PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

TERRORISM PREVENTION AND INVESTIGATION MEASURES BILL

Ninth Sitting Tuesday 5 July 2011 (Morning)

CONTENTS

SCHEDULE 8 agreed to. CLAUSE 26 agreed to. CLAUSE 27 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this day at Four o’clock.

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £5·00 PBC (Bill 193) 2010 - 2012 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.

No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 9 July 2011

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 261 Public Bill Committee5 JULY 2011 Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 262 Measures Bill

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: MARTIN CATON,†MR LEE SCOTT

† Blears, Hazel (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) † Morden, Jessica (Newport East) (Lab) †Brake,Tom(Carshalton and Wallington) (LD) † Newmark, Mr Brooks (Lord Commissioner of Her † Brokenshire, James (Parliamentary Under-Secretary Majesty’s Treasury) of State for the Home Department) † Ollerenshaw, Eric (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con) † Buckland, Mr Robert (South Swindon) (Con) † Phillips, Stephen (Sleaford and North Hykeham) Donaldson, Mr Jeffrey M. (Lagan Valley) (DUP) (Con) † Ellwood, Mr Tobias (Bournemouth East) (Con) Robertson, John (Glasgow North West) (Lab) (Beckenham) † Goggins, Paul (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) † Stewart, Bob (Con) † Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry (Bradford South) (Lab) Gummer, Ben (Ipswich) (Con) † Tami, Mark (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) † Harris, Rebecca (Castle Point) (Con) † Huppert, Dr Julian (Cambridge) (LD) Sarah Thatcher, Committee Clerk † Mahmood, Shabana (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) † attended the Committee 263 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 264 Measures Bill got it past his Liberal Democrat colleagues, because it Public Bill Committee will give the Secretary of State a rather interesting power. The paragraph, headed “New powers not affected Tuesday 5 July 2011 by previous control order”, states: “The Secretary of State’s powers under this Act in relation to (Morning) an individual are not affected by a control order having been made in relation to that individual.”

[MR LEE SCOTT in the Chair] That provokes several interesting questions. How does the paragraph square with the Government’s Terrorism Prevention and Investigation policy—it is apparently written in stone, according to Measures Bill the response that we received the other day—that requirements imposed on a suspect should last no longer Schedule 8 than two years? The Minister may want to advise us about some of the current control orders and how long TRANSITIONAL AND SAVING PROVISION they have lasted. May I ask him straight out what the longest period is that a control has now been running? 10.30 am As we enter the transitional period, how long will that Question proposed, That the schedule be the Eighth control order last? Under the Bill, the Minister will give schedule to the Bill. the Secretary of State the power to extend the period of restriction in a control order—let us assume that it has Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab): Good run for four years—for a further two years, which morning to you, Mr Scott, and to the Committee. means that, in that hypothetical case, the restrictions We continue our deliberations on this very important under the two different regimes will last for six years. In Bill. Will the Minister explain the thinking behind the earlier exchanges with my right hon. Friend the Member schedule and the circumstances in which it will apply, as for Salford and Eccles, the Minister’s avowed position that would be helpful not only for me but for the was that two years had to be the maximum, yet he is Committee? giving the Secretary of State powers to make a much longer term. Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): Also, is it fair that some individuals who are subject May I, too, welcome you to the Chair this morning, to conditions under the TPIM regime would by definition Mr Scott? We are entering the last lap of this interesting not have to be subject to those requirements for more process, although, as I am getting on a bit in years, I than two years, while others who were subject to the find that the last lap takes longer. TPIM requirements would be subject to restrictions for a much longer period? What legal advice has the Minister Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con): Ending received and does he think he is on safe ground? If I up going round in circles. were under a control order and then subject to the TPIM, I would be talking to my lawyer. Given that the Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman makes a very Government’s policy is that nobody should be under good intervention, but the finishing line for the Committee such arrangements for more than two years, I would try is in sight. to construct a case to challenge the Government, so I I am interested in the Minister’s response to the am interested to know what legal advice the Minister question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for has had and whether he can share it with the Committee. Bradford South, but I want to make a few observations. If the Minister is giving the Secretary of State the The schedule looks rather innocuous—it covers the power to take someone subject to the control order, obvious practical arrangements for moving from one perhaps for a two or three-year period, into the new system to another—but it throws up one or two important arrangement, perhaps for as long as two years, why issues, which the Minister will want to address. could he not accept my right hon. Friend’s perfectly Section 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 sensible proposal to have the option to extend for a makes it clear that a control order can last for up to maximum of one further year where the terrorist threat 12 months, and can be renewed on one or more occasions. was such that that was felt to be both necessary and As things stand under the Act, it can continue indefinitely. proportionate? Somebody can be on a control order for We have had some well-informed debates in Committee four years, subject to TPIMs for two years and therefore about the merits of limiting the time for which a control under restrictions for six years. How can that be right order or a terrorism prevention and investigation measure when the Minister is not allowing the Secretary of State can operate. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member to extend it up to three years in the case of someone for Salford and Eccles moved a constructive amendment, who has not been on a control order and comes into the which offered the opportunity for a further extension of TPIM system? Schedule 8 appears innocuous, but I one year beyond the two-year maximum. I hope that think that the Minister needs to address some pretty the Minister has given thought to that and to the other substantial questions. issues that we have raised. I have one more important issue to raise with the Under the schedule, the transitional period is set at Minister, which is the case of an individual who may 28 days, beginning on the day of commencement. I look have been subject to a control order in the past but who forward to the Minister’s explanation, but I understand either previously or at the point of transition is no that existing control orders will remain in force throughout longer subject to requirements. In other words, they are the transitional period. However, when I first read released from the conditions of their control order. paragraph 4, I wondered how on earth the Minister had However, what if the Secretary of State receives intelligence 265 Public Bill Committee5 JULY 2011 Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 266 Measures Bill from the Security Service, backed up by the police, that Initially, I read paragraph 4 with the same concerns the person who was previously on a control order now that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale poses a serious threat? They cannot be prosecuted for East has set out. I am trying to do two things: first, to all the reasons that we have previously debated, but they explain why I overcame those problems and, secondly, pose a serious threat. It is a factual question. Under the to hint politely that there is an inconsistency in the right definition of “new terrorism-related activity” in clause 3, hon. Gentleman’s position. will the information that led to the making of the The right hon. Gentleman also asked—I offer my control order count as new information in relation to own view on this; it is for the Government to set out the making of a TPIM? The Committee—and the wider their position—what legal advice the Minister had received. public—would want reassurance that a TPIM would be He saw inconsistency between the policy of having a possible in such circumstances. TPIM for two years and the possibility of someone who Schedule 8 appears straightforward, but it throws up is subject to a control order, and subsequently to a many pressing issues of a practical nature and of principle TPIM, challenging that in law on the basis of the too. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Government’s policy position. I shall leave the Minister to answer that, but any controlee subject to a TPIM Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): who wants to make some sort of legal challenge should It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair this do so on the basis of the law and not on the basis of the morning, Mr Scott, to continue our debate on this Government’s policy provision. The courts may be many important Bill. I listened with interest to the remarks of things, but they seek to apply the law rather than the the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. Government’s policy—the law is the law as written. I was initially slightly perplexed by paragraph 4, given Paragraph 4 is useful, because if it becomes law it will the Government’s settled position, which I think is make clear Parliament’s position that a controlee who correct, that a TPIM should last no longer than two has been subjected to a control order for any period can years. However, a moment’s reflection indicated to me subsequently be made subject to a TPIM for two years. that the measure is warranted, because of the change of I made some points in relation to the amendment regime between control orders and TPIMs. As I understand tabled by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles it, what is proposed by the Government is to some last week. I see no merit in the TPIM period being extent a change in culture, which will result in a greater three, four, six or eight years instead of two; two years focus on the investigation of terrorism. Having reflected strikes the right balance. For those reasons, I understand on the matter, I do not foresee any objection to a the Government’s drafting in schedule 8. As powerful as controlee who has been subject to a control order for a the points made by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe number of years becoming subject to a TPIM notice for and Sale East seem at first glance, I am satisfied that a maximum of two years. paragraph 4 is not objectionable for the reasons that I have sought to develop, albeit inadequately. I look I was slightly surprised by the right hon. Gentleman’s forward to hearing whether the Minister agrees. objections to the provision, given that amendments tabled by the Opposition have, at least partly, suggested The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the that the Bill is unnecessary and that the existing regime Home Department (James Brokenshire): Farbeitforme was adequate. The Opposition’s position has been that a to describe the contributions of my hon. and learned controlee could remain subject to a control order under Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham the old regime for as long as necessary. In those as in some way inadequate; the Committee has been circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman’s protest that well informed and he has added to the debate. I welcome the Government’s position is inconsistent reveals an his comments and support, which have aided scrutiny—and inconsistency in the Opposition’s position, which depends that is what this Committee is intended to be all about. I on the argument that someone subject to a control order very much welcome contributions from Members on should remain so for a period greater than two years. both sides of the Committee, and it is healthy and positive to have such a debate. Members will accept that Paul Goggins: It is for Ministers to answer questions that is not always the case in Committee. [Interruption.] about the detail and inconsistencies of a Bill and it is for 10.45 am the Opposition to explain their position. There is a clear inconsistency, which the Minister must explain. Paul Goggins: The Conservative Whip has now returned, but I will still make my remarks. I strongly agree with Had Labour won the election, there would have been what the Minister has just said. I first came to the a further terrorism review similar to the one carried out House in 1997, and I vividly remember my first Committee, by this Government. Such a review might have reached in which I sat for hour after hour and said absolutely different conclusions—I have told the Committee that I nothing on the content of the Bill. I pay tribute to all changed my position on pre-charge detention. There members of the Committee, particularly Government was always room for a policy review, whoever won the Members, who have made the effort to stand up and ask election, but the Government have reviewed policy and sometimes difficult questions of the Minister. That has introduced a Bill with a big inconsistency. added enormously to our proceedings, and I pay tribute to them. Stephen Phillips: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me not only for being a bear of very little brain, but also James Brokenshire: I am grateful for the right hon. for being a new Member and perhaps not always expressing Gentleman’s comments. When our concluding remarks myself well. I am trying, however, to explain my position are made in the House about the scrutiny given to the rather than that of the Government, which I shall leave Bill, I am sure that the welcome manner in which the to the much abler capabilities of my hon. Friend the Committee has comported itself will be noted, because Minister. it has added value to our consideration of the Bill. 267 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 268 Measures Bill [James Brokenshire] Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab): I apologise for arriving a few minutes late, Mr Scott. The hon. Member for Bradford South asked me what I am sure that we will go on to debate clause 26, the schedule will do. Obviously, it provides for the which is another seemingly innocuous provision about necessary transitional and saving provisions, and particularly interpretation. However, I am a little confused about for the transitional period of 28 days during which the interaction between clause 26(2) and the definition existing control orders may remain in force following of “new terrorism-related activity”. If I am following the commencement of the Bill. The transitional period the Minister correctly—I am trying to follow him closely— is essential to ensure a safe and managed transition to there will be a situation in which, as the hon. Member the new system that gives prompt effect to Parliament’s for Beckenham said, someone could be on a control wishes, but does not put the public at risk. order and the Secretary of State could then look afresh The provision allows time for control orders to remain at whether it was necessary to impose measures under a in place—a limited period of 28 days—during which TPIM. We could therefore have a situation whereby the Secretary of State will consider the cases of those someone had been held for three years under a control subject to them, including whether it is appropriate to order and then perhaps another two years under a impose a TPIM notice on them, and, when appropriate, TPIM. However, within the definition of new terrorism- apply to the court for permission to do so. When such a related activity, clause 26(2) states: person is served with a TPIM notice, the control order “the Secretary of State is not prevented from taking account of will be revoked at the same time. that activity for the purposes of the continued imposition, or The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale subsequent imposition, of measures on that individual.” East asked about the Government’s confidence in the Are we saying that the acts of terrorism-related activity legal drafting and the manner in which the schedule will could be perhaps three or more years old and still be be interpreted. We are confident about our approach, taken into account when considering the imposition of and the provision in paragraph 4 underlines the fact a TPIM? That seems contradictory. The thrust of the that when a TPIM notice takes effect, it will not be Bill is that we need new evidence of new involvement in fettered by a previous control order, which is an important terrorism before we impose such intrusive measures, yet part of the schedule. Although the right hon. Gentleman that provision suggests that some of the incidents could rightly identified that such schedules often appear to be be three or more years old but could still be relevant for not so significant at first sight, they can have relevant the purposes of imposing a TPIM. Will the Minister and important elements built into them, which is why I address that apparent inconsistency? welcome this debate. James Brokenshire: We have addressed clause 3(6) Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): I am seeking and the way in which the approach is intended to clarification because, unlike my hon. and learned Friend operate with the two-year time period. If a further the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I do not TPIM is sought, new terrorism-related activity would possess a legal brain. Will the Minister confirm that be required for it to be imposed. I think that the when TPIMs come in, someone on a control order will position is quite clear. I promise the right hon. Lady automatically be transferred off it and on to a TPIM, or that I will consider what she has said so that we ensure have I got that wrong? I am not as clever as hon.—and that the drafting reflects my understanding of its intent hon. and learned—Members serving on the Committee, on the imposition of a TPIM for the first time. We and we ex-Army Government Back Benchers need things would be able to look back on the actions that had explained carefully. Such an approach, however, would taken place prior to the Bill coming into force. Obviously, be logical, and I think the Minister is saying that there if a further TPIM was then sought, we would have to will be such a transfer. look further to new activity that might have occurred. James Brokenshire: I would not in any way question my hon. Friend’s intellect or the practical and real-life Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the Minister for giving experience that he has brought to his contributions. way again, which reflects the spirit in which the Committee The Secretary of State will determine in individual has been conducted, but I want to press him on this cases whether the TPIM requirements apply in relation point. Is he saying that there could be circumstances to each individual. Obviously, clear consideration will in which evidence that was at least three or four years be given to those who are subject to an existing control old could be used as the foundation for the imposition order. The Secretary of State will need to review the of a TPIM that could then be renewed again for a provisions for each individual to ensure that the further year after its expiry? At the end of the period, requirements of clause 3 are satisfied in each case. As that TPIM would be based on acts of terrorism-related we have indicated previously, there is a requirement for activity from five or even six years previously. I do not reasonable belief, and the Secretary of State will need to say whether that is right or wrong, but it seems to go be satisfied that the relevant conditions will be met for a against the spirit of how the Bill has been introduced—the particular individual. idea that what is required is a higher threshold and We touched on this in our debates on clauses 3 and 4, for people to have been involved in recent terrorism-related but it is worth clarifying the position on acts that occur activity. I would welcome direct confirmation from prior to the Bill coming into effect. I refer the right hon. the Minister of whether it is possible for a TPIM, which Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East to clause 3(6)(a), expires at the end of two years, to be based on evidence which I hope will give him the assurance that he was of terrorism-related activity that is at least five years old? seeking about existing activity and the definition of what constitutes “new terrorism-related activity” under The Chair: Order. May I ask that interventions be the clause. kept as interventions? 269 Public Bill Committee5 JULY 2011 Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 270 Measures Bill James Brokenshire: I am grateful for your clarification, James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend has fastened on Mr Scott, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member an important point. Historical evidence might be relevant, for Salford and Eccles for making her point clear. I but the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to be succinct the TPIM remains necessary to protect the public and when discussing technical issues, but I am sure that that the conditions under clause 3 are fulfilled. Old members of the Committee will have clearly heard your material alone might not necessarily show that there is a desire, Mr Scott, to ensure that interventions are succinct. continuing risk and that therefore the relevant provisions As we have indicated all the way through our proceedings, in clause 3 are fully met. The information, the intelligence we need arrangements to move from one regime to and the risk will have to be considered to ensure, on a another. On the imposition of a TPIM, as the Bill case-by-case basis, that the conditions set out in clause 3 implies, there will be no specific limit on the duration have been satisfied—[Interruption.] over which we can look back with regard to when a piece of intelligence or evidence arises. I again point the 11 am right hon. Lady to clause 3(6), which sets out the definition The Chair: Order. If the hon. Member for Beckenham of “new terrorism-related activity” and the timings to wishes to speak, will he intervene rather than calling be considered. out?

Paul Goggins rose— Bob Stewart: Telling off accepted.

James Brokenshire: I might be misunderstanding the James Brokenshire: I hope that that gives my hon. point, so I apologise. The right hon. Gentleman might Friend some confirmation. be able to assist me further. Hazel Blears rose— Paul Goggins: I refer the Minister to page 24 of the explanatory notes, in which paragraph 129 clearly states: James Brokenshire: I have clearly stirred up something, “‘new’ activity must take place at some point after the original so I am happy to give way to the right hon. Lady. imposition of the measures”. However, that does not apply to control orders. I know Hazel Blears: The Minister appears to have exposed that the Government’s intention is to pretend that Labour an inconsistency at the heart of his own Bill. If he wants was never in government and to remove everything, but to review a TPIM, he must have evidence of new should not control orders count for something? terrorism-related activity after a defined period of two years, yet the hon. Member for Beckenham says rightly that there might be evidence from years gone by on James Brokenshire: I will happily reflect and look at which to base a decision. The Minister says that, for a Hansard to see whether I properly understand the issues TPIM, there must be new evidence from a defined raised by Opposition Members, but the provisions in period—this comes to a full stop after two years—yet the Bill look clear to me. he is prepared to make a TPIM on the back of evidence from a control order that might be five, six or seven Hazel Blears rose— years old.

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Lady will no doubt Stephen Phillips: On a point of order, Mr Scott. We be able to assist further. are having a debate about clause 26, but we are actually on schedule 8. I know that the Minister has done his Hazel Blears: I shall be as direct as possible. Will the best to answer questions about schedule 8. We are about Minister confirm that it will be possible under his to move on to clause 26, and I think that the right hon. regime to make a TPIM notice on the basis of evidence Lady can make her points then. I ask for guidance on that was gathered three or four years ago? whether she should do so. I have not spoken to such points because I wanted to discuss them in the context James Brokenshire: My clear understanding is that of the clause to which they relate, not schedule 8. that will be possible in those circumstances. I was not trying to skirt around the right hon. Lady’s question. I The Chair: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that it was about what would happen when for that point of order. I have no doubt that the Minister seeking a further measure that might be subsequently will now relate his comments to schedule 8 only. required, and how that would relate to the provisions in clause 3(6). I hope that that has been helpful to her. James Brokenshire: I appreciate your ruling, Mr Scott. No doubt we will return to that point shortly, and hon. Bob Stewart: I do not mind what the words here say, Members from all parties will be able to continue the but evidence of terrorism from three or four years ago is debate, should they wish. relatively recent. In my experience, one can go back Paragraph 4 of schedule 8 makes it clear that the 12 years to get an indication of intention. I hope that we Secretary of State may impose a TPIM notice on a do not pass a law that does not allow us to go back person who has been previously subject to a control considerably in time. This is about getting evidence of order. It would not be appropriate at this stage to intention, and such evidence from three or four years pre-empt a decision about whether any individuals who ago is pretty recent. To be honest, I would go back all are subject to a control order should be subject to a the way through life because that, in truth, is what the TPIM notice, but it would be irresponsible and inconsistent security services sometimes have to do. I support what with protecting the public to rule that out. When the the Minister says. time comes, the Home Secretary will need to consider, 271 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 272 Measures Bill [James Brokenshire] introducing an important measure to make a transition from the control orders regime to the TPIM regime. I on a case-by-case basis, whether individuals who are do not see any inconsistency, and the manner of moving currently controlled meet the statutory test for the from one regime to a new one is entirely appropriate. imposition of measures under the TPIM regime, which There might be a point of difference, and I accept that includes whether imposing measures is necessary and the Opposition feel that they wish to pursue it as a proportionate. strong issue, but the Government’s approach to the Schedule 8 also provides for certain judicial proceedings transition from one regime to the next is reasonable. under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 to continue, Following our counter-terrorism review, and for all the or to be brought after the repeal of the Act, for the reasons that I have already given the Committee, we purposes of determining whether a control order or an believe that the TPIM regime is the appropriate way to obligation imposed under a control order should be manage risk. quashed. The need for the provision is clear. Although the 2005 Act will be repealed when the Bill is commenced, Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): Does the Minister so the control order powers will no longer be available, agree that the Opposition have slightly misunderstood ongoing litigation will need to continue. It is right that some of the proposals? The two-year limit on a TPIM is individuals who have been subject to control orders not about the age of the evidence; it is an anti-warehousing should retain their right to have their order reviewed by provision. Under the system of control orders, people the court, or to bring or continue appeal or damages could be stuck for year after year, but we think that proceedings relating to that control order. That is why should not happen, unless someone has been convicted. schedule 8 is important, and it is why I hope that the Committee will agree to it. James Brokenshire: The point of difference between the Opposition and us is that they would have liked to Paul Goggins rose— have a year, another year and then another year, according to the control orders regime. James Brokenshire: Before I conclude, however, I give I do not wish to mischaracterise our lengthy debate way for one last time to the right hon. Gentleman. because, to be fair, some comments have recognised that there should be an end point, and I do not wish to Paul Goggins: I hope that it is one last time. There is antagonise you, Mr Scott, by repeating previous debates an important point that the Minister should not or straying more widely than the provisions in the underestimate. I asked him to tell the Committee the schedule. There may be a point of difference, but two longest period for which somebody had been under a years is an appropriate period. The schedule is an control order. If he can explain that, it will be helpful, important part of the Bill, so it should be agreed to. but I warn him that I may need to intervene again once I Question put and agreed to. hear the answer. Schedule 8 accordingly agreed to.

James Brokenshire: I think that I am correct in saying Clause 26 that the longest duration of a control order has been more than four years. I do not think that that is any INTERPRETATION ETC particular surprise or secret. As we have discussed in Question proposed, That the clause stand part of our previous debates, we are moving to a new regime the Bill. that will focus not on keeping people on orders indefinitely, but on instead exiting them from measures at the end of Mr Sutcliffe: The hon. and learned Member for the period. Sleaford and North Hykeham—[Interruption.] If I ever have the opportunity, I would be delighted to visit his Paul Goggins: The Minister has been extraordinarily constituency. In the debate on schedule 8, he made the generous in taking interventions this morning, which is point that we were discussing clause 26, but this debate appreciated. He tells us that the longest period is more gives us the chance to go into even more detail on the than four years. I do not know whether the individual clause. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford concerned is currently subject to a control order, but if and Eccles is exactly right. Paragraph 129 on page 24 of he is, at the transition he will have been subject to the explanatory notes explains that TPIMs can extend control order conditions for more than four years, and beyond two years. It is extraordinary that, for the might then be subject to TPIM conditions for a further reasons we have given, Liberal Democrat Members two years, which would mean more than six years. I have not kicked up a fuss about that. The Government have still not had an adequate response about the have tried to sell the Bill as bringing in a different inconsistency between a controlee who might have had regime. six years’ conditions and those who, under the new system, will have no more than two years’ conditions. I James Brokenshire: Will the hon. Gentleman explain am amazed that we have not had any interventions from how clause 26 will enable a TPIM notice to go on Liberal Democrat Members, because they must be appalled beyond two years? Will he point to the relevant provision by that inconsistent policy, but I look forward to the in the clause that would allow that? Minister’s response. Mr Sutcliffe: I might be wrong, but the explanatory James Brokenshire: It is interesting that the Opposition notes state that the TPIM notice can go beyond two are latching on to that point because they have argued years if new activity occurs. [Interruption.] Well, I look against having any controls. If they had their way, forward to the Minister’s clarifying the position. The people could be kept on orders perhaps for ever. We are clause is about interpretation and the Government have 273 Public Bill Committee5 JULY 2011 Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 274 Measures Bill sold the Bill as being different from control orders. We notice has previously been up to so that she can decide are concerned about that, and we will return to the whether the measure should continue or whether it matter in our discussions of the new clauses. The Minister should be imposed in the first place. may say that I am wrong, but it appears that there is an With her extraordinary grasp of this area and her inconsistency in the Bill, because a TPIM notice can full, detailed knowledge and consideration of the Bill, last more than two years. for which I pay her enormous tribute, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles has raised an important Stephen Phillips: The point made by the hon. Gentleman matter. More than anything, however, the problem is may be valid, and it may give rise to the point of order one of drafting. It is not a point of substance. I look that I made in reverse form, but my point related to forward to hearing from the Minister—with the right schedule 8, and we are discussing clause 26. hon. Lady having raised it and my having leapt on her coat tails—that he will look at this again. We come to the point that the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles made, which is, perhaps, not a substantive 11.15 am point but a matter of drafting that the Minister might need to grapple with after Committee stage. Under Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the hon. and learned clause 2, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for his masterly conditions grasp of the way in which these various clauses interact— “A to E in section 3 are met” that is clearly a result of his experience. I would not before a TPIM notice can legitimately and lawfully be describe him as a bear of little brain; he has just shown imposed. Condition B in clause 3(2) requires that us that he is a bear with a large brain. I found his picking apart of those clauses instructive. “some or all of the relevant activity is new terrorism-related activity.” Clause 3(2) might resolve the issue, as it states: The measure may create a difficulty that might give rise “Condition B is that some or all of the relevant activity is new to litigation, so it is important either for the Minister to terrorism-related activity.” set out a clear position today, or for the Department to When the Secretary of State is considering whether to go away and think about the content of clause 26. make a TPIM, some old terrorism-related activity might Subsection (2), which, as a matter of drafting, is an odd form the background, but there would have to be sufficient place for an interpretation provision, provides for a case new terrorism-related activity for the TPIM to grip on in which a TPIM notice has come into force. As a result, that new activity. That must be substantial enough to for the purposes of clause 3, any terrorism-related activity resist any application or appeal. is not new terrorism-related activity. None the less, I am interested in the Minister’s view on the proportions under clause 26(2), the Secretary of State is entitled to that the Secretary of State might have regard to. If there take that activity into account for the was a wealth of old terrorism-related activity and a “purposes of the continued imposition, or subsequent imposition, minor incident of new terrorism-related activity, would of measures on that individual.” that provide a substantial foundation for a TPIM to be My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham has made? I am sure that he cannot do an 80:20 division, rightly referred to the fact that the Government should but these matters, as the Minister knows, will be intensely be entitled to take into account for the purposes of the litigated from all sides, so the Minister must contemplate imposition of a TPIM notice previous terrorism-related the balance of activity that could form the foundation activity. Will the Minister confirm that position, which under condition B for a TPIM. How much new terrorism- would be consistent with the explanatory notes? The related activity is required for the TPIM to be made? difficulty in the drafting relates not only to the location The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North of the provision in the Bill, but to the fact that it is not Hykeham made a point about drafting. There is a clear what is meant by similar point in clause 26(2), which states that “taking account of that activity” “the Secretary of State is not prevented from taking account of for the purposes of the continued imposition, or subsequent that activity”. imposition, of measures. Does that mean that old That is slightly confusing, and it may well be that that terrorism-related activity, to coin a phrase, can override wording must be amended. I agree with the hon. and the primary provisions, so that condition B in clause 3(2) learned Gentleman that an interpretation clause is an is to some extent undermined? Alternatively, does it odd place for something that interacts with, and possibly mean that although new terrorism-related activity is a overrides, clause 3. condition that must be met before a TPIM notice can be I want to raise another matter with the Minister imposed, under clause 26(2) the Secretary of State is arising from clause 26(3). I would be grateful if he entitled to take into account previous terrorism-related explained how that measure and the possible revival of activity? a notice interacts with other clauses. Subsection (3) The position is ambiguous, and I suspect that the states that Government intend the measure to be used as part of “if a TPIM notice is revived under section 13(6), a reference to the transitional measures between the two regimes. In the notice coming into force is a reference to it coming into force addition, we have focused on the primary provisions in by virtue of section 5(1) (and not to it coming back into force by clause 3 because they are key to the Bill and to the virtue of section 13(9)).” change in regime. The Government may believe that From reading the Bill, I am not sure whether that has an although those provisions should have primacy, the implication for how long the TPIM lasts. I would appreciate Secretary of State is none the less entitled to take into it if the Minister explained the need to make a distinction account—to have regard to, for want of a better phrase— between a TPIM coming into force under clause 5(1) or what the controlee or the individual subject of a TPIM its revival under clause 13(9) and what the material 275 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 276 Measures Bill [Hazel Blears] There is no measure in the Bill to allow the imposition of any curfew outside the overnight period. Again, we effect of that distinction is in clause 26(3). I have read still have no definition of what “overnight” means. That the measure a number of times, and I am not currently is another inadequacy. I tabled an amendment relating able to reconcile those positions in the Bill. I am sure to a reserve power in exceptional circumstances, and I that there is a clear and transparent explanation for the still hope that the Minister will come back with an drafting and I would be grateful to hear it from the amendment that at least reflects the same commitment Minister. that the Secretary of State gave on pre-charge detention, and hopefully goes much further than that. Paul Goggins: I, too, look forward to hearing the There is a great deal more to hear from the Minister. I Minister’s answer to this particular line of inquiry. I pay hope that he is still reflecting and will indicate, even at tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford this stage, that during further debates on the Floor of and North Hykeham and to my right hon. Friend the the House on Report, he is prepared to be open-minded Member for Salford and Eccles for putting their finger enough to accept some of the concerns that have been on an important issue. It demonstrates how we have expressed and ensure that when measures are defined in tried as a Committee to be constructive on all sides to clause 26, they are more adequate to control the threat improve the Bill where we can. We are relying on the from such individuals than they currently are. Minister to go away, consider the matter and being prepared to come back with alterations and amendments James Brokenshire: It is fair to say that we have to make his Bill a better Bill. If hon. Members have already debated some of the final points made by the played a part in that, that is to be welcomed. right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East at The Committee may wish to probe the Minister on great length. He will have heard what I said in response the definition of “measures” in clause 26: to a number of issues, for instance on the report by the “‘measures’”means terrorism prevention and investigation measures Joint Committee on the Draft Detention of Terrorist (which has the meaning given in section 2);”. Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills. We will consider Section 2 refers to the list of measures in schedule 1 that the report carefully in the context not only of extended can be imposed on an individual subject to a TPIM. I pre-charge detention and emergency legislation but of choose this moment because it might be the last opportunity the relationship between them, and of what consideration for the Minister to give the Committee some indication might need to be given to the Bill in the light of the that he has been reflecting hard over the weekend and in report. I think I have been quite straightforward and recent days on what those measures currently constitute. open about the fact that we will carefully examine and It has become increasingly clear during our deliberations respond to the Joint Committee’s report. However, I am that there is a difference between the arguments made sure there will remain differences between us on a by the Minister and by other Committee members number of the Bill’s provisions and that our discussion about the adequacy of those measures. It is not just of them will continue on Report, as they should. members of this Committee who have spoken about the I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee inadequacies. We heard evidence from Mr Osborne for their discussion of the detail of the drafting of during our first sitting that the challenges would increase subsections (2) and (3) of clause 26. As the right hon. as a result of the impossibility of relocation under the Member for Salford and Eccles suggested, the read-across measures outlined in schedule 1. Lord Carlile, former between clause 26(2) and clause 3(2) highlights the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and a point that some or all of the relevant activity will be respected authority on such issues, mentioned his concerns new terrorism-related activity.In the context of clause 26(2), about the lack of a relocation measure. Lord Howard, a old terrorism-related activity may be considered in the former Home Secretary, also expressed clear concerns overarching arrangement, because it may still show a about that omission. pattern of risk, but there would still need to be new The clause says that the definition of “measures” is as terrorism-related activity to obtain the new TPIM at the stipulated in section 2 and schedule 1, but I submit that end of the two years. Clause 26(2) is important to those provisions are not adequate. We need confirmation underline that and to ensure that there is clarity of from the Minister that he is still considering the issues. operation with clause 3, and I think that it does so. The definition might apply through the lifetime of the Bill and after it is enacted, but it is still possible that in Mr Ellwood: My hon. Friend was pursuing this issue our remaining deliberations, we could refine and add to a little earlier, and I wanted to raise an example. If the those measures to provide a greater degree of public two-year period for a TPIM was coming to an end and safety. evidence emerged that a terrorism-related event had I have mentioned relocation. That is the principal taken place six years before—it might not be enough to concern—without doubt, it is the issue that all of us convict, but it might be a serious event—how would who have concerns would pick—but it is not the only that fit with the Bill? Would the individual be subject to one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and a continuation of the TPIM, or would the information Eccles mentioned her concerns about the two-year time be deemed to have decayed or to be too old to use? limit, and she has persuaded me of the importance of James Brokenshire: Again, it is a question of looking having an end in sight to such restrictions. It is important at the definition of new terrorism-related activity in that we remain open-minded, but I still see the inconsistency clause 3(6), which states that such activity takes place between the Minister’s denial of her request for a three-year “if no TPIM notice relating to the individual has ever been in extension and the possibility that somebody could be force, terrorism-related activity occurring at any time…if only under a control order for up to six years, or perhaps one TPIM notice relating to the individual has ever been in force, even more. That is a clear inconsistency, and it needs to terrorism-related activity occurring after that notice came into be addressed. force”. 277 Public Bill Committee5 JULY 2011 Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 278 Measures Bill It is always a question of the balance of risk and ‘will come into force the day after the Home Secretary ensuring that all the relevant conditions have been reports to Parliament to confirm that paragraphs (a), satisfied, as set out in clause 3(6). (b) and (c) below have been complied with— The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles made (a) no later than one month after the day on which this Act a point about clause 26(3) under which, if there is is passed, the Senior National Co-ordinator for Counter- evidence of new terrorism-related activity at any time after terrorism will, in consultation with other relevant the first imposition of a TPIM notice, a new TPIM police organisations and the security services, produce a report to the Home Secretary detailing the additional notice may be imposed beyond the two-year time limit. required resources (“required resources”) that will be To be clear, if there is a TPIM notice, new terrorism-related needed to manage the increased risks arising from the activity takes place and the notice is revoked and repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and subsequently revived, a new TPIM notice may be imposed the passing of this Act. after the end of the revived notice, provided that the (b) no later than two months after the day on which this conditions in clause 3 are met. If the new terrorism-related Act is passed the Home Secretary will agree with the activity takes place after the revival of the notice, it, too, Senior National Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism will count as new terrorism-related activity, which would the required resources under paragraph (a) and the allow for a new notice after two years. timetable for such required resources becoming deployable for use in implementing and managing measures relating The explanation I have just read into the record is to TPIM notices. obviously quite complex for all Members to take on (c) This Act cannot come into force until the required board, to compute and to consider. It would therefore resources as agreed under paragraph (b) above are be appropriate—I have not done this so far in made available and ready for deployment.’. Committee—to write to Members so that they can see in black and white the explanation I have just given and The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss any amplification I can offer. I entirely respect the right amendment 141, in clause 27, page 15, line 35, at end hon. Lady’s point, but it is important that we put these insert— things properly on the record and allow right hon. and ‘(2A) Except in so far as otherwise provided under this clause, hon. Members to come back to us on Report if the clause 2 and all other consequential clauses in this Act will expire explanation that I have given, as amplified by the letter at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on that I will write, is not sufficient. The issue is a technical which this Act comes into force. one, with distinctions with respect to revival, revocation (2B) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory and time periods. It would be helpful if I set out the instrument— detail in a letter to the Committee. (a) repeal clause 2; or (b) provide that clause 2 will not expire at the time when it 11.30 am would otherwise expire under subsection (2A) of this clause but will continue in force after that time for a Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the Minister for saying period not exceeding one year. he will write to hon. Members on this point, for two (2C) Before making an order under subsection (2B)(b) of this reasons: first, because he has confirmed that I do not clause the Secretary of State must consult— have a completely mushy brain making me incapable of (a) the Independent Reviewer of Counter-Terrorism working out the interaction of the clauses; secondly Legislation; because it would be helpful to have a worked example of (b) the police; and how the interaction might take place, showing someone’s (c) the security services. journey through the TPIM process. The hon. Member (2D) No order may be made by the Secretary of State under for Bournemouth East raised an issue about old evidence. this clause unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament Those things are, I think, always easier to understand if and approved by a resolution of each House. it is possible to show what would happen when the (2E) Subsection (2D) of this clause does not apply to an order clauses affected an individual case. that contains a declaration by the Secretary of State that the order needs, by reason of urgency, to be made without the James Brokenshire: I appreciate the spirit in which approval required by subsection (2D). the right hon. Lady sought clarity on the interaction of (2F) An order under this clause that contains such a some technical aspects of the Bill. It is important that declaration— we provide assurances on that. I think I can offer an (a) must be laid before Parliament after being made; and explanation in Committee, but on reflection it would be (b) if not approved by a resolution of each House before helpful all round if I wrote to hon. Members about the the end of 40 days beginning with the day on which detail. I am very happy to consider the points made the order was made, ceases to have effect at the end of that period. about clause 26(3) and write clarifying matters. (2G) Where an order ceases to have effect in accordance with In the light of the comments and assurances that I subsection (2F), that does not— have given, I trust that hon. Members will agree to the (a) affect anything previously done in reliance on the clause. order; or Question put and agreed to. (b) prevent the making of a new order to the same or Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. similar effect.’.

Clause 27 Hazel Blears: On a point of order, Mr Scott. Hon. Members will recall that when Deputy Assistant SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT Commissioner Osborne gave evidence at our first sitting, he made a commitment to provide the Committee with Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab): details of the cost of surveillance. I have been attempting I beg to move amendment 126, in clause 27, page 15, to speak to him on the telephone for a few days now, line 35, leave out from ‘Act’ to end of line and insert and apparently he is out of the country. My office spoke 279 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 280 Measures Bill [Hazel Blears] Shabana Mahmood: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, we are dealing with a Bill relating with the Metropolitan police this morning, and I think to terrorism, which is incredibly serious. Such Bills are Assistant Commissioner Yates is taking responsibility very different in nature from other measures. The thrust while DAC Osborne is away. of my amendment is to deal with the issue of resources The Metropolitan police told my office today that coming online. We are moving from a regime under details of the cost would be before the Committee this which additional resources were not necessary, because morning, but I do not have a copy. It would help the of the nature of the measures in place, to one in which Committee to have them when we consider amendment there will be greater risk, which the Government say can No. 126, which relates to additional costs and resources. be managed by the provision of those additional resources. Could the Clerks find out whether we are to be provided The amendment would prevent the time gap and the with that information, which is fundamental to our additional risk that it will cause. deliberations? Stephen Phillips: Is the answer to my question “no”? The Chair: It appears that no such evidence has been received by the Committee, but inquiries will be made Shabana Mahmood: I am not aware, off the top of my before this afternoon’s sitting. head, of such an Act of Parliament, but that is not a good point, because the amendment does not seek to Shabana Mahmood: Resources have been much discussed frustrate the Government’s purpose in introducing the in Committee. The thrust of amendment 126 came TPIM regime, but to mitigate a risk that we heard about from the evidence of DAC Osborne in our first evidence- from DAC Osborne. It does not matter if it has not gathering session. Committee Members may find it arisen in another Act of Parliament; I do not think that helpful if I take them back to the important part of that DAC Osborne has given that kind of evidence before, evidence that relates to amendment 126. DAC Osborne and I am very worried about that security gap. told my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles that the police were comfortable with the control Dr Huppert: It always worries me when people say order regime, because it had had time to bed in and they that terrorism is just completely different from everything were used to the system and resources, and the interplay else we do in our legal system. Different people have between them. been on control orders at different times and, depending I asked DAC Osborne what time scales he was working on how many there were, presumably more or less to in relation to the bedding-in process for the TPIM surveillance was needed. Should the previous Government regime. He replied: have done such an assessment of needs before imposing “To get the resources that we anticipate we need will take more a control order on someone, because of the extra resources than a year, in terms of being able to get people trained and to get needed, or does the hon. Lady agree that we should the right equipment. Until we have got that, we will not be able to have a legal framework and that we should get on with start to bed things in and see how it works and how it transpires. it in that way? It also depends on how many people actually go on to the TPIMs regime and how many people come off it.”––[Official Report, Shabana Mahmood: With respect, the hon. Gentleman Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, misses the point of the amendment. The control order 21 June 2011; c. 9, Q27.] regime allowed for a range of measures for which a That concerned me, because nothing in the Bill allows different level of resource was required, and where there for the gap between the passing of the Bill and the Act was a different security environment for the police to coming into force, and the resources needed by the operate in. The new regime has a lesser menu, with two police being in place. specific measures no longer available—the curfew for It is not only a question of money; it is about the 16 hours and the relocation provision—so not only extra surveillance that will be required, given that some money, but greater resources will be required. We heard control orders will no longer be available under the evidence from Lord Carlile, who said that under control TPIM regime. Primarily, they are what I would call the orders, it cost about £1.8 million per control order, but curfew measures—the overnight residence requirements— now there is a risk of a TPIM costing around £18 million. the period of which will be shorter than that available It is not just about money, but about the extra surveillance under the control order system, and the relocation officers required. People will no longer be kept in their measures, which will not be available under the TPIM home for up to 16 hours or be relocated somewhere regime, thus requiring much greater use of surveillance where they do not have contacts with their friends, so officers. As DAC Osborne said in response to a question they can get on with planning attacks. Therefore, more from the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and surveillance will be required. DAC Osborne clearly said North Hykeham, it takes about 12 months to train that training a surveillance officer so that they were surveillance officers and ensure that they are ready to be ready to be deployed in a security environment of the deployed in a challenging security environment. The kind envisaged under the TPIM regime would take aim of the amendment is to prevent a gap arising between more than a year. It is because he said that that I have the time at which resources are made available by the tabled the amendment. Home Office and the time at which they come online. Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is making a powerful Stephen Phillips: Can the hon. Lady point to any Act argument. Does she agree that Ministers will take advice of Parliament that has ever gone through this House from officials and experts in the field about when the and the other place with a commencement provision capacity is such that any particular piece of legislation that is dependent on the views of third parties about can be commenced? The importance of including the whether sufficient resources are in place to carry its amendment in the Bill is precisely because much of the purposes into effect? activity is hidden and secret. My hon. Friend is right, as 281 Public Bill Committee5 JULY 2011 Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 282 Measures Bill the public need to be satisfied, through the inclusion of 11.45 am her amendment, that an agreement will be made between DAC Osborne spoke about assets, too. I assume that those responsible for resources and the Secretary of State. there would be requirements for other technical assets. I am a tech-know-nothing, so I do not know what they Shabana Mahmood: I agree that it is important to might be, but he made it clear that there would be amend the Bill to satisfy Members and the wider public additional assets. I can only guess that they must be of a that not just the Home Secretary but the police are technical variety, but that they would have to be designed, confident that everything is in place for the TPIMs ordered and made to order for the Home Office. I regime to go online. I considered suggesting a time limit cannot imagine that that task can be completed merely or including consequential amendments for the provision in weeks. I assume that that is why he made it clear that of 28 days, increasing that period to one year, but I felt it would take more than a year for them to be completely it was more important to address the essential issue of ready and for the new regime to bed in, so that it works resources. as effectively as the control order regime. The intention of the amendment is not to frustrate the will of the James Brokenshire: The hon. Lady has been keen to Government in introducing the new regime, but merely highlight gaps, but does she accept that her drafting to prevent a security gap arising as a result of resources may expose a gap, with control orders having potentially taking some time to come online and being ready to be fallen away before there is an agreement, as her drafting deployed. requires? How would there be a settlement of any issues Amendment 141, like other parts of the Bill, is a that would arise? direct lift from the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. It relates to the annual renewal of the powers granted to Shabana Mahmood: I accept what the Minister says. I the Secretary of State and makes it necessary to bring do not pretend that the drafting of the amendment is them back to the House so that they can be allowed to absolutely clear-cut and ready for inclusion in the Bill. run for an additional year—essentially, it is a sunset The amendment is of a probing nature. However, if clause. The amendment is based on oral evidence that such an amendment were accepted, I would envisage we received from Liberty and Justice, which were both that the control orders regime would continue until the very clear about the importance of bringing the powers resources are online and we can move to the new TPIM back to Parliament every year for annual renewal and regime. confirmation that they are still needed. I do not think I want to put in place a mechanism for the discussion that Opposition Members have often agreed with the between the Home Secretary and the police and security position taken by Liberty in relation to control orders. services on resources, which should be ready to come However, I was struck by the fact that when Shami online. I am aware, however, that there is already a Chakrabarti gave evidence on behalf of Liberty, she system in place. In the first evidence session, DAC said—to be fair, she choked on these words—that she Osborne told us about the draft business plan that went would take the current control orders regime with annual to the Home Office the previous Friday. Presumably, renewal, rather than the new TPIM regime. there is already a Home Office structure in place. I am therefore ready to accept the fact that proposed new Mr Ellwood: I do not wish to throw the hon. Lady off paragraphs (a) and (b) may be overtaken by the systems the direction in which she is trying to go. She plucks out that the Home Office has in place for the consideration evidence from Liberty to push the case that control of the draft business case. DAC Osborne told us that orders with annual renewal are better than the TPIM that would take around two to three weeks. He was not regime. However, Lord Howard and others also said able to give us greater clarity, but perhaps the Minister that we are legislators—legislation is what we do. If could discuss that in his response. The simple fact is that circumstances change and this Bill is no longer necessary, it takes a long time to train surveillance officers; DAC we should have faith that we will be able to revise it, Osborne was clear about that. We will need many more rather than having to lean on sunset clauses. Does not of them when we move to the TPIM regime. that make amendment 141 somewhat irrelevant?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend’s amendment is a Shabana Mahmood: I was going to come on to the practical statement of issues that will concern the public evidence given by Lord Carlile and Lord Howard. The and which continue to prey on my mind. Does she agree hon. Gentleman is right that they were clear—Lord that as well as training new surveillance officers to take Carlile was very clear—and I take on board the broad on board TPIMs, there will be huge pressures on the thrust of their point that it is always open to Parliament services as a result of the Olympics, which is probably to repeal an Act if circumstances change and we feel the biggest security threat that we face? Does she share that it is no longer necessary. However, there are two my concern that it is likely that people will return to reasons why I reject the view of Lord Carlile and Lord London just before the Olympics? Howard in this instance. First, I take on board what the Joint Committee on Shabana Mahmood: My right hon. Friend makes a Human Rights said in its 2010 report. It looked at the powerful point. We have discussed the Olympics before issue of annual renewal in some depth and suggested in Committee, and they will be a major concern for the something that is, in some respects, stricter—that the public, as well as for all hon. Members. She makes a annual review should involve primary legislation. However, good argument about the drain on resources and the I propose that the mechanism is the same as that under ability of the police to cope with the increased threat the 2005 Act—through statutory instrument. due to the Olympics, as well as with the new TPIM The Joint Committee also considered whether there regime, possibly at a time when the extra surveillance might be an argument, if the debates will be relatively officers are not ready to be deployed immediately. short and everything seems pretty straightforward, not 283 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 284 Measures Bill [Shabana Mahmood] I am speaking to amendment 141 as an Opposition Front Bencher, and I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to have them. However, my second argument in support to the speech of the shadow Home Secretary in which of the amendment is the important symbolic value of she expressed concern about the lack of parliamentary Parliament renewing such powers annually. scrutiny as a result of the lack of annual renewal.

James Brokenshire: I am sure that the right hon. Stephen Phillips: This is partly my fault—I apologise Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East will be able to to the hon. Lady—because I should have given the make his own case, but I am interested to know what entire quotation. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe the hon. Lady thought of his comments on Second and Sale East said: Reading? He said: “On making the powers permanent, I heard what my right “Given the constant arguing and bickering on this issue year hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford after year when we should be seeking consensus in the face of the (Yvette Cooper) said about that reducing parliamentary oversight”— terrible threats that terrorists bring, there is some merit in Parliament’s that is a reference to the Front-Bench position to which reaching a settled view.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, the hon. Lady refers— c. 84-85.] “but we could also see it as a as a positive development if Does she accept that there is a balance to be struck and Parliament can reach a consensus and settled view.”—[Official that having an annual renewal might not aid that settled Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 84.] position? The right hon. Gentleman has extraordinarily detailed knowledge in this area, and that was the view that he Shabana Mahmood: When possible, it is best that we expressed on Second Reading. Does the hon. Lady work together in the spirit of consensus to reach a agree that is a great shame that Opposition Front settled view. However, holding an annual review has the Benchers are not listening to Labour Back Benchers important symbolic value of indicating that the measures with considerably greater knowledge of the area than are exceptional and that we view them as a temporary them? way to deal with a threat that has presented itself, but with which we have no other way of dealing at the Shabana Mahmood: As I said earlier, I am certain moment. that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe I have taken on board some of our earlier discussions and Sale East will fully explain his position. The annual about the duty to consult and the importance of prosecution review is a judgment call. This exceptional and very under the new regime, as compared with the control different feature exists in no other part of our legal orders regime. I was struck by the exchange between the system, so it is important that we make it clear to the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for public that we will consider the matter annually and Salford and Eccles. My right hon. Friend made the that we do not judge it to be permanent. Even if the point that that duty to look to prosecution whenever process has only symbolic value, it is important that possible is no different under the new regime from we say that. I agree with Liberty that “permanent under control orders. I do not have the direct reference exceptionalism” is not desirable. to hand, but I recall the Minister saying that there was a symbolic importance to having prosecution, and that Mr Ellwood: It is a noble and indeed honourable including the desire for prosecution in the Bill concentrates suggestion that we need to debate the matter every year. the mind. It fits in with the democratic spirit in which we debate I plead those two points in support of amendment 141. legislation. However, the hon. Lady said that terrorism There is symbolic importance in Parliament saying that legislation and dealing with terrorist activities are somewhat it views the measures as exceptional and that we would different to other aspects of Government business. We dearly like to be in a situation in which we do not need rely on the security services to advise us when the them any more, so we will consider the position annually. situation changes, and that would then require us to say, That approach would also concentrate the mind, because “This legislation is now out of date.” Having a debate we would have to think regularly, “Is this something we might be a symbolic gesture, but I am concerned that we still need? Is this something that is still desirable?” In an would be doing that for the wrong reasons. We should ideal world, we would have no need for the measures. wait until the security services inform us that the scenario has changed and there is no longer a requirement for Stephen Phillips: Immediately before the passage in the Bill. the purple speech made by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East to which the Minister Shabana Mahmood: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. referred, the right hon. Gentleman said: It is important that the Home Secretary is brought to “we could also see it”— the House each year to justify such an exceptional the removal of the sunset provision— measure. That gives Members the opportunity to raise “as a positive development if Parliament can reach a consensus objections that their constituents might have about the and settled view.” regime. As I said earlier, I think that the process will Has the hon. Lady discussed with him the fact that, concentrate the mind. The symbolic value of engaging unless he has changed his mind, he will not be able to in such a debate is not a fiction. The process concentrates support her amendment? the mind and makes us ask ourselves each year, “Do we still need this?” In an ideal world, we would not have Shabana Mahmood: I am certain that my right hon. such a system at all. I think we are all very clear about Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East will that. However, this is not an ideal world, but it is good gladly explain his position with the customary brilliance that Parliament has the opportunity to ask itself that that he has already deployed to great effect in Committee. question every year. For Members who feel strongly 285 Public Bill Committee5 JULY 2011 Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 286 Measures Bill that the regime is so exceptional that we should not have in no other part of our legal system. Such an arrangement it, and who object to it on a point of principle, it is has been in place under the Prevention of Terrorism important that they have an opportunity to put their Act 2005. argument. The process of coming back to the House every year concentrates the mind. Hon. Members should not forget Mr Ellwood: Is the hon. Lady saying that she objects that the control orders regime changed. It was introduced on a point of principle? Does she believe that we should in 2005 in respect of the Belmarsh decision, and all not have control orders or TPIMs? those subject to it were foreign nationals. Over time, it has changed. At the moment, it also applies to British Shabana Mahmood: I am sorry, but I did not hear the nationals. The current arrangements allow for an annual hon. Gentleman. debate about the nature of the regime, about to whom it applies, and about how it works in practice. It is important Mr Ellwood: I will read Hansard carefully, but the for the Government of the day to put its case before the hon. Lady gave us the impression that she did not want House so that Parliament can take a view about whether control orders or TPIMs and that she objected to them. to continue the regime. Is that what she is saying? Mr Ellwood: I am now confused about why the hon. Shabana Mahmood: Clearly, in an ideal world, we Lady tabled the amendment. The hon. Member for would not have the need for control orders or TPIMs Bradford South suggested that we would not want the because we would be able to meet the risks that we face matter to be debated, but we can debate and scrutinise through our normal system. However, this is not an the activities of the Home Office all the time, such as ideal world. For various reasons, we cannot convert the during Opposition day debates. We can bring up the intelligence material that we are able to get on these principle of control orders or TPIMs at any point individuals into evidence for use in a court of law. I during the year, so the symbolic discussion of whether think that I am being very clear and I have not said they should exist can happen not just annually, but at anything different from what the position has always any time. The hon. Lady might want a mechanism that been, but if there was a lack of clarity, let me make the could amend or question the legislation, but that could point again. Our position has always been that we be done only after the security services had given the would not need such a regime in an ideal world, but this green light to say that the situation has changed. is not an ideal world. Intelligence material cannot always I am unclear about whether the hon. Lady is saying be converted into evidence that can be presented before that the debate should be held in case a change to the a jury in a court of law. At the moment, we therefore legislation is required, or just so that the matter can be need another system for dealing with such individuals. debated in principle. If it is the former, we cannot do so without the security services; if it is the latter, we can do Mr Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case it at any time of the year. for both amendments. Is she surprised that the Government and some of their Back Benchers are trying to stop a Shabana Mahmood: Amendment 141 replicates the debate taking place when this Government have introduced position under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 on more opportunities for Back Benchers— the continuation of measures for another year. It is not about subsequently amending the legislation, but about Mr Ellwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? continuing the Home Secretary’s power to make the measures in the first place. It is important that Parliament The Chair: Order. I do not think that we can have says clearly that the regime is an unattractive and undesirable interventions on an intervention. aspect of our legislative framework, but because it is necessary, we should continue to question at least annually Mr Sutcliffe: Back Benchers have more opportunities whether it should remain. It would be wrong to decide to have their say in a variety of Backbench Business now that the regime should be a permanent part of our Committee debates on the Floor of the House each legislative framework without further recourse to Thursday. I find it surprising that Back Benchers are Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his position, arguing that they do not want to hold the Executive to but we take a different view. Such an arrangement is account. important not just for symbolic value, but because it would concentrate the mind and continue the position Shabana Mahmood: I agree with the thrust of what under the 2005 Act, and that was why I tabled the my hon. Friend says. amendment.

Stephen Phillips: On that basis, will the hon. Lady Dr Huppert: It is a pleasure to serve under your undertake, on behalf of the Opposition, that if a sunset chairmanship, Mr Scott. I apologise to the Committee; clause were introduced into the Bill, Labour Members after speaking, I will have to go to the Select Committee would have a free vote every year and would not be on Home Affairs, which is discussing police bail and whipped, whether they were in opposition or in government? other urgent issues. If she will not give that undertaking, what on earth is I am pleased that the Opposition withdrew their the point of amendment 141? original amendment 115. We discussed obvious flaws in a previous sitting; that amendment’s obvious flaw— 12 noon although perhaps it was deliberate in intent—was that it Shabana Mahmood: The point of the amendment is had a sunset clause, after which we would revert to so that the Government of the day can be brought to control orders. I am delighted that that was not moved, the House to justify an exceptional measure that exists as it would have been very poor. 287 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 288 Measures Bill [Dr Huppert] true of far too many votes in this House, but I will refrain from discussing that before I get told off again. Amendment 141 suffers on a technical level from a We know about Government whipping, and that the less obvious flaw; I think that the hon. Lady’s copying Opposition are still whipping people to support control from the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was slightly orders. I am not sure that the vote is always helpful. wrong. It would reinstate clause 2 but fail to reinstate Finally, the sunset clause provides a chance to review the rest of the Bill’s clauses. I am sure that that is an the policy, and allows the Government to stop and unintended drafting error and that she therefore will think about whether something is the right thing to do, not put it to a vote, because it simply would not work. collect evidence and take stock of their position. I do not think that annual votes and debates help much with Shabana Mahmood: Amendment 141 refers to that review. Realistically, the Government cannot carry “clause 2 and all other consequential clauses.” out a proper review annually because the resources Clause 2 is the operative clause of the TPIMs regime required are taken up with other things. However, getting and everything else is as a result of that. the Government to carry out a proper review is important. The Government carried out a full review of counter- Dr Huppert: That is what proposed new subsection (2A) terror strategy, which was a detailed and helpful piece states, but new section (2B) does not allow the Secretary of work. It did not go as far as I would have liked, but it of State not to expire clause 2. It is a small technical has taken steps in the direction in which I and the error that I am sure can be fixed at a later point. It Government believe. Ensuring that such a review happens caused me to think, however, about why there should be regularly is the most important use of a sunset clause a sunset clause and how it should operate. I agree with that I have mentioned. and accept the principle that exceptional legislation requires some sort of escape mechanism, but I still hope The question is how we ensure that a review is done that we can get this legislation into a state where it is not properly and not simply as a token. My idea is that so exceptional. I realise that I failed earlier to convince every new Parliament should be forced to take a stance members of the Committee to try to fit the provision on terrorist legislation and think carefully, “We are now within the legal framework. in a new place. Now is the time to work out what we do, and do not, need.” The same sort of detailed work Hazel Blears: In the early stages of our proceedings should be carried out by an independent investigator we had an extensive debate about the hon. Gentleman’s such as Lord Macdonald. That would fit with the idea amendments that sought to provide the foundations for of a five-year sunset clause, at which I hope the Minister TPIMs on police bail. Does he still take the view that will look seriously. Each Parliament would have to police bail is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring consider the matter, and because that would happen the security of our country? roughly a year and a half or two years into a new Parliament, the Government would have the chance to carry out the review properly and come up with a Dr Huppert: I am disappointed to say that the right serious piece of work. Whoever forms the next Government, hon. Lady is entirely predictable. I was tempted to say and the one after that, we all expect them to treat this exactly what she was going to say, but actually, I do matter seriously and come up with a settled position, think that police bail will work. We have heard that the rather than letting legislation go through on the nod. Opposition believe police bail to be a workable mechanism, and they have indicated that they support the draft Bill. Shabana Mahmood: Why does the hon. Gentleman Perhaps they need to reconsider— think that the mere act of having a general election somehow creates a new environment? It creates a new The Chair: Order. The hon. Gentleman should stick political landscape, but I am interested in why he thinks to the amendments under discussion. it would also create a new security landscape. Dr Huppert: I apologise for being led astray by the Dr Huppert: It does not, of itself, create a new security right hon. Lady. I have not yet given up hope that we landscape. The question is how one comes up with a can make the situation less exceptional and work within regular cycle, as part of which one looks at the security the legal framework, although that is not what the landscape afresh and says, “Right, we’re now going to shadow Minister is calling for. What is the purpose of review where we’ve got to,” rather than just carrying on sunset clauses? There seem to be four purposes, which I with business as usual. Realistically, there is a new will briefly explore. First, they flag up the fact that a security landscape every day, because new information piece of legislation is exceptional. Secondly, sunset clauses comes in, but one cannot do a proper review on such a also ensure a debate each year, which was mentioned by time scale. the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood. To be What I have described is roughly the right time scale honest, however, such debates have brought limited for a detailed piece of work. Shortly after the Government light to the matter; they are not particularly useful ways took office, they announced they would do a full-scale of looking at the situation and we have heard fixed review and take their time to get things right. That is positions reiterated and many of the same speeches very welcome, and I hope they will have the insight to given every year. As has been said, there are other look seriously at my idea so that all future Governments opportunities for us to debate important issues. There is will have to do such a proper piece of work. value in the debate provided by a sunset clause, but it is limited. Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend the Member for The same point applies to the vote that happens every Birmingham, Ladywood has presented an extremely year. That vote has not been exciting, and indeed has powerful, articulate and convincing argument for the been somewhat tokenistic—some would say that that is amendments. 289 Public Bill Committee5 JULY 2011 Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 290 Measures Bill On amendment 126, which relates to resources, we all intervention. I am trying to tread a careful line because heard evidence in our first two sittings that caused us I am conscious of the fact that if specific figures are in some concern about not only the resources that would the public domain, they can give an indication to people be available, but the time scale under which they could who want to harm us of our competence and capabilities be put in place. My hon. Friend referred to the evidence in meeting threats. I simply seek to press the Minister from Deputy Assistant Commissioner Osborne, who on whether the resources he will provide for the Security thought it would take about a year to recruit enough people, Service and the police will meet the gap that will result train them, put them in place and given them the skills from the transition from control orders to TPIMs. If to do the surveillance. That was a concern for him. the figures were wildly different, it would be a concern. I raised my point of order at the beginning of the DAC Osborne has given the Committee evidence and sitting because it is important, if we are to reach a has undertaken to provide further information. It is considered judgment, to have a note from DAC Osborne perfectly proper for us not to self-censor and to press about what resources will be required. The Minister has for that information. DAC Osborne might come back—not made great play of the fact that the police and the this afternoon, because he is abroad, I think—and say security services will be provided with extra resources to that he wants to go no further in giving that information, fill the gap they have acknowledged is there as a result and we would take a view about whether that was of moving from control orders to TPIMs. However, we appropriate. are not in a position to put precise figures to the Minister at the moment, and it would be helpful if we could. 12.15 pm I have a couple of questions for the Minister on Mr Ellwood: Will the right hon. Lady give way? another issue, and perhaps he can give us a bit more information. He will have heard that Lord Carlile estimated Stephen Phillips: She should give way to me first. the cost for each of the people on a TPIM who might require 24/7 surveillance at between £11 million and Hazel Blears: I give way to the hon. and learned £18 million. He does not need to go into detail about Gentleman. the extra resources that he is providing, but the Committee Stephen Phillips: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady is entitled to a statement from him about whether those for sharing her experience with the Committee. I do not extra resources are commensurate with the figures Lord for one moment suggest that the Committee should Carlile referred to. The Minister does not have to give self-censor; I simply suggest that dangers may be associated us exact figures, but if the resources are long way from with the provision of such information. I am sure that the figures Lord Carlile talked about, that would increase she agrees that the judgment must be reached by the risk that we have to manage, which would cause me Commissioner Yates and DAC Osborne, but perhaps and other members of the Committee great concern. I no further information will be forthcoming. therefore press the Minister, in responding to the amendment, to say whether he has looked at the figures Hazel Blears: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes Lord Carlile talked about. Is the business case that has a reasonable point. If DAC Osborne comes back and been submitted to the Home Office and which is under says that, for reasons of national security, he does not consideration in the same ball park as the figures that want to go into further detail, the Committee would have been raised, or is there a significant gap? have to take a view on the evidence that has already been given. However, when evidence is given, it is Stephen Phillips: I am concerned about the right hon. appropriate for us to be able to pursue it. Lady’s point of order and the figures that Lord Carlile gave. First, I rather suspect that he should not have Mr Ellwood: I thank my hon. and learned Friend the given those figures at all. Does she agree? Secondly, she Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for letting was a Home Office Minister. Does she agree, therefore, me know where I sit in the pecking order of speakers. that DAC Osborne probably should not have agreed to give the Committee the information she raised in her I have just done some brief calculations. From my point of order, because it is presumably secret? He does experience in the military world, my view is that the not have the right to—[Interruption.] This is an figures are wildly inaccurate. The Committee should intervention, and if the hon. Member for Alyn and not focus too much time on them because they seem Deeside has something to say, he will be able to say it in very high indeed. Without accurate figures in front of a moment. Perhaps he can stop chuntering from a us, we would be misguided to make any judgment about sedentary position, because I am trying to raise a serious cost. point. Hazel Blears: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): Who is chairing extensive experience. However, he is not in the same this? position as Lord Carlile, who, for the past 10 years, has been intimately involved in reviewing the control orders Stephen Phillips: I am grateful for that, too, as I am regime. He has looked at every single control order and sure you are, Mr Scott—I think you know what your talked to the agencies. He is not a novice in this area; he function is. has extensive experience. Unless I receive evidence to The right hon. Lady was a member of the previous the contrary, I must give weight—and the Committee Government. Is the information DAC Osborne gave us must give some weight—to the evidence that Lord the sort that the Government are at liberty to hand out, Carlile has provided. or is it in fact secret? Mr Ellwood: This is an important area to explore if it Hazel Blears: I think it is perfectly proper. I am is to be taken seriously. However, does the £11 million grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his figure include costs that would be incurred anyway? 291 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 292 Measures Bill [Mr Ellwood] knowing that the resources are sufficient to enable the security services to cope. That is a tremendously powerful The security and military services incur costs through point. day-to-day work, regardless of whether they are in There is another issue about resources. The Government operation. We do not know whether such costs were have acknowledged that, as a result of the loosening of included in the figures. Without a breakdown of how the measures that can be imposed under a TPIM compared the money will be spent and put together, and whether with the measures that can be imposed under a control the specific detail relates to an individual, a number of order, there will be an increased gap to be met. That individuals or agencies, it is wrong to take the figures acknowledgment is clear, otherwise extra resources would into too much serious consideration. not be forthcoming from the Government for greater surveillance. Some of that weakening of measures relates Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman acknowledges to relocation, exclusion, association and the overnight that he does not know or have a detailed idea of what residence provision. I have made it clear in all my the costs may be. Lord Carlile gave us that evidence and contributions during our proceedings that I am particularly he has been involved in the area for 10 years or so. I concerned about the relocation provisions. I remain respect him enormously and I do not think that he concerned. would come to the Committee and simply pluck figures It is possible that when the TPIM legislation comes out of the air. We may be in some difficulty when DAC in, the Secretary of State will have to take a view after Osborne comes back if he does not want to give us 28 days as to whether there is sufficient evidence to further detailed information, and we will have to take a impose a TPIM. Under the TPIM regime there will not view on that. However, I, for one, would not say that be a relocation provision, so the person who was formerly Lord Carlile does not understand the requirements of subject to a control order will be free to reside in his the provisions, or the costs that might be incurred as a locality or where his family are. We know that at least result of the increased risk that his Government’s Bill five of the people who are currently under control presents. orders with a relocation provision are from the London area. That was in the evidence that DAC Osborne Mr Sutcliffe: My right hon. Friend rightly says that gave us. we do not want to delve into particular cases. It is unfair of the Government to say that we cannot discuss any of I do not want to raise unnecessary fears. My long this at any time. Would it be a good idea, at some stage association with security matters means that I would down the track, if the Joint Intelligence Committee— not do that. I feel a personal responsibility, however, to highlight this issue, put it on the record and see if we Hazel Blears: And the Intelligence and Security can get it addressed. Will the Minister consider a transitional Committee. period for those control orders, because five of the most dangerous people in the UK—otherwise they would Mr Sutcliffe: —and the ISC had the opportunity to not be under control orders—could return to London discuss these issues with the Government? at a time when the security threat is incredibly high and the security services are stretched? Such a period could Hazel Blears: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s continue a relocation provision to take us beyond the intervention, and that may be an appropriate forum Olympic games. That would be a sensible, pragmatic within which to take evidence on implementation, cost- measure and it would enable us to keep the relocation effectiveness and so on. I seek to go as far as we can, provision in place. commensurate always with the need to maintain security. We heard from DAC Osborne that relocation is the The Committee needs as much information as it can get most useful provision that we have. Lord Howard said before it makes its decision. that it was a useful provision. If someone is relocated, perhaps to Norwich or another area where the policing Paul Goggins: As ever, my right hon. Friend is treading pressures are not as great, the resources for 24/7 surveillance a delicate line on what information can be in the public might be easier to obtain, and the gap caused by the domain and what needs to be kept secret. The exchange reduction in overnight residence orders could be filled. with Government Members underlines the importance This is a genuine, heartfelt request to the Minister: is of paragraph (b) of amendment 126. Some of this there not a temporary provision that we can put in place information will not be allowed into the public domain, to get us over the period of the Olympic games, when so the public need to have the reassurance of knowing we will be facing such a tremendous pressure on our that the Secretary of State has agreed with the senior services? national co-ordinator for counter-terrorism that sufficient resources are in place. Does she think that her argument Stephen Phillips: The right hon. Lady has been utterly emphasises the importance of that paragraph? consistent about this. She has a point of principle, which it is evident to all members of the Committee she Hazel Blears: Mr right hon. Friend makes exactly the deeply believes in. We might be out of order discussing point that he made in an earlier intervention. It is a this, but does she at least agree that if the Bill becomes tremendously powerful point, and our debate has illustrated law, the individuals in question can be excluded not just the constraints in which we operate. Some of this from London but from any Olympic site during the information is necessarily secret, because it relates to Olympic games? the capability of our services to protect us, so there should be something in the Bill to reassure the public Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the hon. and learned that this debate has taken place and that there is a Gentleman for his point. We did not have a long discussion certification that enough resources are in place. The about the exclusion provisions when we were considering public would then be able to sleep in their beds happily schedule 2. It will be interesting— 293 Public Bill Committee5 JULY 2011 Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 294 Measures Bill The Chair: Order. We have to stick to elements relating of the regime than there has been in the past. I think to resources. that we could be managing increased risk and fragility unless the right resources are in place. Hazel Blears: Mr Scott, I would say that my point Therefore, I certainly support the idea of a review of does relate to resources, because I am arguing that, as a the legislation, as suggested in the amendment tabled by result of the move to the TPIM regime, there will be an my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, increased risk; extra resource will be required for us to after it has been in operation for 12 months. I would manage that risk; and a particular part of the increased want to be examining closely what the legislation’s risk will relate to the lack of a relocation provision. effect had been. We are taking a step into the dark, and That is why it is important that there is agreement that despite the Minister’s lengthy and erudite reassurance sufficient resource is in place under the Bill to reassure that all will be well, all will be fine, there will not be a all of us and the public that the risk can be managed problem, I say, “Rather him than me.” He will be and we can all be safe and secure. I will obviously be responsible for the operation of the legislation, and we careful not to stray too far, Mr Scott, but I do not think need close and intense scrutiny of the implementation that we had as full a discussion about exclusion as we of his new regime. It may throw up some new problems might have had. We talked about place, area and locality. that he will have to deal with. I remember it well; it is all flooding back to me. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but I 12.30 pm am not convinced that sufficient resource will be in place to manage the fact that we will not have a relocation In his review of control orders a couple of years ago, provision. Lord Carlile, whom I genuinely respect and who knows absolutely what he is doing, said, Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): The “In my view it is said all too easily that the authorities have a right hon. Lady is flagging up concerns about resources panoply of effective means of enforcement of control orders, including electronic and physical surveillance. All forms of surveillance and particularly about the Olympics, but I wonder why involve considerable human resources. This is especially so of she is talking only about the Olympics. Shortly after the watching and following. A complete package of measures requires Olympics, there will be other occasions, in respect of a secure place of observation” which she could perhaps argue that a temporary provision and should be in place because additional resource might be required. I am referring to events taking place in London “several officers, observing, logging and recording images. beyond the Olympic games. The importance of ensuring that control orders are enforced means that so-called ‘light touch’ control orders”— Hazel Blears: I think that the Olympic games are a we resisted the temptation to debate mini-control orders unique event in our capital city. If the hon. Gentleman and so on— looks at reports of the Select Committee on Home “are not a realistic proposition save in exceptional cases. My Affairs, which has looked into the pressures on security discussions with Ministers and officials leave me with the conclusion at the time of the Olympic games, he will see that this is that the limitations of so-called ‘light touch’ control orders are not a normal set of affairs; it is not a small event. It is well understood.” the biggest event, with probably the biggest security Again, those views expressed by Lord Carlile do not risks that we have dealt with in the past 20 or 30 years. reassure me that the new regime of diluted measures, Therefore, I do think that it is appropriate for me to ask with no power of relocation, and reduced overnight the Minister—I hope that he gives me a specific reply— residence requirements and restrictions of access to whether it is possible to have a transitional provision to computers and mobile phones will put us in a position allow for relocation arrangements to remain in place in in which everything will be quite as wonderful as the relation to those people who are subject to TPIMs after Minister has said it will be, unless he provides significant their control orders expire as a result of the new legislation extra resources and a time period in which to recruit in order to take us over the period of the Olympics. new agents, train them and get them in place. If he That would reassure many of us. could give us a transitional provision on relocation, that I want to say a few words about amendment 141 and would greatly reassure me and, I am sure, many members the idea of a sunset clause. My instinct is to share that of the public. of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. If we could get away from an annual Paul Goggins: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. set-piece analysis of the legislation, that would be helpful. Friend. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for I reluctantly conclude that we are likely to face a sustained Birmingham, Ladywood on the way in which she spoke and severe terrorist threat in this country for many to her amendment this morning. She provoked an years to come. I see no evidence whatever of the threat interesting debate, and has taken us to the heart of two reducing or of our not having to take measures to deal key issues. One is the practical issue of resources, and with the security threat that we face. like many members of the Committee I look forward to As a result of all my misgivings about our ability to what the Minister has to say about that. The other is the manage the risk and the uncertainty about the introduction principle issue relating to renewal or repeal of counter- of the new TPIM regime and the move away from terrorism legislation. I am pleased that so many members control orders, I think that a close examination of the of the Committee seem to have come armed with the implementation of the new regime, the provision of Hansard report of the Second Reading debate, and I resources and the ability to fill the gap created by the will say more about that shortly. dilution of the measures in the TPIM regime will be a I want to talk first about resources. My real concern, necessity. Probably in the next 12 months and perhaps which is shared by other hon. Members, is that there is a even after that, there will be a greater need for scrutiny particular political dynamic within the Government 295 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 296 Measures Bill [Paul Goggins] after five years. They are still terrorists, and they still have evil intent. I endorse the right hon. Gentleman’s that could cause the wrong thing to happen. Any point. Minister in any Government will commence legislation when resources are in place and to the best of their Paul Goggins: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge the policy that the House has introduced in observation, which gives me an opportunity to repeat legislation can be delivered on the ground and in what the Minister said earlier. The observations made practice. But there is a dynamic within the by the hon. Member for Beckenham during the Committee’s Government to rush headlong into the new system of proceedings have been perceptive and powerful, and I TPIMs and to get outside the control order system. am grateful for that. He has made another important What worries me is that that political imperative will point this morning. become so strong that a risk too far is taken. That is a The risk posed by some of those returning prisoners genuine concern. We recognise that the Government will be substantial and will have to be managed by the will get their way, and that we will move forward, but police, the probation service, the Security Service, and there is real concern that if they do so too hastily, there others, as those prisoners re-enter society. We should will be too great a risk. not underestimate that risk, and the numbers are growing, The first amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the which is a concern. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood would deal with If we add together the Olympic games, returning that issue in a practical way. She mentioned some of the prisoners, the new regime and the police and Security matters that the Minister must take into account. Money Service’s trying to recruit and train, it is a potent mix at is obviously crucial, but it is only part of the picture. a time of severe threat. My right hon. Friend the She talked about the need to recruit and train the Member for Salford and Eccles made a powerful argument relevant staff because, by definition, the TPIMs regime for a transitional phase, for putting back the date of will require more people to make it work than the commencement and for doing the right thing to manage previous control order regime. That must be done with the risk without putting the public at risk. great care and great skill, and requires time. In his There are also concerns as we look at the wider evidence to the Committee, Stuart Osborne referred to policing environment, which my hon. Friend the Member the likelihood that it would take at least a year to bed in. for Bradford South has mentioned. He will have read It is evident from our debates that the Minister and heard the comments of Sir Hugh Orde, the president cannot escape the concentration of risk when he assesses of the Association of Chief Police Officers, who spoke how quickly the new system can be implemented. My about the current policing environment in his usual right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles candid tone. When I was a Minister in the Northern has made the point many times and with great conviction, Ireland Office, it was my privilege to work closely with and rightly so, that the prospect of the wholesale relocation Sir Hugh to address organised crime and terrorism in of dangerous suspects back to, not only one city, but Northern Ireland. He is a first-rate police officer and a one part of a city is concerning. That must weigh in the first-rate chief constable, and we should take his advice Minister’s mind as he considers when the new regime seriously. should come into place. Sir Hugh drew attention to three issues. I am sure In our previous sitting, I went through some of the that the Minister has studied his speech, but I encourage relevant issues. The suspects will be in their home all members of the Committee to look at what he said. environment, with the more immediate access to contacts He discussed the tight time scales. We all know that the and networks that that necessarily entails. The physical Government are in a headlong rush on every front to environment will present difficulties, and we want to be bring about reform and change, but we cannot and satisfied that the powers of exclusion and association should not take unnecessary risks in this area. None the are sufficient to help the police and the Security Service less, we have to include the imminent arrival of police to deal with those difficulties. commissioners in our consideration. Issues raised by Whenever we have such debates, my hon. Friend the my hon. Friend the other day still require answers. Member for Bradford South continues to raise the Sir Hugh discussed the change in the architecture, question of returning people who have been convicted particularly at national level, of the policing structure. of terrorist offences to similar areas. Will the Minister In addition, the National Policing Improvement Agency update the Committee on how many convicted terrorists will be dismantled, and a new national crime agency, of are expected to be released from prison over the next which we know the outline but not the detail, will be 12 months? I submit that that number will be greater created. Added to that is the ongoing review of pay and than the number subject to control orders, so that pensions, which does not make an atmosphere conducive substantially adds to the risk. to a huge change in managing one of our greatest risks. I pay tribute, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sir Hugh also made an interesting point about funding: Salford and Eccles did the other day, to those in the as the National Policing Improvement Agency disappears, agencies who are working in communities to try to many of the things that it currently pays for do not mitigate and manage the risks posed by returning prisoners. disappear, such as the police national database. All None the less, that has to be added to the mix, and it is those costs are now being loaded on to local police an issue of concern. forces and authorities, adding further pressure. Some of them will have to deal with the threat from terrorists. I Bob Stewart: The real worry is that, in my experience, make those points to amplify the challenge for the terrorists who have been convicted and sent to prison police in managing further change. Why can the change get out after relatively light sentences. For example, the not be put off for another year or two, until such time five people who killed six of my soldiers and 11 other as the police are satisfied that the environment in which people, and against whom I gave evidence, were out they operate is sufficiently stable? 297 Public Bill Committee5 JULY 2011 Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 298 Measures Bill My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and positions that we once held, because we have reflected Eccles made a number of points about our first evidence carefully on the evidence and principles involved, and session, and the important questions that are still to be we have come to different conclusions. My right hon. answered. We do not know to what extent it might be Friend has spoken persuasively about time limits. I have possible to have them answered in full. They include the spoken about 14-day pre-charge detention. My hope, question of the business case; the cost of surveillance; therefore, was that we would move towards a sufficient the balance of risks between the new, less stringent consensus, where we could say, “This is an agreed regime the Government propose and the need for more position. The threat will be here for some time and we resources; and whether those resources are adequate. I can now agree on this piece of legislation. We don’t look forward to the Minister’s response and, I hope, need to keep coming back to it and adding to the further amplification on what information may be available controversy, once we have a settled position.” to the Committee as it reaches conclusions. My problem today, in relation to the amendment Comments were made earlier about my observations tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, about renewal on Second Reading. There is a place for Ladywood, is that I do not think that we have reached a sunset clauses in certain legislation, and for renewal sufficiently strong consensus. We have been through dates. Without straying too far from today’s business, I many of the Government’s proposals in great detail. We will give two brief examples from my experience as a have discussed the gaps regarding relocation, time limits, Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. We had special and in policies on access to phones and the internet, as provisions for the recruitment of police officers in Northern well as the absence of the reserve power that I proposed Ireland, which required derogation from European in an earlier amendment. Although we have not reached employment legislation, to allow the recruitment of one consensus, my hope is that the Minister will come back, Catholic officer for one non-Catholic officer. That was either in further speeches today, or on Report, and obviously controversial. However, 10 years ago, 8% of bring us closer to that agreement. That would give me police officers in Northern Ireland were Catholic; now comfort, because we should not subject counter-terrorism that figure is 30%. The end result of that legislation was legislation to annual renewal. The Minister, however, certainly worth while. However, it was so controversial still has some way to go to cement that consensus. that it could not be implemented on a permanent basis. My second difficulty relates to the short-term scenario Once we reached Lord Patten’s recommendations on that we face, particularly over the next 12 months, and representation of Catholics in the police, it was right my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and that the legislation should come to an end. That was Eccles has spoken about that. Suspects will be relocated renewed every two years; earlier this year it was not back to their own communities, and we must also deal renewed. I fully support the decision not to renew those with the emergence and release of convicted terrorist special provisions. That is a case where renewal every prisoners back into the community. The Olympic games two years made sense. are a target and there are other threats, such as that Another instance results from the Justice and Security posed by Northern Ireland-related terrorism—we must (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, which saw the replacement not forget not only that the threat level is considered of the Diplock courts. I am sure that our hon. Friend “severe” in Northern Ireland but that it is “substantial” the judge—I am referring to the hon. and learned here, which places an additional pressure on our police Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham—will be and security services. We need to go a good deal further interested in that. Again, it was very controversial, as to reach consensus on policy. The Minister must reflect justice moved to a new system of judge-only trials in on the next 12 months, when the risk will be great. It is Northern Ireland. Quite rightly, that too is subject to the worst of all times to consider bringing in a new renewal every two years. Just last week in Committee, it regime. was agreed that those powers should be renewed for a The Minister could alleviate my predicament by accepting further two-year period. the spirit—if not the letter—of amendment 126, which Those are examples in controversial areas—such as aims to make it absolutely clear that the new system trial without a judge—where there is an argument, would not come in until an explicit agreement is reached especially when trying to reach the point where the between the Secretary of State and those who would special provision is no longer required; and in relation have to implement the powers in the proposals. If he to 50:50 recruitment of police officers in Northern were prepared to do that and ensure that we did not Ireland. I believe that we should try to get to a different have a headlong rush in the face of increasing risk, he place on counter-terrorism legislation in general, and might get me off the hook. In principle, however, we particularly a provision such as this one. I agree with my should try to achieve a more settled position than right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles annual renewal. We are not there yet, and that is the that the risks we face, sadly, are not going to go away. difficulty that I still have. Senior police officers repeatedly remind the public that such risks will be here for a considerable time—for the Mr Sutcliffe: I shall be brief, because the arguments foreseeable future—so it is a pretence to think that we on resources have been well rehearsed by my hon. will not need these or similar powers, and we should not Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, and suggest to the public that we think differently. by my right hon. Friends the Members for Salford and Eccles and for Wythenshawe and Sale East. There is a tremendous responsibility on the Minister to respond 12.45 pm to those points. It is an important part of the argument that we I accept that the Minister has a difficult job in relation should strive for political consensus on such measures to the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for wherever we can. As I have tried to demonstrate, along Wythenshawe and Sale East discussed the political with other Members, some of us have moved from imperative for introducing the Bill, which was recognised 299 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 300 Measures Bill [Mr Sutcliffe] to have the opportunity to review amendment 141, for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for by Lord Carlile, who discussed how the Bill came Wythenshawe and Sale East has stated, to see what has together. I understand that Government Members want happened and to see where we are. I again hope that the to see progress in relation to the TPIM regime because Minister will accept that principle. they thought that the old control order regime was ineffective and wrong. Taking that position is their James Brokenshire: The amendments deal with two right. We are in difficult circumstances, however, and separate issues: resources and the duration of the provisions. my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood It may interest the Committee to know that before I is right to push the Minister. She will accept that the came to Committee this morning I undertook a joint technical drafting of the amendments may not be accurate, briefing with the Metropolitan Police Service, the but their principle and the thrust behind them deserve a commissioner, the Home Secretary and other agencies hearing from the Minister. involved in the security preparations and exercises that The coalition Government now have a track record, will be undertaken in coming months to ensure our because they have been in power for over 12 months, preparedness for the Olympics. We certainly do not and the public are worried about issues of security, the need any further underlining of the responsibilities of 20% cut in the Home Office budget and cuts to police the Government and those agencies in ensuring that we numbers and to the terrorism budget. The Minister is present a safe and secure games. asking us to accept that, despite everything that is The issue is a national one. It is not simply about taking place, there will be an increased risk, which will London. Events will take place across the whole country. be mitigated by the extra resources that we are going to The torch relay will obviously touch all parts of our provide. However, for the obvious reasons that have country as well. We are confident about the preparations been expressed, the Committee cannot push on the undertaken to date, but we are in no way complacent, detail of what those increased resources will be, because and will retain our resolve to fulfil our commitments to of the risk to our country. I hope that the Minister will a safe and secure games. take seriously my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles about the possibility A budget of £600 million has been allocated for of the Joint Intelligence Committee and Intelligence Olympic security, but we believe on the basis of our and Security Committee examining such issues in greater current estimates and examinations that the budget can detail, with the opportunity to see whether the increased deliver on the basis of £475 million. Obviously the resources have met the requirements. £600 million is retained, as it is the envelope within which we operate. The sum may not be needed in full, The Olympics and Paralympics are unique events but it provides support for Olympic preparation security. and, unfortunately, tragedies have occurred at previous The police and other agencies, and the London Organising games. This is not about scaremongering in any way, Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic but having been a Sports Minister and having sat on the Games, are doing good work to prepare for the Olympics. Olympic board, where security has been addressed, I Things are being co-ordinated, and that work will be know that there are great concerns about increased tested in the months ahead to ensure that there is the threats. Resources are available to the Olympic board correct level of preparedness to deliver security at the for security issues, but the Minister should be aware of games, as we all want. our concerns about the measure that will be lost on relocation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford As right hon. and hon. Members will understand and Eccles made a powerful point about whether we from previous comments that I have made in Committee, can delay or find some transitional arrangement to we do not provide specific figures on counter-terrorism meet the threat. funding for the security services and the police. That is not because we want to hide information, but because I hope that the Minister can reassure us today. If he of concerns about the underpinning of the capabilities cannot do so, we feel strongly that we may have to and techniques, if that information were disclosed. return to these issues. It was quite sad that we did not have the information that DAC Osborne said that we I appreciate the points that right hon. and hon. would have, because that would have been helpful. Members made—fairly, I think. I can tell them that we There is no doubt that increased surveillance will mean have had extensive discussions with the police and increased costs. On the reduction in police numbers, I security services, not only recently but for months. The am particularly concerned about the senior police officers police and security services have been aware at least we are losing because of the imposition of regulation since February of the money available to enable them to A19. A lot of experience will go. The comments of begin developing additional capacity and capability for Sir Hugh Orde, who has been around for a long time the preparations for transition to the TPIM regime. and who has much experience in difficult policing areas, Right hon. and hon. Members will have heard what I should not go unnoticed. have said about confirmation from the security services There were catastrophes in the Home Office both about mitigating risk, and the overall arrangements. when we were in government and more recently. You The Metropolitan Police Service and I have made it have ruled on this, Mr Scott, but the whole issue around clear that from January, arrangements will be in place police bail and what has happened and when it happened effectively to manage the transition from control orders is of concern. I am sure that we will return to that on to TPIMs. It would be irresponsible of the Government Thursday when we debate the police bail Bill. I hope to introduce the new system when it was not safe to that the Minister will understand our great concern do so. about the changes he has made to the legislation, and he I understand the issues that are being flagged up, but must ensure that not only we but the public feel reassured we are confident, as I have said, about the preparations by the measures that he has introduced. It would be apt and capabilities that can be put in train. We are confident 301 Public Bill Committee5 JULY 2011 Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 302 Measures Bill in the ability of the Security Service and the police to “To get the resources that we anticipate we need will take more deal with the new system—and it is a new system that than a year, in terms of being able to get people trained and to get gives a broader context—with the significant resources the right equipment.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and that are being made available for an overall package of Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 9, Q27.] security in relation to TPIMs, and the use to which surveillance and other techniques will be put. The Minister’s statement just now does not square with that of Mr Osborne. Will he deal with that point? Paul Goggins: All members of the Committee understand the constraints under which the Minister operates. However, 1pm he will appreciate the difficulties in squaring what he just said—that the Government will be in a position to The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question operate the new regime from January—with the comments put (Standing Order No. 88). of Stuart Osborne, who said: Adjourned till this day at Four o’clock.