introduced or passed until it is needed”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2011; c. 195.]
But, if that is the point at which the legislation is brought to the House, and if there is then consideration, deliberation and Royal Assent a week later, a week later may be seven days too late. The Minister should consider that point carefully.
The Minister gave his view about the four amendments in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and he is quite right that amendment 4 is superfluous, because he has accepted the arguments in relation to Dissolution, so I will not pursue it.
On amendment 1, the Minister is right to say that as a result of the Bill the Home Secretary is empowered to take additional measures: she does not have to come back to Parliament; she can just take them, because the legislation gives her the power to do so. I am reflecting carefully on what right hon. and hon. Members have said about the need for parliamentary accountability and scrutiny, however, because there would not be any direct accountability to Parliament.
There would be direct accountability in relation to amendment 2, because the Secretary of State would be able to introduce the additional measures only by order,
5 Sep 2011 : Column 98
meaning that she would have to come to Parliament, send the order through both Houses and gain the affirmation of both. The problem with that process is the same as the problem with primary legislation: it all means delay and time, which she may not have; she may need to put the condition into a TPIM immediately. That is a concern for me, even though I speak in favour of amendment 2.
Amendment 3, however, is worthy of more consideration than the Minister’s brief summary of it. It would allow the Home Secretary to introduce additional measures in an urgent or emergency situation, but crucially she would be able to do so immediately, because proposed subparagraph (2) would give her the power to do so with “immediate effect”. In bringing it forward with immediate effect, however, she would have to submit to parliamentary scrutiny, and both Houses would at a later date have to affirm to her decision to invoke the additional measures. Indeed, if either House declined to give such affirmation, the Home Secretary’s original decision would fall, so amendment 3 would give her the immediate powers that she would need to impose the conditions, but it would also provide for some degree of scrutiny by Parliament at a later date.
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
5 Sep 2011 : Column 99
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
5 Sep 2011 : Column 100
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.
7.45 pm
There are a few things that I would like to understand about how the system will work. First, the clause does not say enough for my taste about what kind of emergency would be required for the Secretary of State to take such a temporary power during a period when there was no Parliament. There is the term “by reason of urgency”. Perhaps I am naive about how parliamentary legislation works, but I would like to hear more about the fact that it must be a serious case and not just something that has to be done now. There is a difference between “urgent” and “important”, as we all know. There is also a difference between “urgent” and “emergent”, if that is a valid word to use—I am sure that Hansard will tell me.
I would like to know why the Minister has chosen not to use the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 in this case. I am sure that he will be able to give a detailed response to that.
I am also interested to understand what sort of consultation there would be if the Secretary of State were to make an order during such a time, whether in terms of statute or a commitment from the Government. We must bear it in mind that we are talking about the time of a general election, when there might be particularly fevered political debate. I am sure that this would not happen with any Home Secretary whom we can envisage,
5 Sep 2011 : Column 101
but the power could be used as a political gambit—as a tool to show how tough they are on the causes of crime. What sort of consultation would there be? Would there be some kind of Privy Council process through which a few people are nominated to be asked? Would there be judicial oversight of the process? How would that work and what safeguards would there be?
I notice that under new clause 6, a temporary enhanced TPIM order will last for 90 days. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why it is 90 days. It seems to me that the starting point should be the shortest period possible until fresh legislation can be passed. That would include the period of the election until after the Queen’s Speech. Perhaps there could be a period after the Queen’s speech, even though it may not be done on day one. I would like it to be as short a time as possible and would at least like some justification for it being 90 days.
I will say a little about Opposition amendments 1 to 4. I am keen that the enhanced emergency powers should not be available easily. I do not want them gradually to become one of the normal things that a Home Secretary uses, with one having to be used slightly unexpectedly and then one being quite useful on another occasion, until gradually they become more common, as has happened with so many other things. For that reason I disagree, as I am sure Opposition Members will not be surprised to hear, with giving the Home Secretary these powers, whether under amendment 1 with no parliamentary checks, under amendment 2 with an order first—I would rather see the whole, tougher parliamentary process, rather than a simple order—or under amendment 3 with the retrospective orders.
I am still concerned about proposed new subsection (2) in amendment 3, which says that the Secretary of State can make an order and essentially do anything they want, subject to judicial checks, with it being approved retrospectively and with no time limit. If they wished, the Government could make sure that the Commons and the Lords did not get around to voting on it for a year or two years. That is a real concern. I will not say anything further on amendment 4 because the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East has made it clear that it has been subsumed.
This again seems to be an effort by the Opposition to keep as much as possible of control orders. It is clear that what they would like is for control orders to continue ad infinitum. If they cannot have that, they want either TPIMs with control order powers or control orders for a bit longer followed by TPIMs with control order powers, or some such mixture. For those reasons, I disagree with their proposals.
I will not vote against the Government’s new clauses because I understand where they are coming from. I hope that the Minister will respond on the detail. I hope that the other place will have more of a chance to consider these important issues on how we deal with emergency rules during the period of a general election when there has been a serious terrorist attack. That is a complex set of things that bears more attention than we are able to give it here.
Mr McFadden:
I will keep my remarks brief, because I know we all want to get on to the debate about relocation. However, I wish to say a word about new clause 5, which shows the difference between the Bill
5 Sep 2011 : Column 102
before us and what the Government know they might have to do. The new clause and the draft Bill on enhanced TPIMs measures published last Thursday represent the Government taking out an insurance policy against the failure of the Bill before us this evening.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) reminded us that we are debating the matter around the 10th anniversary of 11 September. It is important that the House remembers that, because that incident, more than any other, forced Governments around the world to reassess their thinking and their expectations of what terrorists were capable of. It also forced all of us in democratic regimes to look again at the protections in law and law enforcement that we can give our citizens against terrorist activity. That is the basis of this whole debate and the Bill.
We did not get here entirely by choice. We got here partly because of court judgments shaping the regime for us in an involuntary way. The problem is simple: what do we do when we cannot bring someone to prosecution, but we have a good and reasonable suspicion that that person would engage in terrorist activity if they could, and there may be inadmissible evidence that they have tried to do so? There has been an assumption running through this debate that such people are necessarily less dangerous than those who have been convicted. That is not necessarily so. If they were able to carry out their intent, they may in fact be far more dangerous than people who have been convicted of other terrorist events.
The Government have published draft legislation that is an insurance policy against the Bill, and they cannot have an in-principle objection to the measures within their own draft Bill. Whereas the Bill before us states, unbelievably, that the Secretary of State must grant terrorist suspects access to mobile phones and the internet, the draft Bill would give the Secretary of State discretion over that. Whereas the Bill before us disarms the Government from giving the public the protection that relocation can provide, the draft Bill would reinsert that possibility. The question that the public will ask, and which the Minister must believe they will ask very seriously should the draft legislation be needed in future, is why the Government did not include those powers in the Bill before us. Why wait until an incident has happened?
I repeat the question that I put to the Minister before. What would he say to the victims of terrorism in such circumstances? Would he say, “We knew we might need these powers, and we could have legislated for them, but we chose not to because we believed that the balance of civil liberties was wrong”?
Richard Fuller: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr McFadden: Not at the moment.
Let us deal with the point about civil liberties. The Minister has said several times that the motivation behind the Bill was a perceived imbalance in the last Government’s civil liberties legislation. The notion that we are some sort of quasi-police state or overly authoritarian state is complete nonsense. In this country we enjoy freedom of expression, religion and association that is the envy of the world. That is why so many dissidents from regimes around the world have sought refuge here.
5 Sep 2011 : Column 103
Indeed, the criticism that is sometimes levelled, and perhaps with validity, is that we have been very generous in accommodating dissidents from other regimes, and that sometimes our freedoms have been abused by some of those individuals. It is simply the wrong analysis and the wrong starting point to say that civil liberties in this country have been fundamentally compromised. That is not the case, but because the Government believe it and have carried forward into government the wrong analysis that they developed in opposition, that is leading to the wrong policy and to greater risk for the public. New clause 5 addresses that to some extent, but people will not understand why it, and the draft emergency legislation, were not put into the Bill.
Shabana Mahmood: I am conscious of the time and the fact that we have to get on to new clause 1, on relocation, ahead of Third Reading, so I will try to keep my remarks reasonably brief.
I endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) about the draft Bill. He spoke having been a member of the Committee that considered the draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extensions) Bill, the findings of which are important and directly relevant to the draft emergency legislation that the Government printed a few days ago. As he pointed out, although that Committee understood the Government’s reasons for proposing that contingency powers to extend the maximum period for pre-charge detention should be provided in primary legislation so that they could be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, it still found a number of problems. Those problems exist also in relation to the draft enhanced TPIMs Bill, and it is important that we take a moment to remind ourselves of what the objections were.
The first objection was in relation to parliamentary scrutiny of a draft Bill as primary legislation. The debate that would take place would be so circumscribed by the difficulties of explaining the reasons for introducing primary legislation that it would not be possible for the House to be given proper reasons why we needed to proceed along that route. In relation to the 28-day detention powers, the risk was that a court case might be prejudiced. In this case the objection is even more important, because we are talking about intelligence evidence that has been gathered by the security services, which of course cannot be discussed openly. That is the whole reason why we have closed sessions of courts to consider such matters—they cannot enter into the public domain. That rather defeats the purpose of having any debate on the Floor of the House.
The second objection was that there would be an unacceptable degree of risk that it would be impossible to introduce and pass the legislation quickly when Parliament was in recess. Although that objection referred to the 28-day detention power, it is also important in this case. Counter-terror investigations are fast-moving, and it is not acceptable to say to the police that their reaction to investigations should be hampered while Parliament debates the matter, perhaps in a limited way, and decides to pass an Act. That would not be an acceptable way to proceed.
The third objection related to the period when Parliament has been dissolved, but as we can see, that is precisely what new clauses 5 and 6 are intended to address.
5 Sep 2011 : Column 104
I say to the Minister that it is clear from the draft Bill that the Government have no principled objection to the control order powers that would suddenly be available once again. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, the draft Bill is an insurance policy that the Government are taking out on their TPIMs regime, which will decrease and weaken the powers available to the police and the Home Secretary to control the behaviour of terror suspects. It is extremely unacceptable for legislation to be conducted in such a way. Control order powers are either needed or they are not. This Bill has used up many hours of parliamentary time to take us round in a circle and bring us back to exactly where we started, with control orders.
Rather than introduce this confused and fudged Bill, which raises many more questions, the Government should have been honest and admitted that sometimes, stringent control order measures such as relocation and 16-hour curfews are necessary. They should therefore have put them in the Bill that we are debating today.
I am afraid that the “argument on context”—that there is a standard context that would require only the standard TPIM, and an emergency context in which the enhanced TPIM might be required—does not hold up to any kind of scrutiny, because control orders and TPIMs, if they are introduced, are at the emergency end of what we do. They are not brought in lightly and have always been emergency measures.
8 pm
I was disappointed that the Minister chose to describe control orders, and indeed TPIMs, as “business as usual”. That was a disappointing way of characterising them: it was lazy and potentially dangerous, because it implies that it is par for the course to apply such measures, and that that happens in the normal run of things. Control orders never happened in the normal run of things; they were and always have been exceptional. TPIMs will also be exceptional, so saying that they are an exceptional version of something that is already exceptional, or for use in an “emergency emergency”, simply will not work. The Minister should be up front with the House and the public on that point.
The framework in which we expect our police and security services to operate is also important. In our discussion on sunset clauses, the Minister spoke of the importance of a settled position, so that the police can plan, but the provisions are creating a more unsettled position, which prompts the question of how the police can plan for the terrorist risk that we face. We should have a more settled framework, but the draft legislation does not bring that about—it raises many more questions.
When replying to the debate I ask the Minister to turn his mind to the specifics of when those powers will be used. In particular, would the circumstances of the case of CD trigger the passing of the draft Bill? That individual was relocated because he needed to be removed from London, where he was trying to gather weapons and engage in a Mumbai-style attack. Would that be an emergency situation in which the Home Secretary would choose to trigger the draft Bill?
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) asked whether the mere fact that we are having the Olympics next year would be enough to trigger the draft Bill. What if resources are stretched? What if the impact of
5 Sep 2011 : Column 105
the cuts is too great for the police, even given the additional resources that will be available to them under the TPIMs regime? Would that be classed as an emergency that requires the passing of the draft Bill? We need clear answers from the Minister on how that will work. Without them, the House will be expected to legislate in the dark, which is an unacceptable way for us to proceed.
The Opposition do not want the Secretary of State to be in a position in which she does not have the powers she needs to cope with an emergency when Parliament is dissolved, so we will not oppose Government new clauses 5 or 6. However, we have grave concerns about how the Government are proceeding with their draft legislation. They are exposing the fiction that has been at the heart of the control orders debate, which is based more on a political fudge than on an assessment of the security needs of the country. We need clearer answers from the Government on that point.
James Brokenshire: I am not quite sure how to respond to the lack of coherence in the previous contribution—the Opposition fundamentally oppose something, but then say that they support new clauses 5 and 6—but I shall seek to respond to the points that have been raised in the course of the debate.
I again return to the counter-terrorism review. The measures are not a surprise—it is not as though they were not set out clearly back when the counter-terrorism reported in the early part of this year. The review concluded that
“there may be exceptional circumstances where it could be necessary for the Government to seek Parliamentary approval for additional restrictive measures. In the event of a very serious terrorist risk that cannot be managed by any other means more stringent measures may be required.”
Therefore, to suggest that this situation has just happened and that it was not foretold highlights the lack of reading of the counter-terrorism review when it was published earlier this year.
The Government consider that the enhanced powers will not routinely be needed, and that the standard TPIM Bill will provide robust powers to protect the public. We also consider that there may be circumstances in which more stringent powers will be needed. However, such powers should be introduced only at that time—they should not be routinely available on the statute book.
Obviously I accept that there is a clear difference of opinion. During previous contributions from Opposition Front Benchers, I was minded to believe that control orders were the default. That appeared to be the approach taken by the previous Government, which is why this Government undertook our counter-terrorism review and why we have sought to rebalance the provisions contained in the legislation.
I appreciate the points made by right hon. and hon. Members about the term “exceptional circumstances”. As I have said, that would be when we are faced with a serious terrorist risk that cannot be managed by any other means. It would be inappropriate to say, “Would it apply in this or that control order case?” I am not prepared to second-guess future developments in the threat picture, and the circumstances might be hard to predict. However, credible reporting could point to a series of concurrent attack plots, all of which appear imminent, or it might apply in the wake of a major terrorist attack when there is the prospect of further
5 Sep 2011 : Column 106
attacks to follow. Parliament will need to approve the emergency legislation for it to come into force. Ultimately, therefore, it would be for Parliament to determine whether the circumstances are exceptional in that way.
In response to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), I would highlight the fact that clearly there are additional safeguards for the new clauses to cover the period during a general election, when the House is unable to pass emergency legislation. The enhanced measures will be subject to a higher legal test. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the person is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity on the balance of probabilities, which is a higher threshold than reasonable belief, which is the test for imposing standard TPIMs.
The comprehensive judicial oversight of standard TPIM notices will also apply to the enhanced measures, including a requirement for court permission before imposing measures; an automatic and full High Court review of the decision to impose the enhanced TPIM notice, and each of the measures specified in it; and rights of appeal against decisions taken by the Secretary of State when the measures are in force. Therefore, the intent is that the broader safeguards will apply in the context of those situations.
I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge says about his discomfort with the contexts in which we would need such provisions. We are all in that situation. Equally, we have considered carefully the potential of alternatives. He highlighted the possibilities of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. However, careful reflection on both sides of the House leads us to consider that that would not be a useful or usable route in dealing with the circumstances that we are contemplating. The 2004 Act has been considered on both sides of the House, but its mechanisms and its structure do not lend themselves easily to the scenarios and situations in which we would consider using TPIMS—indeed, the Act was in many ways directed more to dealing with floods, epidemics and those sorts of problems. Although I understand why my hon. Friend raises that point, as hon. Members have done in the past, we consider that the 2004 Act does not provide a workable mechanism to cover such circumstances.
We believe that the draft emergency Bill would provide a mechanism to deal with a situation while Parliament was either sitting or in recess, although we accept the need to legislate in this Bill to cover a period during a general election. I am pleased to note that the Opposition are prepared to support the new clauses that are contemplated, although clearly there are differences over the emergency Bill itself. However, a Joint Committee will obviously be established to consider, scrutinise and examine the matter in detail in the way one would expect from the House and no doubt to improve, make suggestions and make amendments to the draft Bill.
Mark Durkan:
The Minister has talked about these extra bat belt powers, shall we say, that might be available to the Home Secretary and activated by a draft Bill. I have a question about the parliamentary situation that would then be created. If those powers were activated in relation to a particular threat, hon. Members would receive all sorts of instructions and advice not to mention specific cases in the Chamber, but the chances are that the media would be full of suggestions and innuendos
5 Sep 2011 : Column 107
against particular individuals or locations. In those circumstances, how would Parliament discharge the awkward responsibilities that the clause would give it? The Opposition in the previous Parliament made exactly those valid arguments against the then Government’s measures in respect of 42-day detention activated on the basis of parliamentary approval.
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.
8.15 pm
We believe that the provisions in the Bill are appropriate, and that they provide the necessary assurances about the risks and enhanced capabilities that the police and security services will have. However, as I have said, we sadly have to accept that there may be exceptional circumstances, which is precisely why we believe that it is appropriate for the Government to put in place the measures in the Bill and the draft Bill published last
5 Sep 2011 : Column 108
week. I am not going to second-guess anything, however, and I very much look forward to the scrutiny that will be applied to that draft Bill in the weeks ahead.
This has been a useful debate on a number of issues that I am sure the Joint Committee will consider further in relation to the draft Bill. I welcome the support for the new clauses contemplated in this group. It is, in our judgment, the appropriate way to proceed in framing the powers available under the TPIM Bill and why we equally believe, given the nature of the impositions that would otherwise be imposed, that those measures should be put on a different basis, why Parliament should be engaged in activating those measures in extreme circumstances and why we have sought to structure the Bill and the draft emergency Bill in the way that we have.
New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
‘(1) A temporary enhanced TPIM order, except for designated transitional and saving provision, ceases to have effect—
(a) at the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the Secretary of State makes the order, or
(b) at such earlier time (if any) as is specified in the order.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order revoke some or all of a temporary enhanced TPIM order if the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so (whether or not the Secretary of State would have power to make a temporary enhanced TPIM order by virtue of section (Temporary power for imposition of enhanced measures)(1)).
(3) As soon as practicable after making—
(a) a temporary enhanced TPIM order, or
(b) an order revoking any provision of a temporary enhanced TPIM order,
the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the order that has been made.
(4) Anything which has been done by virtue of a temporary enhanced TPIM order is not affected by the temporary enhanced TPIM order ceasing to have effect.
(5) In section (Temporary power for imposition of enhanced measures) and this section—
“appropriate”, in relation to variations, or other provision, means such variations, or such other provision, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;
“designated transitional and saving provision” means provision of a temporary enhanced TPIM order which is designated, in a temporary enhanced TPIM order, as transitional and saving provision for the purposes of this section;
(a) an enactment contained in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978,(b) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament,(c) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, Northern Ireland legislation, and(d) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales;
“enhanced measure” has the meaning given in section (Temporary power for imposition of enhanced measures)(3);
5 Sep 2011 : Column 109
“enhanced TPIM notice” means notice by which the enhanced TPIM power is exercised;
“enhanced TPIM power” means the power to impose enhanced measures that is referred to in section (Temporary power for imposition of enhanced measures)(2);
“relevant provisions of this Act” mean all the provisions of this Act, apart from—
(a) section1 (abolition of control orders),(b) section5(2) and (3) (extension of TPIM notices),(c) section13(6)(a) (revival of TPIM notice after expiry),(d) sections (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers) (expiry and repeal of TPIM powers) and section (section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers): supplementary provision) (section (Expiry and repeal of TPIM powers): supplementary provision),(e) section (Temporary power for imposition of enhanced measures) and this section,(f) section25 (financial and supplemental provision,(g) section27(1) and (2) (short title and commencement), and(h) Schedules7 (minor and consequential amendments) and8 (transitional and saving provision);
“standard TPIM notice” means a notice under section2;
“temporary enhanced TPIM order” has the meaning given in section (Temporary power for imposition of enhanced measures)(2).’.—(James Brokenshire.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
‘The Secretary of State may include in a TPIM Notice a requirement that an individual shall reside at a specified address in any place in the United Kingdom if the conditions in paragraphs (a) or (b) are met—
(a) the Secretary of State must reasonably believe that the individual is more likely to be involved in terrorism-related activity if he resides at his own residence, or
(b) the individual is more likely to be involved in terrorism-related activity if he resides in a locality in the United Kingdom with which he has a connection.’.—(Hazel Blears.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Hazel Blears: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2 —Relocation of terrorist suspects (No. 2)
‘(1) The Secretary of State may impose a requirement for relocation on the individual if the Secretary of State has a reasonable belief that the individual will engage in terrorism-related activity if the individual remains at their current location.
(2) The individual may be relocated for residence purposes to a locality deemed appropriate by the Secretary of State and in line with this locality being a place or area of a specified description.
(3) This measure may remain in place for the duration of the TPIM.’.
Amendment 5, page 16, line 21, leave out ‘must’ and insert ‘may’.
Amendment 6, page 16, line 24, at end insert—
5 Sep 2011 : Column 110
‘(c) any other premises specified by the Secretary of State under section 2A(1)’.
Government amendments 17 and 18.
Amendment 7, page 18, line 11, at end insert—
‘(3) A specified area or place or a specified description of an area or place may include the individual’s own residence or a locality with which the individual has a connection in accordance with paragraph 1(4)(a) and 1(4)(b).’.
Hazel Blears: I am delighted that my new clause has been selected. The Minister will know from our lengthy debates in Committee that this is the issue about which I feel most passionately and which I believe is one of the biggest flaws in the Bill. The Government’s decision not to have a power of relocation is fundamentally flawed and flies in the face of the evidence, of logic and not only of my personal views, but of the views of some very, very knowledgeable and experienced people in the police, of Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer, and of Lord Howard, the former Home Secretary—a range of people who feel that the Government are limiting their options for controlling suspected terrorists and providing the public with the security and protection that we, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to try to achieve.
My new clause 1 is a simple and straightforward measure that would provide that the Secretary of State may include in a TPIM notice the power to direct that a terrorist suspect should reside at a specific address that is not his home address or an address with which he has a connection, as is provided for in current legislation. To tie the Home Secretary’s hands in providing that a suspected terrorist has either to live at home or in the area where his known associates are gathered is absolutely ludicrous. Therefore, my amendment would provide that the Secretary of State may direct that the suspected terrorist is relocated to a different area so that they can be properly monitored and the public protected.
Richard Fuller: The right hon. Lady made a forceful opening to her comments, and I am interested to listen further. In her advocacy of enforced relocation, has she looked for inspiration to other democratic countries that forcibly relocate people who have not been subject to a trial?
Hazel Blears: There is a range of examples of countries that have attempted to deal with the threat for international terrorism with different legal provisions. France is often cited as a place where people are brought to trial under the criminal justice system. People are often held for months, if not years, under the investigatory process adopted by an inquiring magistrate. Indeed, the powers in some European countries are perhaps more draconian—the hon. Gentleman’s words, not mine—than any that we have ever had on our statute book. Therefore, to try to portray our country as one that does not accord with the rule of law or have effective judicial oversight, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has on a number of occasions, is an absolute travesty when we look at the real circumstances.
Richard Fuller:
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way, and I shall enjoy the opportunity to ask her the question again. The question was not about draconian measures. She is advocating a specific measure—forced relocation—and my question was specific. What other democratic countries has she used as her inspiration
5 Sep 2011 : Column 111
for this measure—which she makes out to be so important—which involves the forced relocation of people who have not been convicted in a trial?
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”,
“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
5 Sep 2011 : Column 112
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.
Mr McFadden: My right hon. Friend is making an eloquent speech about the reality of the situations that we face. Let me quote to her what the judge said about relocation in the case of CD:
“I have concluded that the relocation obligation is a necessary and proportionate measure to protect the public from the risk of what is an immediate and real risk of a terrorist related attack. While he is living in London there is a significant risk that he will take part in terrorism-related activities, notwithstanding the high level of protection implicit in the obligations which are not under challenge.”
Does she agree that that shows the danger? Will she also speculate about why the Government are so determined to deprive the public, whom we represent, of the protections afforded by the current relocation provisions?
Hazel Blears: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the case of CD. We had a long discussion in Committee about the need for a relocation clause and about the judge’s comments. Indeed, the judge in that case said that since CD’s return,
“he has endeavoured to obtain firearms on a number of occasions from a number of associates for the purposes of putting into effect a planned terrorist attack, has held covert meetings with associates in relation to plans to use the firearms as part of his planned attack and has displayed a very high level of security awareness.”
It was on those grounds that the judge decided that the relocation condition was absolutely appropriate in controlling CD’s activities. As for my right hon. Friend’s second question, about why the Government have been so reluctant to provide the Home Secretary with the power to relocate—not the duty to do so in every case, but the power where necessary—I believe that this is part of a political accommodation with the Liberal Democrats and that this will be revealed in all its rather distasteful details in due course.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab): Everyone in this House knows the wealth, depth and breadth of my right hon. Friend’s experience: she has seen evil in close quarters. However, does she not agree that we would not even need to discuss this issue if many of the people involved were deported and sent back to their countries of origin, as they should be? Would it not be a little more helpful if this multicoloured Government assisted us in that endeavour, in particular with memorandums of understanding, which they oppose so strongly? Then we would not have to worry about how many miles someone was from London, because they would be in Jordan.
Hazel Blears:
My hon. Friend also has considerable experience in relation to terrorism and the necessary laws. We did our utmost to try to negotiate memorandums
5 Sep 2011 : Column 113
of understanding with other countries so that deportation could take place. We were successful in a number of cases, albeit perhaps not with as many countries as we wanted. Equally, however, he must acknowledge that unfortunately we now have the issue of domestic, home-grown terrorists—people who cannot be deported and who were brought up in this country. Therefore, we need laws that provide sufficient security for those circumstances, as well as for where terrorists come from abroad.
I want to cite a bit of evidence, because evidence is important, and otherwise this debate is in danger of becoming a politician’s polemic. I want to quote again from the evidence that DAC Osborne gave us in Committee. I am beginning to feel slightly sorry for the poor man. I questioned him quite vigorously on relocation, and he said:
“The relocation issue has been very useful for us being able to monitor and enforce at the current time. Without that relocation, and depending on where people choose to live, that could be significantly more difficult. Where the choice of residence will be and how many people are within an area will affect the complexities, but there are different environments that make policing easier or more difficult. People could choose to live in an area that was difficult to police in normal circumstances, and that would be even more difficult to police in relation to monitoring control order subjects.”
He was then asked a very good question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). She asked whether
“of all the measures available to you, is it fair to say that relocation is the most effective?”
DAC Stuart Osborne, the national co-ordinator for counter-terrorism, replied:
“Overall it probably is, yes.”
That response comes from someone who has been engaged in dealing with suspected terrorists on a day-to-day operational basis. He says that relocation is the most effective measure that he could have to help him to police in these circumstances and to protect the public. That is a very powerful submission indeed. He went on to say of the provisions in the Bill:
“The new freedoms that will be given to individuals will significantly increase the challenges that we have to face”.––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2011; c. 5-6, Q10 and 14.]
DAC Osborne is a well respected police officer with considerable experience, and his views should be accorded some importance by the Government.
8.30 pm
We also heard evidence from Lord Howard. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), I would not normally pray him in aid, but he said:
“If you ask me my personal view, however, I would have preferred the relocation provisions to have remained.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2011; c. 17.]
Speaking from his experience as Home Secretary, he said that the provisions should be retained.
Lord Carlile was the independent reviewer for 10 years; he has not come to the issue recently. He has looked at every single control order and talked to the people who are the subject of the orders. He has gone into immense detail. He told the Committee:
5 Sep 2011 : Column 114
“If an empirical decision has been made that somebody should be relocated and that decision has been upheld by the courts, there is generally a good reason for it. The risk is increased if one person has the relocation condition removed. If nine people have relocation conditions removed and therefore are all able to move closer either to one another, or to their contact to whom they would wish to be close, plainly you are right that there is an increased risk.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2011; c. 17.]
There are currently nine control order suspects with a relocation condition.
More than half the present suspects who are subject to a control order come from London, and if the legislation goes through we face the possibility that they could return to London before the Olympics. In my view, that is a totally unnecessary risk to take. It places layers of risk upon risk. What better circumstances could al-Qaeda want for a spectacular event than the Olympics, when the world’s eyes are upon us? Yet at the very same time, the Bill is proposing to deny the Home Secretary the power of a relocation clause that would ensure that some of those people would remain in other areas of the country—the midlands, Norwich, Leicester or wherever—and not congregate with their associates back in London, where they could resume their plotting and their attack capabilities.
Bob Stewart: I have asked this question of the Minister, but I have not yet had an answer. Would not enhanced TPIMs allow some form of internal exile or removal to another place? I ask because I am genuinely not sure, but if they would, we would at least have that provision in the legislation.
Hazel Blears: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question but not received a response to it. I have the utmost respect for his experience in these matters. He is almost unique among us in having had experience on the ground of effective surveillance and the need to control terrorist suspects. In Committee, he thought very carefully about these issues, and he has already said tonight that he is concerned about the question of resources and that he might well consider supporting the Opposition’s amendment. I would welcome it enormously if, having thought carefully about the relocation question, he felt able to support us on that as well, given his practical experience and amazing depth of understanding of these issues.
I just want to say a word about why we have ended up in this ludicrous position. I say this with respect to the Minister. I respect him, and he does his job with incredible dedication and commitment, but in these circumstances he has ended up in a position that might well come back to haunt him. I think he knows that that position is untenable. Effectively, his decisions are flying in the face of the evidence of the police, of Lord Carlile and of a former Home Secretary, and they will leave him without the power to order relocation, should he need it.
This brings us back to the language that the Liberal Democrats have used time and again in the debate on these issues. They have talked about house arrest and internal exile. It is my belief that the counter-terrorism review, which the Minister has sought to rely on to justify all the steps that he has taken, is a political accommodation. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats—
5 Sep 2011 : Column 115
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD) rose —
Hazel Blears: I am going to make this point. Before the election, the Liberal Democrats said that they wanted to see the complete abolition of control orders because they were an insult to our civil liberties and to democratic society. They made that decision prior to coming into government and certainly without being privy to the available intelligence about these suspects. In fact, in his evidence, Lord Carlile said:
“I have a concern about the genesis of this Bill. It arose from coalition politics—I am aware of the process that occurred—and it is a compromise…it is the sufficient lowest common multiple, and it will do. However, it does not provide as much public protection as control orders, and it would be foolish to ignore that fact.”
“my party made a serious mistake in committing itself to the abolition of control orders. It made that mistake understandably, however, because it did not have the information at the time.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 21-22, Q 66-67.]
What we have seen is political rhetoric and a particular stance being taken by the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition, with the Conservative part finding itself in the unenviable position of trying to accommodate that situation. Because of the use of terms such as “house arrest” and “internal exile”, the relocation powers became the centre around which this accommodation has had to be drawn.
Let me say to the Minister that the deal that was done will lead us to bad legislation and it will come back to haunt us. I hope and pray that we do not have an incident in which somebody who has not been subjected to relocation is able to resume his contacts with his co-conspirators, to further a plot to attack this country and to execute that plot because there was no power to relocate that person to another part of the country. I hope and pray that that will never be the case. I would certainly not have made the decision to deny a Minister the right to make a relocation order in order to reach a political accommodation.
In my view—I hope it is shared across the House and I hope the Minister shares it—national security is far too important to be the subject, as Lord Carlile said, of “coalition politics”. This should be about a clear-headed analysis of risk and the steps that need to be taken that are proportionate to mitigate that risk. At the forefront of our minds and reflected in every step we take should be the protection of this country’s innocent people so that they can walk the streets in safety and security.
I do not believe that the decision to deny the power of relocation meets any of those tests. It is illogical. I can only believe that the Bill has no power of relocation because of a political accommodation designed to enable the Liberal Democrat part of the coalition to save face by saying that it had done some kind of deal. That is why the Liberal Democrats are so angry about the prospect of a relocation clause being in the enhanced TPIMs Bill, because that would mean that the principle of a relocation clause had been conceded. I would be interested to know, particularly from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), whether he will support the enhanced TPIMs Bill when it comes up for scrutiny. Perhaps he will tell us now.
5 Sep 2011 : Column 116
Tom Brake: I am happy to intervene; I had hoped that the right hon. Lady would give way earlier. As to the enhanced TPIMs Bill, what we have said is that we would need to consider the extraordinary circumstances that applied at the time. Certainly neither my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) nor I can envisage the extraordinary circumstances that would apply in which relocation powers would be acceptable. We will have to wait and see what scenario might develop.
Hazel Blears: That is a very interesting reply—that a Liberal Democrat cannot envisage the exceptional circumstances in which a relocation power might be necessary. I look forward to the scrutiny and to finding out whether there will be harmony between both parts of the coalition on this issue. I believe that the fault line that is emerging will go deeper and deeper, and I am sure that it will begin to crack as the debate goes forward.
My amendments are pretty straightforward. Ironically, the relocation power is available if there is police bail, but the amendments on police bail from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) have not come forward. If police bail is granted, there is a relocation power. This is beyond the power of words to express. I cannot for the life of me see why a relocation power is acceptable if there is police bail, but not when we are dealing with a suspected terrorist, who might be one of the most dangerous people in the country. We can have a relocation power for someone involved in serious fraud or serious crime, but not for someone we suspect wants to harm hundreds of people through a terrorist act. Again, this defies logic. That is why I genuinely believe that this is the result of political accommodation not the result of a logical decision by Ministers.
Amendments 5 and 6 are consequential to the new clause, but amendment 7 is slightly different, and I should welcome the Minister’s response to it. It seeks to ensure that it will be possible to exclude a terrorist suspect from an area although his own residence, or a residence with which he has a connection, may be in that area. At present there is a contradiction in the Bill. It is not clear whether the entitlement of a terrorist suspect to live in his own property, or in a property in an area where he has a connection, will take precedence over the exclusion power, or whether the exclusion power will take precedence over his right to remain in his own home.
For example, if a terrorist suspect’s home were in east London, in the area of the Olympics, would he be allowed to live there, or could he be excluded? In Committee we were told that it would be possible to exclude people from the area of the Olympics—or, indeed, to exclude them from a whole borough of London, or even from the whole of Greater London. It seems to me that, as the Bill stands, if a terrorist suspect had a home in such a borough, or in London as a whole, the right of an individual to remain in his own home would take precedence over the exclusion power, and that strikes me as a gaping hole in the legislation. I must ask the Minister to think about that very carefully, and to consider supporting amendment 7 if he is certain that he wants the power to exclude people from areas of particular danger, which could include that around the Olympics.
Tom Brake:
It gives me great pleasure to rise to oppose the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), and first of all to
5 Sep 2011 : Column 117
deal with her oft-repeated allegation that getting rid of relocation is a sweetener for the Liberal Democrats. She quoted Lord Carlile, and clearly that is his view, but I should be interested to know what evidence he has to support his contention. Equally, the right hon. Lady might want to offset his view against that of Lord Macdonald. I think it incumbent on her to produce more evidence to support her allegation that a stitch-up or deal has been done on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. She was, of course, a member of the Bill Committee and she will have heard a number of Conservative Members speak out against powers of relocation, so I think she will know that it is incorrect to suggest that only Liberal Democrats are advancing this argument.
The right hon. Lady says that she feels strongly about the issue. So do I. I wonder whether she has had a chance to talk to some of the people who have been subject to control orders that have subsequently been quashed because it was found that there was no genuine or strong evidence against them. I wonder whether she has heard from those people about the impact of relocation on them as individuals, and on their families. I think that if she wants to be fully informed about all aspects of the matter, she should hear from people who have subsequently been found to be innocent.
As the right hon. Lady may know, I have heard from a reliable source that of the people who are currently held under control orders, probably two or three present a real and serious threat to United Kingdom security. I acknowledge that—clearly—a limited number of people do represent a serious threat, and I think that that is why the Government have rightly announced that the package of measures to get rid of relocation will include additional surveillance resources to ensure that security and safety are maintained.
Bob Stewart: If one or two people might create a threat, why are we tying the hands of the Home Secretary? The provision does not have to be used, but what worries me is that we might need it for just one or two people. Why should we decide that we cannot use such a facility?
Tom Brake: The reason I do not think we should use it is linked to what was said earlier about the term “internal exile”. I know that the right hon. Lady does not like the phrase “internal exile”, but in practice that is what we are talking about. She was asked whether she took inspiration from any democratic countries in adopting the policy of relocation and she said that she did not. I suspect that she may have found it hard to find inspiration in the extent to which other democratic countries allow such a policy, so she has been inspired herself to come forward with the proposal to reinstate relocation.
That gets to the heart of what the debate is about. It is about where the balance between civil liberties and security lies and where we can achieve enhanced civil liberties at the same time as maintaining security. That is where the additional surveillance that the Government are putting in place kicks in.
8.45 pm
Therefore, I am happy to oppose the proposals. Relocation is to all intents and purposes internal exile. If the overriding threat scenario emerges at some point, we may have a debate about the enhanced powers in this
5 Sep 2011 : Column 118
place and in the Lords and that will be the appropriate way forward. We can then discuss whether relocation is required in those circumstances, but to have it on the statute book now as something that the Government could be tempted to adopt, would be regrettable. That is why I am happy to oppose the right hon. Lady’s new clause.
Shabana Mahmood: I am mindful of the time, so I will try to keep my comments relatively brief.
I endorse the powerful contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). She spoke with great passion about an issue that has concerned her for some time. It certainly concerned her in Committee, and it has concerned Opposition Front Benchers, too.
Relocation has been a central issue in the debates that we have had about the Bill, both on Second Reading and in Committee, and it is one of the most important issues that we are taking forward on Report. New clause 1 seeks to add the power of relocation to the Bill to replicate the position in relation to control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
It is clear from the evidence that the relocation power has proved extremely useful in disrupting terrorist activity. It is regularly described by police and others as one of the most useful and effective powers that they have under the control orders regime. We know that nine of the 12 current control orders have relocation as part of the control order.
The importance of relocation as a measure to be made available to the police in meeting the terror threat was made clear at the evidence sessions held by the Public Bill Committee. We heard evidence from Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Osborne, for whom, like my right hon. Friend said, I am starting to feel slightly sorry. She quoted him, but I will repeat the important bit of the quote again because it will concentrate the mind of the House:
“The relocation issue has been very useful for us being able to monitor and enforce at the current time. Without that relocation, and depending on where people choose to live, that could be significantly more difficult.”
“The new freedoms that will be given to individuals will significantly increase the challenges that we have to face, and managing those challenges will increase the resources that we need. The degree to which we are successful in managing them depends on both the extent of the Bill and the additional resources that we get.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 5-6, Q 10 and 14.]
The importance of relocation as a measure was further highlighted by Lord Howard and Lord Carlile. Lord Howard, the former Home Secretary, has described the power as the single most useful power in ensuring that the package of measures that we have is sufficient to keep us safe.
It is clear from the evidence that the police gave to the Committee that the additional risk created by removing relocation from the TPIMs regime could be mitigated by the additional resources, but it would not be eliminated and there are of course degrees of mitigation. In Committee, DAC Osborne was only “hopeful” that the risk would not increase if the Bill were passed, which does not fill me with a huge amount of confidence.
5 Sep 2011 : Column 119
It is clear, and we must recognise, that there is an irreducible minimum number of people who pose a serious threat to our country and we have to have an adequate and effective way to manage that risk. Relocation is clearly an important part of that package of measures. It is our view that, if the new clause is added to the Bill, the policing challenge that DAC Osborne and others will face will be reduced and our collective security protected. It has always been our concern that if this Bill closes off the power of relocation to the Home Secretary—if it deprives her of being able to use that power—that would deprive her of an incredibly important tool in her kit bag for dealing with the threat posed by a very small number of people. For those reasons, we will support new clause 1 in the Division.
Richard Fuller: It is a pleasure to be able to make a brief contribution to this debate.
I listened to the rhetoric of the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) in her opening speech in support of her new clause, and it made me even more scared about giving Administrations a fiat on the treatment of people in our judicial system, rather than leaving that with the judges. On many occasions, both in this debate and in Committee, the right hon. Lady talked about the importance of balance, but I feel that, in the sharpness of her rhetoric and the blithe way challenges were laid down and comments were made about loosening and potentially putting us at risk, her speech did not betray any balance whatever. That highlights one of the risks in giving the Executive the power to restrain and control people who have not been brought to justice. Both in the specific instance of relocation and more generally in the tone of Opposition Members, a disservice is being done to this Government’s attempts to return us to some semblance of the traditions of British justice that we achieved before the period of the so-called “war on terror”—before 2001—and we should remember that control orders were not introduced until 2005, and that therefore they were not in place between 2001 and the Iraq war, which some would argue was the period of greatest risk.
I wish to make a couple of comments on the specific issue of relocation. I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Lady and I do not mean to pick on her; I am just picking on her point. I challenged her earlier about democratic countries from which she drew inspiration. I could not think of any either, so I did some research on a well-known search engine. I looked up forced relocation of individuals. Kazakhstan featured prominently. There were also a few honourable mentions for Cambodia—not the current Cambodian Government, but I think we can work out which Government—and for Burma. Kazakhstan, Cambodia and Burma are not exactly the paragons of virtue in this respect that I would like our Government to follow as they attempt to strike the difficult balance of maintaining both the security of the nation and the liberty of the individual.
May I also refer to one not particularly tabloid-friendly comment on relocation? A number of Members have talked about meeting people who are subject to a control order or its equivalents and who have been subject to relocation. We must remember that those subject to control orders have not yet gone through full justice in
5 Sep 2011 : Column 120
our country. Many other countries, including the United States, have laws against cruel and unusual punishment. Relocation has the most significant negative impact on the mental health of these individuals. In evidence in Committee, Dr Korzinski said:
“What I am concerned about…is the absence of any sort of safeguards with respect to the impact on the mental health of the individuals who are subjected to these regimes. I can say quite unequivocally that it has been catastrophic in all the cases that I have worked on.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 43, Q121.]
That may not be the most popular of reasons to oppose the right hon. Lady’s new clause, but there are also many others, such as support for our justice system and achieving that balance that she advocates, but which I do not think she spoke to today. I shall support the Government on this new clause.
James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) made some powerful and important points in his succinct contribution.
As I think the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) accepted in her opening comments, we are revisiting a subject that we debated in detail in the Public Bill Committee, when amendments with the same effect were tabled by Opposition Members and the same arguments were made in support of them. As was made clear following the carefully considered counter-terrorism review, despite the aspersions that the right hon. Lady seeks to cast, the Government concluded that it should not routinely be possible under the TPIM system to require an individual to relocate, without consent, to another part of the UK.
The debate in Committee frequently turned to the question of balance—specifically, the balance between protection of individual liberty and security for the wider population. This is an area where there is a very careful balance to be struck, and where views on where the right balance is may differ. The previous Government took the view that compulsory relocation was necessary as one of a wide range of potential obligations under the control order provisions. Our conclusion, as we made clear in January, is that a more focused use of the restrictions available under the Bill, together with the significantly increased funding we are providing for covert investigation, will allow us to protect the public effectively without the need for this potentially very intrusive power to be routinely available. That is where our approach departs from the Opposition’s, and why we are seeking to strike a different balance from that marked out by them.
Bob Stewart: The Minister used the word “routinely”. Does he mean that this is something that does not normally happen, but could?
James Brokenshire:
To be clear, when I say “routinely” I am talking about powers routinely available under the TPIM Bill, accepting that there is a draft Bill that we tabled last week, and the exceptional circumstances when those powers may be available, which we discussed earlier today. Of course, we will be able to use the robust powers in this Bill to disrupt an individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity by, for example, requiring them to reside and stay overnight at a particular address in their locality, so that they can be easily monitored;
5 Sep 2011 : Column 121
requiring them to abide by other restrictions on their movements overnight; banning them from areas or places where they might meet extremist associates or conduct terrorism-related activities; prohibiting their association with individuals of concern and requiring prior notice of association with other individuals; requiring them to report regularly to a police station and to co-operate with electronic tagging; restricting and monitoring their financial activities; and limiting their communications to a small number of approved devices.
That is why I say clearly that the TPIM Bill provides robust measures to address the risks posed by such individuals, allied to the additional resources being provided to the police and the Security Service, and that that is the right package of measures to have in place. Indeed, as the House is aware, the director general of the Security Service has told the Home Secretary that he is content that the TPIM Bill provides an acceptable balance between the needs of national security and civil liberties, and that the overall package mitigates risk.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): As someone who had many reservations about the previous regime and the methods that were used, I, for one, can see very little difference between what this Government are doing and what the previous Government did. At the end of the day, despite all the criticism that was made, particularly by the Liberal Democrats in the last Parliament, by and large, what happened before the election is happening again.
James Brokenshire: I ask the hon. Gentleman with all due respect please to read the Bill. He will see that there are significant and important differences that I cannot address in the two minutes remaining to me. However, we have always been clear that there may be exceptional circumstances where the measures in the Bill, together with the additional resources, may not be sufficient to manage effectively the risk we face. National security is the primary duty of any Government, and we will not put security or the public at risk. That is why we concluded, as announced by the Home Secretary in January, that there may be exceptional circumstances where it would be necessary to seek parliamentary approval for additional, more restrictive measures. The review included a commitment that emergency legislation would be drafted, and that is what we tabled last week.
In a free society, we must challenge ourselves to fight terrorism using a targeted set of powers, safeguarding our hard-won civil liberties and prosecuting terrorists wherever possible. However, we must also ensure that those powers are sufficiently robust to meet the threats we face and sufficiently flexible to protect the public in changing circumstances, including in exceptional circumstances. I believe that the Government’s approach to this difficult issue is the right one and—I come back to balance being the essence—does strike the proper balance in giving us that right mix of disruption and ensuring protection for civil liberties. I am sorry that the Opposition do not appear—
9 pm
Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 7 June).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
5 Sep 2011 : Column 122
The House divided:
Ayes 213, Noes 314.
[9 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Alexander, Heidi
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Anderson, Mr David
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Banks, Gordon
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr Joe
Berger, Luciana
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Byrne, rh Mr Liam
Campbell, Mr Alan
Clark, Katy
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Cunningham, Tony
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
David, Mr Wayne
Davies, Geraint
De Piero, Gloria
Dobbin, Jim
Dobson, rh Frank
Docherty, Thomas
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Dugher, Michael
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Esterson, Bill
Field, rh Mr Frank
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hain, rh Mr Peter
Hamilton, Mr David
Hamilton, Fabian
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harris, Mr Tom
Havard, Mr Dai
Healey, rh John
Hendrick, Mark
Hepburn, Mr Stephen
Heyes, David
Hillier, Meg
Hilling, Julie
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hood, Mr Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hunt, Tristram
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jamieson, Cathy
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Khan, rh Sadiq
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Lloyd, Tony
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Ian
MacShane, rh Mr Denis
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Shabana
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr Gordon
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McCrea, Dr William
McDonagh, Siobhain
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Alison
McGovern, Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Michael, rh Alun
Miliband, rh David
Miller, Andrew
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Munn, Meg
Murphy, rh Paul
Murray, Ian
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O'Donnell, Fiona
Onwurah, Chi
Osborne, Sandra
Owen, Albert
Pearce, Teresa
Perkins, Toby
Phillipson, Bridget
Pound, Stephen
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reeves, Rachel
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, rh Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Seabeck, Alison
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Shuker, Gavin
Simpson, David
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, Angela
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Twigg, Derek
Twigg, Stephen
Umunna, Mr Chuka
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan
Watson, Mr Tom
Watts, Mr Dave
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wicks, rh Malcolm
Williamson, Chris
Wilson, Phil
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wood, Mike
Woodcock, John
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun
Wright, David
Wright, Mr Iain
Tellers for the Ayes:
Graham Jones and
Lyn Brown
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Amess, Mr David
Andrew, Stuart
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Norman
Baldry, Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Baron, Mr John
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackman, Bob
Blackwood, Nicola
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Mr Steve
Brokenshire, James
Brooke, Annette
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, Paul
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Chishti, Rehman
Clappison, Mr James
Clark, rh Greg
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crockart, Mike
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Durkan, Mark
Edwards, Jonathan
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Jonathan
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Farron, Tim
Field, Mr Mark
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Freer, Mike
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Fuller, Richard
Gale, Mr Roger
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
George, Andrew
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gilbert, Stephen
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Grant, Mrs Helen
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Hague, rh Mr William
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Mr Mike
Hands, Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harrington, Richard
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Harvey, Nick
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Hayes, Mr John
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, Mr Gerald
Huhne, rh Chris
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Huppert, Dr Julian
James, Margot
Javid, Sajid
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Mr David
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kelly, Chris
Kennedy, rh Mr Charles
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lamb, Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Latham, Pauline
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leslie, Charlotte
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lidington, rh Mr David
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Long, Naomi
Lopresti, Jack
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Lucas, Caroline
Luff, Peter
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan
Main, Mrs Anne
May, rh Mrs Theresa
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McDonnell, John
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Mensch, Louise
Menzies, Mark
Mercer, Patrick
Metcalfe, Stephen
Miller, Maria
Mills, Nigel
Milton, Anne
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Murray, Sheryll
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
O'Brien, Mr Stephen
Offord, Mr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Opperman, Guy
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, rh Mr James
Parish, Neil
Patel, Priti
Paterson, rh Mr Owen
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pugh, John
Randall, rh Mr John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reid, Mr Alan
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, Hugh
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Russell, Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Shepherd, Mr Richard
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Soames, rh Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Syms, Mr Robert
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, John
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Charles
Walker, Mr Robin
Walter, Mr Robert
Ward, Mr David
Watkinson, Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Weir, Mr Mike
Wharton, James
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Willetts, rh Mr David
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williams, Stephen
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wishart, Pete
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Young, rh Sir George
Tellers for the Noes:
Mark Hunter and
Mr Philip Dunne
Question accordingly negatived.