---

Terrorism Bill

moved Amendment No. 14:"After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—" ““COUNTER-TERRORIST POWERS (1)   Part V of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (counter-terrorist powers) is amended as follows. (2)   In section 44 (authorisations)— (a)   in subsection (3), for the words after ““if”” to the end, substitute ““the person giving it reasonably considers it to be necessary for the prevention of acts of terrorism””; (b)   after subsection (3) insert— ““(3A)   The area or place specified in the authorisation may not be greater in extent than is necessary for the purposes of the authorisation.”” (3)   In section 46(3) (duration of authorisation), after ““practicable”” insert ““and in any event within 24 hours””. (4)   After section 46 insert— ““46A   PUBLICITY    The Secretary of State shall publicise without delay and in such manner as he considers appropriate, the confirmation, cancellation or renewal of an authorisation under sections 44 and 46.”””” The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that more than 20 years ago, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 abolished the infamous sus laws, which had enabled policemen to stop and search and to arrest individuals on the street without any cause. As a result of that Act, an officer was required to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that when he stopped and searched someone, he would find a weapon or stolen articles or tools for the purpose of committing offences. That is the basic law, to which Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is a very considerable exception. When the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, replied to a similar amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, she said:"““We think that Section 44 is merited and that it does exactly what it was intended to do inasmuch as stop and search under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is an important tool in the ongoing fight against terrorism””.—[Official Report, 20/12/05; col. 1635.]" Having listened to that point, I checked what was said when the Bill that ended in the Terrorism Act 2000 was introduced. In the House of Commons on 14 December 1999, Mr Straw said:"““The main purpose of the Bill is not to extend the criminal code, but to give the police special powers to enable them to prevent and investigate that special category of crime. Those powers include an enhanced power to arrest and detain suspects, and powers to set up cordons, to stop and search vehicles and pedestrians, to investigate terrorist finances and to examine people passing through ports.""““The police have no interest in using those powers in circumstances in which the normal criminal law will suffice, nor do they have the resources to do so. In 1998, only 45 people were detained in connection with terrorism, and extensions of detention were granted for just 21 of them””.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/12/99; col. 162.]" Considering those words given by way of introduction to Section 44 of the 2000 Act, it is fair to say that the Home Secretary had in mind a limited power to be exercised in limited circumstances. Indeed, save in one or two respects, the power was limited. Authorisation under Section 44 for a uniformed constable to stop a vehicle or a person in a place specified in the authorisation was limited, for example, to a certain period of time. It was to be exercised only for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism, and could be exercised whether or not the constable had grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of that kind, but only for a period of 28 days beginning on the day on which the authorisation was given. The authorisation could be given only if the person giving it considered it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism. Those were the limitations of the 2000 Act and it is interesting to note how the legislation has been applied. When the Act came into force in 2001, not 45 people were arrested under the powers, but 10,200; by 2003–04 that number had risen to 33,800, and the most recent report from the Home Office records 35,776 searches of vehicles and people, of whom only 455 were arrested—not for terrorism offences but for matters discovered on their arrest under Section 44. On the type of people who have been arrested, a detailed breakdown stopped in 2003–04 under this Act showed that more than one in five was black or Asian, and of course that was before the events of last July, since which time there has been a huge increase in the number of black and Asian people who have been stopped. Noble Lords may recall that while saying that they were not stereotyping, the British Transport Police issued a directive to their officers saying that they should target a part of the population. Another group which has been targeted is demonstrators, the most famous of whom is Mr Walter Wolfgang, who was arrested under Section 44 powers at a Labour Party conference. A Mr John Catt, an 81 year-old anti-war campaigner was stopped while making his way through Brighton to an anti-war demonstration wearing an anti-Blair T-shirt. So the initial purposes announced by the Home Secretary back in 1999 for the way the powers under Section 44 were to be used have been ignored. The result is a grave danger that sections of the population will feel as targeted under this provision as those who were targeted under the ““sus laws””, abolished some 22 years ago. So it is in that context that I put before noble Lords this modest amendment. It would substitute the words,"““the person . . . considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism””," with the words,"““‘the person . . . reasonably considers it to be necessary for the prevention of acts of terrorism’””." The amendment also attempts to limit the area in which the provision can be applied. Since 2001, the whole of the Metropolitan Police area has been designated within which the powers of the section can operate. Noble Lords will recall that initially the power was to be given for 28 days in very specific circumstances directly related to terrorism. Now the whole of the Metropolitan Police area is designated on a rolling basis. At the end of a 28-day period, the person who authorised the previous 28-day period signs a piece of paper, takes it to the Home Office where it is rubber-stamped, and the period is renewed for a further 28 days. That has been repeated over a period of five years. No thought is given to individual circumstances. For example, one can understand that if a political party conference is being held in Brighton and there are security problems, an authorisation under Section 44 is justified. But to designate the whole of the Metropolitan Police area on a rolling basis year after year was not the original intention of the Act. So the third amendment to the section I want to introduce provides that:"““The area or place specified in the authorisation may not be greater in extent than is necessary for the purposes of the authorisation””." It should relate to the area where terrorist activity is thought to be likely to take place. I shall turn to the question of publicity in a moment. The Act requires the person authorising the powers under Section 44 to inform the Home Secretary ““as soon as practicable””, to which I seek to add the words,"““and in any event within 24 hours””," and finally, to introduce some transparency. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, suggested that we do not tell anyone which areas are subject to an authorisation under the Act, because all the terrorists will go to some other area and therefore that would be wrong. That is not a sensible way of proceeding: if a particular part of London, or of England and Wales is thought to require this special protection, the public should know about it and it should not be a matter of operational secrecy simply rolling over the authorisation, as has happened over a wide area. That is the reason for the final part of the amendment on publicity: that,"““The Secretary of State shall publicise without delay and in such manner as he considers appropriate, the confirmation, cancellation or renewal of an authorisation””." Obviously we on these Benches are anxious—as are noble Lords in every part of the House—to have effective tools to combat the curse of terrorism in our society, but we believe that those tools need to be focused, specific and not in themselves to cause a problem in the community by bringing about a sense of grievance among tens of thousands of people who are being stopped and searched for no proper reason. I beg to move.