PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES Public Bill Committee TERRORISM PREVENTION AND INVESTIGATION MEASURES BILL Fifth Sitting Tuesday 28 June 2011 (Morning) CONTENTS Written evidence reported to the House. SCHEDULE 1 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 2 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] 119 Public Bill Committee28 JUNE 2011 Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 120 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 121 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 122 Measures Bill deal with those issues more tidily. That was not, however, Public Bill Committee the Minister’s view, and we had a useful discussion of the changes in the Bill’s proposals. Tuesday 28 June 2011 The Government contend that those changes do not pose a significant risk to the public: if there is an increased risk, it is mitigated by the resources that will (Morning) be given to the police and the security services to deal with that risk. Our concern is that we do not want a [MR LEE SCOTT in the Chair] lessening of the risk, particularly when there might be more high-profile attacks—for example, with the Olympics Terrorism Prevention and Investigation and the Paralympics—and opportunities for those who wish us harm to do us harm. We are firm in wanting to Measures Bill ensure that protections are in place. The schedule is the meat of the regime for terrorism Written evidence to be reported to the prevention and investigation measures, as it enables a House whole raft of measures to be imposed, including measures TPIM 04 Liberty on overnight residence, travel, exclusion, movement directions, financial services, property, electronic 10.30 am communications, association, work or studies, photography and monitoring measures, many of which we will discuss this morning. Schedule 1 The first group of amendments concerns curfews. I well remember the House being what I can only describe TERRORISM PREVENTION AND INVESTIGATION as full of laughter when the Home Secretary, in either a MEASURES statement on the counter-terrorism review or on Second Reading, spoke about home residence and the overnight Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab): I beg to requirement. As far as I am concerned, that is a curfew. move amendment 14, in schedule 1, page 16, line 8, after Whichever way the Minister dresses it up, it is a curfew. ‘a’, insert ‘curfew’. In their evidence, Mr Osborne and the Director of Public Prosecutions said that, regardless of the fact that The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss we all want prosecutions, which is the first port of call, the following: we need to achieve consistency and an understanding of the measures that are in place, and that the police and Amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 16, line 8, leave security services were comfortable—“comfortable” might out not be the right word, but I will use it—with the way in ‘overnight or at particular times overnight’ which control orders were adopted. and insert On the overnight residence requirement, the Government ‘at any time but not exceeding 16 hours in any 24’. are changing the language—I know that the hon. Member Amendment 15, in schedule 1, page 16, line 10, at for Cambridge will not agree with this—just to satisfy beginning insert ‘curfew’. or placate the Liberal party. Under their consensual Amendment 4, in schedule 1, page 16, line 10, leave agreement, they are changing the terminology, so that it out does not look so harsh. However, we are talking about ‘overnight or at particular times overnight’ ensuring that people who pose a threat to our society in the ways that we have all seen over the recent past are and insert restricted in their movements at home. Later, we will ‘at any time but not exceeding 16 hours in any 24’. discuss amendments relating to accommodation, and Amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 16, line 11, at end whether measures should be agreed or be introduced at insert— the Secretary of State’s direction. ‘(1A) For the purpose of sub-paragraph 1(1) the meaning of Why is there a need for the name change in having an overnight shall be from 6.00 pm to 10.00 am.’. overnight residence requirement as opposed to a curfew? Amendment 6, in schedule 1, page 16, line 11, at end Why is there no definition of the time frame of that insert— curfew in the Bill? We have tabled amendments on ‘(1A) For the purpose of sub-paragraph 1(1) the meaning of possible time frames. What is the Government’s thinking overnight shall be from 6.00 pm to 8.00 am.’. about the, in my view, lessening of the current position? Amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 16, line 11, at end insert— Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): ‘(1A) For the purpose of sub-paragraph 1(1) the meaning of I do not know the previous legislation intimately, so will overnight shall be from 6.00 pm to 6.00 am.’. the hon. Gentleman help me by saying what the limitations were on a curfew under the control order regime? Mr Sutcliffe: Good morning, Mr Scott, and I wish members of the Committee good morning. Mr Sutcliffe: The curfew was an overnight requirement To recap, in Thursday’s discussions, the Opposition in which a fixed number of hours could be fitted to an view was that the early part of the Bill is the meatier one individual’s case. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned in relation to the issues that we face. Our contention is Gentleman had said that he did not know about the that the Government could introduce amendments to previous legislation; if he is now saying he does, what is the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which would the point of the question? 123 Public Bill Committee28 JUNE 2011 Terrorism Prevention and Investigation 124 Measures Bill Stephen Phillips: I asked for clarification, because it Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): was my understanding that there was no limit on how My hon. Friend is not mixing up things. It is true that long a curfew could last and that, as the legislation was there have been many challenges in the courts on curfews framed, it could last for a 24-hour period. and control orders, but the courts have come to a settled view, which view is reflected in the Legal Aid, Sentencing Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab): It would and Punishment of Offenders Bill, to which my right have to be a derogating order. hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles referred. Up to 16 hours is regarded as permissible. By introducing Mr Sutcliffe: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the the concept of “overnight”, which is a vague, nebulous Member for Salford and Eccles, who was responsible definition, the Government have confused matters. My for introducing the relevant Bill, can advise the Committee hon. Friend is right to point that out. on what the position was. I understand that one reason why control orders were a problem, and why we have Mr Sutcliffe: I am reassured by my right hon. Friend’s included an hours limit in our proposals, was that there view that I am not mixing things up and that I have a was a challenge from the courts, which deemed that the strong point that the Minister must answer. number of hours required was legally unacceptable. Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): The The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the hon. Gentleman has concerns about there being no Home Department (James Brokenshire): We will have definition of “overnight.” Will he remind the Committee that debate at the right time. Will the hon.