Prevention of Terrorism Act

I begin by thanking the Home Secretary for making his statement to the House today, and for his courtesy in allowing me advance sight of the documents. My saying so is not just a formality—we were given serious advance sight of those documents. The review and renewal procedure for control orders is the consequence of the enormous battle that took place in the House of Commons before the last general election. In my judgment, it demonstrates that that debate, in which we heard brave and passionate contributions in defence of British freedoms from all parts of the House, was worth while. The Home Secretary was right to say that Lord Carlile’s report is largely supportive of the Government’s operation of the system, and that Lord Carlile felt that the process appeared to work. Indeed, he concluded that it was extremely rigorous, and that the Home Secretary took his personal responsibilities extremely seriously. If I may say so without embarrassing the Home Secretary, it is a reflection of his stature that not a single Member of the House will be surprised to learn that he took them seriously. That does not mean, of course, that the control order approach can replace proper judicial process, which is why it should be kept under review, minimised and in due course replaced. It is also why, in paragraph 37 of the report, Lord Carlile supports the use of intercept evidence—the Home Secretary referred to this—to bring criminal prosecutions in as many cases as possible. Lord Carlile points out that the Terrorism Bill, which is due to return to the House shortly, will allow us to try, and in due course to convict, terrorists more easily, and to reduce even further the need for control orders. Practical factors such as resources will, in time, also help with surveillance, for example. The report tells us that 18 control orders were issued last year, and that only one of them applies to a British citizen. I am glad to observe that that particular control order does not involve tagging or curfew, and that it allows the person in question to continue with his work. During the original debate, we expressed the worry that control orders could be destructive of people’s lives. Nine of the men in question—they are all men—have been removed from the control order system and detained pending deportation, when and if the Government obtain memorandums of understanding with the relevant Governments. This raises two key questions that are not easy to answer, but which I shall put to the Home Secretary anyway. First, how will the Government deal with any legal challenge to deportations, made under the European convention on human rights, where a memorandum of understanding is achieved? Secondly, although the report does not say so in terms, it makes it clear that it is proving quite difficult to conclude those memorandums with certain countries, which is unsurprising. What do the Government intend to do if it proves impossible to conclude them? In paragraphs 71 and 72 of the report, Lord Carlile highlights his concerns, and those of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, at the prospect of control orders being renewed time and again. He says:"““It would not be acceptable for significant restrictions on liberty to continue for years on end””." What are the Home Secretary’s views on that matter? Let me now turn to the wider issue of counter-terrorism legislation, which the Home Secretary referred to in his statement. He said that there is no requirement for primary legislation in Lord Carlile’s review, but that is not quite right: paragraph 37 makes it clear that the law should be amended to allow limited use of intercept evidence. However, I accept that that will take some time to get right. I also believe that the Government are right to legislate on terrorism in a more deliberate manner. Indeed, I should tell the House—I do not think that I am breaking any confidence in doing so—that the Home Secretary and I have discussed at length the use of intercept evidence. My party did not press the matter in the Lords, on the understanding that the Government would make a serious attempt to devise a robust legal model to allow the safe use of intercept material in court. I am very pleased that the Home Secretary has confirmed that intention to the House today. I also welcome the Home Secretary’s intention to rationalise terrorism legislation. This is not just a technical issue—Lord Carlile’s report refers to confusion in this regard. Much anti-terrorism legislation was necessarily put together in haste and has proved unusable or unnecessary. Other such legislation appears to be being used for purposes beyond the original intention, or is being used far more than was intended. There were some 29,000 uses of Terrorism Act 2000 last year, for example. So there is great scope for rationalisation, including some pruning of current law, and we will do what we can to facilitate that process on a consensual basis. This is an issue of enormous national interest that involves serious matters such as striking a balance between protecting the security and liberty of the subject, and protecting and preserving our values, so we will be very constructive on it. However, let me offer a gentle comment—I will not say a rebuke—to the Home Secretary. He expressed disappointment at what he saw as a lack of consensus on the current legislation. There is a difference between a constructive, consensual approach and a supine acceptance of everything that the Prime Minister chooses to announce. We have defeated the Government on some major issues of principle, but they are just that: major issues of principle. As such, they have aroused the passionate concern of members of all the parties represented in this House, not just mine. That is as it should be and in my judgment, such concern has improved the legislation. The result of the positive discussions that the Home Secretary alluded to has been fewer clashes—certainly fewer unnecessary clashes—than would otherwise have occurred. The Bill itself is better and more wide-ranging than it would otherwise have been, and the Home Secretary will have key legislation earlier than would otherwise have been the case. After all, the timetable on which he is putting this legislation through was my suggestion, which was supported by the Liberal Democrats. So even though the outcome has not always been to his satisfaction—he is only human, so we cannot expect otherwise—it has in fact been good. The issues arising from the proposed legislation—the definition of terrorism, the 28-day detention without trial procedure, the use of intercept evidence—are all vital and we need to get them right. I agree that we need to take a measured and thoughtful approach; that ideally, we should proceed by way of consensus and not according to an unnecessarily hasty timetable; and that cross-party discussion would be useful. The Home Secretary will not expect me to give him a blank cheque, but I will make sure that my party does all in its power to ensure that the process that he described is effective and thorough and delivers anti-terrorism legislation that attracts the support of all parts of the House and, more importantly, really works to defend the lives and liberties of the British people.