---

Counter-terrorism Review

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of the review. The horrific attack at Moscow airport brings home to us all the terrible damage, loss of life, carnage and fear that terrorist attacks can cause. The threats that we face from organised groups with international connections and lone individuals radicalised at home mean that our police and our security services face an incredible task in protecting this country. They match that threat with incredible effort. We pay tribute to the work that they do today. The challenge for democratic Governments in the face of terrorist threats must be to protect both our national security and our historic freedoms. It is right to update powers and policies in response to ever-changing threats, so we welcome the fact that the review is being held. However, it would have been better to do this alongside a full assessment of the risks and challenges, through the updating of the Government's wider counter-terrorism strategy, Contest, which was due in January, but which I understand has now been delayed until the summer. It is our responsibility as the Opposition to scrutinise the Government's proposals in detail and, wherever we can, to support the Government on national security matters on the basis of the evidence. We will support some of the measures that the Government have announced today. We support their approach to deportations with assurances to countries with which we can reach agreement, which continues the work that we did in government. We note that the Government have decided to continue with the existing regime for proscribing groups that are engaged in terrorism. That seems to be a sensible approach. Can the Home Secretary tell the House whether that means that the Prime Minister has abandoned his commitment in the Conservative manifesto to"““ban any organisations which advocate hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir””?" We also agree that the use by local authorities of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 should be restricted. Some of the uses that we have seen in practice go far beyond the intention of the original legislation. However, we will of course scrutinise the detail, as we agree that councils still need to be able to take action on issues such as the sale of alcohol or tobacco to those who are under-age. We also support sensible changes to stop-and-search powers to prevent their being misused, but it would be helpful if the Home Secretary could confirm that the legislative changes that she is proposing largely reflect the practical changes that the police have already introduced. I am still concerned about the implications for Northern Ireland, where, as she will know, stop-and-search powers have played an important role in preventing terrorist attacks. Is she confident, and is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland confident, that the police will have all the powers that they need in Northern Ireland under the new arrangements? Let me turn to pre-charge detention. In the last three years, no case has invoked pre-charge detention for more than 14 days, as the review makes clear. We have made it clear that if the best police and security evidence shows that we can reduce the maximum period for pre-charge detention from 28 days with sufficient safeguards, then we should do so. However, the Home Secretary's review concludes that there could be future circumstances in which detention for longer than 14 days will be required, saying that"““there may be rare cases where a longer period of detention may be required and those cases may have significant repercussions for national security.””" The review recommends an emergency option to return to 28 days if necessary. However, the emergency legislation to do that is still not available in the Library. Indeed, it is still not ready, despite the commitment made by the Immigration Minister last Thursday. On Monday, the Home Secretary told the House that she could extend detention through an order under section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006, yet her own review concludes that"““it would be very difficult to extend 28 days””" in that way"““in response to or during a specific investigation,””" owing to the length of time that it would take to go through the House. The Home Secretary is putting the House in a very difficult position. The old powers lapsed on Monday; her review says that she may need to restore them swiftly to deal with a difficult case; according to her review, the order-making power will take too long; and the emergency legislation is not ready. Why did she not make the emergency legislation available sooner, and why did she not wait until the emergency legislation was ready before she let the old powers lapse? As we have seen from the events in Moscow, this is an issue where we can never predict what is round the corner. What are the police and the Crown Prosecution Service supposed to do if a difficult and dangerous case emerges right now? And what on earth is the Home Office doing telling the House on Thursday that the legislation would be ready, on Monday that section 25 of the 2006 Act would be sufficient, and, in its review today, that neither of those things is right? We know already that the Home Secretary's policies in this area have been a complete shambles, but they are also irresponsible. She has identified that emergency provisions are needed, but she has left the police and the public in a difficult position by failing to put those provisions in place. Indeed, we also have concerns about another aspect of the Home Secretary's approach. She is relying on being able to rush emergency legislation through in a hurry to deal with an individual and difficult case. Is that really a sensible way to proceed, with the possibility of Parliament being recalled in a recess in order to discuss the risks in an individual case, yet without prejudicing that case? I would urge her to think carefully about that approach, and about whether it would be better to develop more restricted bail conditions to apply beyond 14 days, so that emergency legislation is less likely to be needed. Let me turn to control orders. We all know that this is a difficult area. I think that everybody recognises that no one wants to use control orders, but we accept the conclusion of the review, which is that there is a continuing need to control the activities of terrorists who can be neither successfully prosecuted nor deported. We have said that we are ready to look at alternatives to control orders if the evidence supports that. However, the proposals that the Home Secretary has set out today are not an alternative approach to control orders; they are simply amendments to control orders. Many of the same elements remain: restrictions on movement and communications; and a review by the court at the instigation of the Home Secretary, with special arrangements in place. I would ask her to explain to the House the difference between an eight-hour curfew and an overnight residence requirement. Is not the truth of it that what the Government are doing is a political fudge? The Deputy Prime Minister told the BBC that he had abolished control orders. Is not the truth that he has simply abolished the name? We need to ask some detailed questions about the proposed amendments. We would like to be able to support sensible changes to control orders, but we need answers to some important questions. First, the Government are introducing a two-year limit, with a requirement for new evidence before a control order can be renewed. Lord Carlile's last annual review of control orders said:"““There is significant and credible intelligence that””" three of the controlees"““continue to present actual or potential, and significant danger to national security and public safety. I agree with the assessment that the control order on each has substantially reduced the present danger that exceptionally they still present despite their having been subject to a control order for a significant period of time.””" Those three individuals have been on control orders for more than two years, so will they now have their orders revoked, and what measures will be put in place to keep the public safe from the threat that Lord Carlile and the police clearly believe they pose? Secondly, can the Home Secretary tell us whether the changes will mean a reduction in the restriction that the Government are currently imposing on the remainder of the eight people who are currently on control orders? Thirdly, the Home Secretary has made it clear that she intends to rely more heavily on surveillance and less on the measures under control orders. We would support the greater use of surveillance, especially if it were to increase the chance of prosecution, but I am concerned about whether there will be sufficient resources for an increase in surveillance. The Home Secretary has talked about increases in surveillance, but we have not had clear figures about what exactly that will mean. The Daily Telegraph appears to have been told that there would be a £20 million increase for the police and security services, but we have not been told exactly what that means. Can she confirm that the £20 million for surveillance operations, or whatever the figure is, will not be ring-fenced, and that it follows a £150 million cut in the counter-terrorism budget and billions of pounds of cuts for the police? Can she assure the House that she is confident that the police and the security forces will have the resources that they need to keep Britain safe from terror? This has been a chaotic review, delayed, confused, riven by leaks and political horse-trading, and culminating in a political fudge. It is a review with serious gaps, which raise serious questions about security and resources, and the public and the people who work to keep us safe deserve better. The rhetoric of opposition has now come up against the reality of government. The review has been muddled in its formation and chaotic in its announcement; the Home Secretary must ensure that it is neither of those when she implements it in practice.