Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in Force of Sections 1 to 9) Order 2010

I do not think that I should go into the detail of what we are doing about this. I would not go into the detail of the approximately 2,000 people whom we are monitoring in certain ways. They are not as dangerous as the ones under control orders but we still believe that they need to be monitored, watched and checked in many ways. I would not dream of mentioning that on the Floor of the House and I do not believe that I should. It would put certain things at risk and would mean that those people would be able to get round the surveillance. Therefore, as I said, I do not accept that AF should not have been under a control order, and we have to be very careful about what we say in covering it. If all 11 people under control orders were out, that would take a lot of resource and I do not believe that we would be as safe as we are. That is why I am concerned. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked what changes to the rules the Government will make to ensure that the House of Lords judgment in the case of AF and Others is fully implemented. We do not believe that any changes are necessary and the House of Lords did not suggest that any rule changes are needed. This includes in relation to the special advocate talking to controlees after the service of closed material. The courts already ensure that hearings comply with the right to a fair trial. The noble Baroness also talked about the impact of some of these measures on a controlled individual and his family. It is true that some of these measures are very severe. In my opening speech I touched on the fact that we take the impact on physical and mental health very seriously. I also touched on how we deal with local communities and how we review the situation constantly to make sure that controlees are all right. However, these are people whom we assess to be highly dangerous for our nation, and it is right that we put in place measures to try to ensure that we are safe. As I said, it is not something that one wants to do but it is right that we do it. However, we look very carefully at these very specific issues to make sure that these people are looked after. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, accepts that our preferred approach in dealing with terrorists is prosecution. All of us here would like to carry out a full prosecution. However, it is not always easy to achieve that because intelligence and evidence are very different. I disagree with his suggestion that the control order regime is unjust. Control orders are subject to numerous checks and balances—importantly, including judicial oversight in every case. That judicial oversight explicitly involves ensuring that control orders and control order proceedings are compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to a fair trial, which is now considered in the light of AF and Others. Moreover, the High Court has upheld four control orders since the House of Lords judgment following proceedings that were compliant with Article 6 tests laid down in AF and Others. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that the regime is ineffective. I dispute that; I do not believe that it is. I would not have left it in place if it were ineffective. I agree that it is not perfect but it is largely effective. The noble and learned Lord also referred to a number of countries in Europe and perhaps elsewhere that are shining lights as regards not keeping people locked up. I can only say that when I speak to my opposite numbers in some of these countries, I am constantly amazed at how they seem able to bang people up for amazingly long times without what I would call a normal trial. That might be because of their different systems but we are by no means bad boys in that area. On the length of sentences, we have national security concerns about imposing arbitrary end-date control orders, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, mentioned, regardless of the risk posed by an individual. Our position is that orders should be imposed for as short a time as possible commensurate with the risk that they pose. I know that the noble and learned Lord may disagree but the High Court has supported our view. The statutory test in control order legislation already ensures that the Government can lawfully renew a control order only if it is necessary to do so, and that any decision by the Secretary of State can be appealed by the controlled person. The High Court must decide whether the test has been met. I have touched on AF, the other point raised by the noble and learned Lord. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, talked about effectiveness. I hope that I have shown that control orders are effective. Our assessment is that they are. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, assesses them as effective, as does the head of the security service. We have seen the results in terms of stopping individuals being involved in terrorist activity, contacting people with whom they work and doing certain things on whichever system they are using. The internet was mentioned, which is used for radicalisation and other things. That is why there are restrictions. I agree that it may not be nice for the youngster in the family but our aim is to protect the public. These people are not little innocents pulled off a bus; they are people on whom we have considerable intelligence as being a risk to our population. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones talked about security and wanted a brief about that. I do not think that we can keep on updating. In the CONTEST 2 strategy last year we gave a clear exposition of the threat and we are now looking at it a year on. We will be saying where we are on that in the near future. The threat level is not a ministerial decision for good reasons. It is a decision for the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre and it would be wrong to go through the reasoning on why that is being raised. I note and was pleased to hear that the noble Baroness is willing to listen to an informed person. I thought for one glorious moment that it would be me, but it was the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Never mind. I was asked: if we can prosecute, do we? The answer is yes. We look at and review control order cases. If we can prosecute them, that is what we want to do. The travel restriction order is an interesting point. We are not convinced that it makes a real practical difference but we will be thinking about it and considering whether it is worth going further with it. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to judges. They are fully involved in control orders, as I hope I have already covered. There is no doubt that control orders have prevented terrorist activity, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, agrees. We have seen their impact. The reason why control orders are broken is because the people want to engage and make contact. We see them talking to people and using systems that they should not—we have a certain ability to know what is going on. Control orders have a major impact. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked about people under control orders and the risk that they present. They present a serious risk. We absolutely believe in the rule of law and I do not accept that this Government have withdrawn from that. There have been great changes as a result of 9/11 and the risk of global international terrorism of a type that we have never seen before. Groups of people do not mind losing their own lives. All they want is to cause mass civilian casualties. In certain cases we have not got everything right and inevitably we have had to make changes. We have always tried to ensure the rule of law and our belief in those standards, as everyone in this House does. We always read JCHR reports very carefully because they are very important. We do not agree with all the assertions made in the JCHR report. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, touched on this. We believe that control order legislation is fully compatible with the ECHR. Many of the amendments to the regime proposed by the JCHR have been considered specifically by Parliament in debates and by courts in litigation. Neither Parliament nor the courts agreed that these changes were necessary, and the Government do not agree with the JCHR in that context. I think I have spoken for long enough. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, put it bluntly in his most recent annual report: ""In stark terms, the potential cost of losing control orders is that the United Kingdom would be more vulnerable to a successful terrorist attack"." I agree. I think they are the least worst option, and I have no doubt that the director-general of the Security Service and the intelligence services commissioners would not have agreed if they did not believe that that was the case. I believe that the country would quite rightly never forgive us if we removed control orders and it had that impact on the country. I therefore have no hesitation in commending this order to the House.