---

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in Force of Sections 1 to 9) Order 2011

My Lords, we all recognise that this is an immensely difficult issue. Before I say anything about it, I take this opportunity to yet again express, without qualification, my admiration for Ministers, the security services and the police in the heavy responsibilities they carry on our behalf in protecting society. I hope that anything I say today will be seen in the context of that sincere recognition of what is being done on our behalf and will be constructive. The Minister referred to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and I shall concentrate on its report. She said that there will be a government reply to the Joint Committee. However, the Joint Committee serves and reports to us and it is not satisfactory for us to consider the report in the absence of the detailed ministerial response to it, because we ought to be able to take that into account in evaluating the observations of the Joint Committee. I pay tribute to the hard work which is done consistently by the committee on these matters. Without any observations of my own, I shall concentrate on highlighting what the Joint Committee has said. I thought the Minister was a little ungenerous in her comment on its comment. I read as quite positive its remark that, "““we welcome the Government’s commitment to repealing the control order regime and its renewed commitment to the priority of criminal prosecution””." Those are splendid words from a committee which is not renowned for making observations of that kind and I endorse them wholeheartedly. The report then, of course, introduces the word ““however”” and questions, "““whether the renewal of the control order regime through the draft Order is consistent with the recommendations of the Government’s Review of Counter-Terrorism and Security Powers””." In the committee’s view, "““the Government should urgently review all existing control orders to ensure they are compatible with the findings of the Review of Counter-Terrorism and Security Powers. Where the Review found that certain requirements cannot be justified because they are too intrusive, those obligations in existing control orders should be removed or reduced so as to be no greater than those which will be permissible under the proposed Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures regime. This should also apply to any new control orders made under the existing regime if it is renewed””." The Joint Committee then goes on to make some specific recommendations. The Government should explain to us—in this debate, presumably— "““why it is considered justifiable to maintain control orders on individuals for more than two years in the absence of any new evidence of their involvement in terrorism and whether TPIMs will be imposed on persons already subject to control orders for two years””." It also recommends that: "““The Director of Public Prosecutions should be asked to consider whether a criminal investigation is justified in relation to each of the eight individuals subject to existing control orders and whether, in each case, everything possible is being done to investigate and gather evidence with a view to such prosecution””." The committee then makes a very important point about which I am quite concerned. Until a few years ago I was a member of this committee and I remember coming up against it even then. It recommends that: "““The Minister should meet with representatives of the special advocates to discuss their continuing concerns about the fairness of the special advocates system””." This troubles me because, when I was on the committee, the special advocates shared their concerns with us. They said it was very stressful being expected to operate in a way which was quite alien to their professional training and the way in which they normally would expect to conduct themselves in court and in the fulfilment of their professional responsibilities. This brings me to why these matters are so important not only in terms of abstract principle but in practical terms. First, we say that we are protecting society with all these measures, but what are we protecting? Our system of law is absolutely crucial to what makes Britain a society worth defending, and I am always anxious that, inadvertently, over a long period of time, we are eroding the quality of that law and undermining the professional commitment of the people within it by what they are expected to do with the special arrangements in place. Secondly, we are, in a sense, in this dreadful ongoing challenge that confronts us, also involved in psychological warfare. In psychological warfare, highly manipulative extremists are always looking for opportunities to exploit doubts or misgivings. Therefore, our ability to demonstrate that we are doing things transparently and keeping within the law as it has always operated in this country is terribly important to winning the battle for the minds of people. This gives poignancy to the recommendations of the Joint Committee. The Minister referred to her commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny before the new arrangements are brought into play. I am glad that she did so because there is evidently a misunderstanding. In its report, the Joint Committee draws attention to the fact that, in giving evidence, the Minister did not seem to suggest that pre-legislative scrutiny would be appropriate. To have that reassurance from her tonight—I would be grateful if she could underline it in anything she says later—is important. Another point on the findings of the Joint Committee which should be emphasised is that it also recommends that, "““the Government publish a summary of the views of the Crown Prosecution Service, the police, the security and intelligence agencies and Government departments on the Review of Counter-Terrorism ""and Security Powers, to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of the Review; and a summary of the views of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director-General of the Security Service about the proposed renewal of the control order regime””." I do not want us ever inadvertently to give a victory to the extremists and terrorists. If we are not to do so, a resolute commitment to transparent justice—to people knowing why they are being held and the reasons for it—is absolutely essential. If we are not doing that, then all kinds of genuinely concerned, not sceptical or cynical, young people—and not only young people—in society will be very anxious and will not be full-heartedly behind the Government in the responsibilities that they are trying to discharge on our behalf.