Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in force of sections 1 to 9) Order 2009

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I want to look at what has changed in the four years that Parliament has been approving and reapproving these control orders. In doing so, I will explain why we have, for the first time, tabled a fatal amendment to them. The House will recall that when these orders were put on the statute book, they were supposed to be a short-term measure to deal with a very real gap in capacity and in measures to deal with the terrorist threat. On 5 March 2007, when these orders were being debated, my noble friend Lord Goodhart reminded the Government of the history of the orders. He said: ""The fact is that the Government are reneging on the undertaking given on 10 March 2005 which was central to the compromise that enabled the Prevention of Terrorism Bill to go through that day".—[Official Report, 5/3/07; col. 29.]" In 2007, my noble friend Lord Dholakia tabled a non-fatal amendment as we were still waiting for revised legislation that would bring the orders regime back within the framework of the normal legal processes of this country. Last year, I did the same—the Counter-Terrorism Bill, with all its possibilities to revise the system, was only weeks away from its passage through your Lordships' House. In fact, the long-awaited revision never happened. As the Minister said, there were simply some minor amendments. The Government have resisted any substantial change and this year they have expected that we will simply rubber-stamp these orders again. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has talked continually last year and this year about an exit strategy, yet the Government have not produced any evidence of work on one. The Liberal Democrats Benches recognise all the changes that have happened over the past four years and we believe that the time has come to challenge the Government to fulfil the undertaking of which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spoke. What has changed that should have prepared the Government for a change of regime? There is a growing body of legal opinion, both national and international, that the system is not within the law. In 2007, as the Minister mentioned, the Law Lords found many things wrong with the control order regime, starting with closed hearings and continuing through the day-to-day operation of the orders. They asked for revision rather than finding them unlawful. However, the Government cannot count on that happening again with the latest challenge. The Minister has referred to the appeal which was heard last Monday on procedural unfairness and we await the judgment from that with great interest. The European Court of Human Rights has delivered fundamental criticisms which should have prepared the Government either to radically revise the orders regime or withdraw it altogether. I am sure that members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights will today tell us their view. Finally, the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights published its opinion on 17 February this year expressing concern about a parallel legal system developing. It felt that that undermined the rule of law. In international terms, that is extremely serious. I hope that today noble Lords will expand on just what due process should be in British law and just how far short these orders fall. The Government have also had four years to increase the capacity of the security services, which I am in no doubt they have done. They have increased expenditure and reorganised their strategies and staff. Despite the continuing threat, this must have had some effect that would feed through into allowing a return to the normal rule of law. Last year, the noble Lord, Lord West, in opening this debate, said: ""We must protect the public, while ensuring that our fundamental rights and values are protected. Control orders are an important part of this … balancing act. They are one of a significant number of measures that can be deployed to protect the public from terrorism".—[Official Report, 27/2/08; col. 722.]" So he does recognise the balance. We are not suggesting that the terrorist threat has diminished. Indeed, with the Mumbai bombings and this week the bombing in Pakistan of the Sri Lankan cricket team, we have had a very stark reminder overseas; and here, every day on our screens, we are reminded that the threat remains high. I am sure we are all well aware of it every time we take a tube or a flight or read about the cases that are coming to court. I pay tribute to all those involved in discovering the plots and networks of terrorists. The threat does not seem to have diminished since the last time we renewed these orders and in moving this amendment I recognise that. However, we are suggesting today that the intervening years should have been used to ramp up the other measures and get rid of this one. It was pretty hard to accept in the first place and is certainly not acceptable as the long-term measure it has become. Indeed, it is not even a very effective measure. The Minister mentioned people subject to these orders who have stayed in touch with other groups. Why have they not been prosecuted under the various relevant statutes? There are also the people who have absconded while subject to these orders, so they are not very effective. Should the Government pray in aid the independent reviewer’s report, I stress that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has done a very difficult job with all the considerable skills at his disposal, but he was asked to look at a tool to see if it is working in the way for which it is designed. His job is not to look at the other tools in the tool box; that is for the Government to do. We want the Government to take that look today and to take it very seriously. We have heard from the Conservatives about this issue over the years, and I look forward to hearing their view again today. Last year, in the debate on 22 February 2007, Patrick Mercer said in the other place that the Conservatives supported control orders with great reluctance but would not be able to do so the following year. He said in conclusion, ""we will support the extension with great reluctance, but we must put the Government on notice that, in view of Lord Carlile’s latest report, we will not be able to sustain our position this time next year".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/2/07; col. 443.]" I do hope, especially given the sort of speeches that Conservatives Members made at the convention on liberty this year, they will agree that the time has come to follow their words with their votes. In the debate in this House on 5 March 2007, the noble Lord, Lord Dear, said: ""Anyone who knows anything about the laws of physics knows that whereas it is easy to go up on the ratchet, it is well nigh impossible to come down".—[Official Report, 5/3/07; col. 29.]" He reminded the House how important in winning hearts and minds it is not to be seen as repressive. Our amendment today is offering this House the chance to get the Government to think again and to bring the orders regime back from a parallel system to our tried and tested legal system, a system which has won hearts and minds through centuries. In the introduction to the splendid British Museum "Taking Liberties" exhibition, which I am sure many noble Lords will have visited, the guide reminds us of how Britain has always been seen. The American revolutionary Patrick Henry said in 1788: ""We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty; our glorious forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of everything. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation"." As a country we do have a choice to return to a normal rule of law where suspects are charged and tried and where the highly suspicious may be held under surveillance within all the strict codes and guidelines, but where no one is subject to effective house arrest year after year after year. The Government have prepared no exit strategy. They have invited no discussion, even on a draft exit strategy. Parliament—this House—should make the choice. I invite your Lordships to do that today. I beg to move.