Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

It is a great pleasure to follow a number of today's speeches, particularly the last two. I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said, and it is a particular pleasure to follow him because I spent some of the recess cycling through his constituency. It is great to find his countryside, as well as most of his opinions, agreeable. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) also made a fantastic speech. I am in sympathy with both hon. Members, because this is a disappointing Bill. It does not live up to the aspirations that many of us had that this Government would come in and clear away much more of the vestiges of what Labour had set up. There is of course a balance to be struck, and nobody would dispute the fact that there is a real terrorist threat. The question is how best to deal with it. If we go the way Labour did, we will make it much worse as well as sacrificing civil liberties. That is why the balance needs to be struck. The Bill is a step in the right direction, but it does not go as far as it should. My interpretation is that Home Office Ministers did not manage to stand up to officials who continued the groupthink that we saw for many long years under Labour and that we have heard in a number of speeches. There are, of course, some honourable exceptions—the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has been very clear on the subject—but most of the speeches that we have heard from Labour Members make it clear that they would like a more authoritarian approach. That is one of the problems that the new Home Office Ministers have had to deal with. It is a shame that the shadow Home Secretary is not in her place, because I wanted to thank her for giving an excellent example of somebody trying to have their cake and eat it. She said at one point that there was a substantial difference between control orders and TPIMs, but then said they were essentially exactly the same. However, it was finally clear, although she would not admit it when I asked her, that it seems to be Labour party policy to keep control orders, with all the bad things about them. We have heard the arguments for relocation, secret evidence and further infringements of civil liberties. I would like to go further in a liberal direction. As I have said, the Bill is disappointing, but it is not a disaster and can perhaps be saved. I hope that the Committee will do that. There is a new Minister responsible for security, who sadly is not in his place, and I am sure that he will be able to be very much more reasonable about issues such as this; he has been very reasonable about drugs policy in previous discussions. Some of the Bill is great. I like clause 1, which is a really fantastic clause and one that I fought an election to try to achieve. However, the Bill goes downhill a bit after that. It keeps extra-judicial processes, which we should not wish to see. We have the rule of law for a reason. The Bill also keeps secrecy, as has been mentioned, with special advocates and secret evidence so that people do not know what they are accused of and cannot adequately brief a barrister to represent them. Ultimately, the problem is that the Bill relies entirely on the good judgment of the Home Secretary. It contains a broad power allowing for anything that the Home Secretary reasonably believes to be necessary, which could be any of a long list. I have no doubt that the current Home Secretary is more liberal than some of the previous ones, but do we all have faith in all future Home Secretaries of whatever party making the right decisions? I am very concerned about that. We expected some good bits in the Bill, and in her statement the Home Secretary talked about better focus and more targeted restrictions, which is a good step. She also talked about powers similar to those used in the civil justice system to prevent sexual offences and domestic violence, for example, and I would have liked to see those powers in the Bill. The Bill could have been much more like other parts of the law, but that opportunity was missed. Another good part of the Bill that we expected to see is the idea that police will have a greater duty to look after prosecutions. One has to look carefully to find it: it is in clause 10(5)(a). However, the change is very little. We have heard that the police process has been very ineffective. Because the security services have looked after the case management of the people in question, the efforts to prosecute have been extremely weak. I have no faith that what is in the Bill at the moment will make a difference to that, so it absolutely must be strengthened. It is very good to know that there will not be relocation. I am pleased to see that in the Bill. The change from curfews to an overnight residence requirement is a small step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. I should like a residency requirement that reflects the situation of most people. Most people—I realise that MPs are not typical in this regard—have a home where they normally reside overnight. That does not mean that they are there every night, or that they are there for the same hours every night, but it provides a reasonable way to find somebody. That should be the standard approach if we must have restrictions of any kind. There is another improvement in the Bill, which is the move from ““reasonable suspicion”” to ““reasonable belief””. We have heard that it will probably have a minimal effect, but it is a bit better. However, I say again what I said in a debate earlier in the year about terrorist asset-freezing: it still means that there is a threshold below the balance of probabilities. We are not asking for evidence to be demonstrated to a level at which we can have even a 50:50 belief that somebody is involved in terrorist activity. Many of us would like a criminal standard and a criminal conviction, but under the Bill the evidence threshold is below the civil standard, which very much concerns me. I am also concerned that we are losing the annual review. I agree with the comments that have been made about that. Control orders were introduced as emergency, temporary legislation, and I believe we are now past that emergency, temporary period. I would like us not to have an annual review, but only because we have got rid of control orders completely and their replacement does not arouse our concerns. However, I am worried about parliamentary scrutiny of the process. I am also concerned about schedule 1. I am grateful to the Home Office for allowing me to have discussions about what might be in it, but it is much broader than I had ever anticipated. It mentions exclusions from particular areas, and the explanatory notes highlight that that could include a mosque. I hope the Minister will be able to tell me whether it could include an exclusion from all mosques, or from any other religious building for people from other backgrounds. It mentions association bans, on which there are very few constraints. Could they involve banning somebody from associating with their family? What safety is there in that measure? A long list of measures—I shall follow the direction of the hon. Member for Newark and not go through every single one of them—must be pulled out and dealt with in Committee. The Bill is simply not good enough. The details need to change, but so do the principles. We can spend a lot of time haggling over phraseology, but the approach is wrong. Any alternative should be part of the normal legal process, and we must find a way to make that normal process work. Effectively, there is a power for judicial review, but that is not the same as judicial oversight. That power relies on judges deciding that the Home Secretary has made obviously flawed decisions. That is quite a tough standard, and I would like the measures to be much more in the control of the courts. They should make decisions rather than have a weak power if the Home Secretary behaves excessively. In 2010, the Select Committee on Home Affairs stated:"““It is our considered view that it is fundamentally wrong to deprive individuals of their liberty without revealing why.””" I hope all hon. Members agree with that. There should be more of a focus on prosecution. There are some measures on communications and extra money will be available for surveillance, but they are legislatively weak. We know that control orders acted against the interests of prosecutions. The Home Office counter-terror report stated that control orders can mean"““that prosecution and conviction…becomes less not more likely””." Control orders make it harder to achieve what we want. If people have been involved in terrorist activities, we would like them to be convicted and put behind bars. The scheme is also expensive to run, because it interferes so badly with human rights and basic principles. Continuous wrangling over that leads to very large legal costs—about £13 million over a few years. There are alternatives to control orders. Police bail, which has been discussed, is not a perfect system, but it fits much more with other measures that we use, which makes it a more normal and sensible way of running the system. We need to use much more evidence. If we have covert or intercept evidence, we should use it. We had an interesting discussion about people whom we know are terrorists but whom we cannot convict, even if we have evidence. Instead, we put them in limbo for a long period. The correct solution must be to change the system so that we can convict them. In his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I used to serve, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, who has spent a long time analysing and reviewing such matters, was absolutely clear that intercepts should be used. He pointed out that one frequently uses informers, bugs and probes in respect of criminal offences, and that there are ways of managing and using such evidence. He said that he had"““never accepted the argument that its effect would be marginal.””" He continued:"““You simply have to raise that argument in Washington and see the reaction on people's faces when you suggest that intercept would not be useful, or ask people in Canberra or Ottawa, or anywhere else. They simply cannot believe that people are making this argument.””" I, too, cannot believe it. We should ensure that we use intercept evidence. We should also look again at other options that Lord Macdonald has proposed, such as giving the Director of Public Prosecutions the power to say, ““We can prosecute, but not yet. We must hold this person for a while first.”” That would give more control to the DPP. We should also give more control to the High Court. We could make the Bill better in a number of different ways to make it more a part of the legal system. It has been said that the Government wish to have emergency legislation in case TPIMs are not enough. That worries me, because I think that TPIMs are too much anyway. What is that emergency legislation, when will we see it, and will it have pre-legislative scrutiny? I see no reason why the Opposition, whom we know are keen on stronger measures, should be the only parliamentarians to see it. All Members of Parliament should see it, so that it can be discussed. If there is ever a need to use something stronger than a TPIM, we should think about it carefully in advance, not at 4 o'clock in the morning in a panic. We should look at such a measure very carefully. I can tolerate the Bill on Second Reading—I like clause 1 and am happy to live with it—and there is still time to improve the Bill in Committee. We should not wait for the other place to go through the Bill properly: this House should make it work. We should improve the Bill in Committee and on Report, but I would be uncomfortable supporting the Bill on Third Reading unless there are changes and reassurances. I shall end with some final words from Lord Macdonald. On control orders, he said:"““The reality is that controlees become warehoused far beyond the harsh scrutiny of due process and, in consequence, some terrorist activity undoubtedly remains unpunished by the criminal law. This is a serious and continuing failure of public policy.””" He is absolutely right, and we should not let that situation continue.