Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill
Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2018.
Joan Ryan (Labour, Enfield North)
Before we begin, let me say that you are welcome to remove jackets or ties—I would call it a day at that—because it is very hot. I have just a few preliminary points. Please make sure that your electronic devices are switched off. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings—I have been asked to say that because people keep walking in with coffee cups and so on.
We will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper and then take the motion enabling the reporting of written evidence for publication, before taking a motion to enable us to deliberate in private. We will then talk about the order in which Members may wish to kick off and look at the questions provided—you can of course add in any of your own.
I call the Minister to move the programme motion, which was agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 26 June) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 26 June;
(b) at 11.30 am on Thursday 28 June;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 July;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 5 July;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 July;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 12 July;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 July;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
Table
Date
Time
Witness
Tuesday 26 June
Until no later than 10.55 am
Metropolitan Police; Crown Prosecution Service
Tuesday 26 June
Until no later than 11.25 am
The Law Society
Tuesday 26 June
Until no later than 2.45 pm
Max Hill QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation
Tuesday 26 June
Until no later than 3.15 pm
The Law Society of Scotland
Tuesday 26 June
Until no later than 3.45 pm
Liberty; Criminal Bar Association
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 11; Schedule 1; Clauses 12 to 17; Schedule 2; Clauses 18 to 20; Schedule 3; Clause 21; Schedule 4; Clauses 22 to 26; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 17 July.
I welcome the consensus on Second Reading about the principles of the Bill. No doubt, we will all explore the details of what goes in it. At our meeting yesterday we came to an accommodation on timings and witnesses. For the record, we should recognise that a number of people we asked to be witnesses either chose not to, or were unable to, come. I do not think that is a reflection on the Bill, but it is why we do not have the full sheet of witnesses put forward by all parties to begin with. I am confident, however, that we have a spread of critics, supporters and objective commentators. Therefore, without holding up the Committee any more, I ask it to agree to the motion.
Joan Ryan (Labour, Enfield North)
Copies of the written evidence the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Examination of Witnesses
Joan Ryan (Labour, Enfield North)
Q Good morning. May I welcome the two witnesses, who are with us until 10.55 am? Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu of the Metropolitan police, you are very welcome, and we are very pleased you are here in attendance. Welcome also to Gregor McGill, director of legal services to the Crown Prosecution Service. We thought we would start by asking each of you to make a brief statement to the Committee, if you are prepared for that.
Joan Ryan (Labour, Enfield North)
Thank you.
Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)
Thank you, gentlemen, for your representations. My question is to Mr McGill because he has his CPS hat on. Clause 3(2)(c) uses the phrase:Q
“on three or more different occasions the person views by means of the internet a document or record containing information of that kind.”
Does that provide the necessary discretion to prosecutors? Is it clear enough, or would you need greater clarity? Could you comment on that, because the clause has been discussed here?
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen)
Welcome, and thankQ you both for your opening statements. I want to turn first to clause 1 and the expressions of support for a proscribed organisation. The original offence is in section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which says:
“A person commits an offence…if he invites support for a proscribed organisation”.
The new clause in the Bill states:
“A person commits an offence if the person…expresses an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation”.
It then brings in the concept of recklessness. Could both of you give me an example of a type of situation that could not be prosecuted under the previous regime but could be prosecuted under this new regime?
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen)
Please do.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen)
Q I have a couple more questions. Let us move on to clause 2 for a moment, which is about the publication of an image of an item of clothing or other article. I think this argument probably also applies to clause 1, where we are trying to balance things up—in clause 1, it is freedom of expression versus the offending that we are talking about. In clause 2, where we are talking about the publication of images, presumably we would not want to criminalise a reckless 16 or 17-year-old going to a fancy dress party or something who clearly does not have terrorist intent. They may be doing something very distasteful, but we would not want to criminalise them via this clause. Could you both comment on that balance in relation to clause 2?
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen)
Q Can I turn to clause 3, before we come to the issue of streaming and so on? This is to Mr McGill. Consider a situation in which someone goes to somebody’s house and that person has, for example, streamed four or five things that we would be unable to prosecute under section 58, as it stands. I have seen it argued that that could or should be prosecuted. Section 5 of the 2006 Act relates to acts “preparatory” to terrorism: why could that not be prosecuted at the moment under that section or any other?
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen)
Q Have there been any attempts to prosecute under different sections, such as section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006, or is it simply a decision that prosecutors have felt unable to make because of the nature of the offence?
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen)
Q I have one more question, still on clause 3. Obviously, there is the concept of three viewings, which you referred to specifically in your opening statement, Mr Basu, but there is no time limit in the Act as it stands for viewing three times over a specified period of time. In prosecuting the offence in practice, would the Crown Prosecution Service consider the period over which the three viewings had been made?
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
You have drawn attention to a number of areas where these new powers would assist in addressing issues that cannot be addressed at the moment. Are there any other areas that you would like to draw attention to? Are there any other powers that we should be considering in order to make progress against counter-terrorismQ ?
Gavin Newlands (Scottish National Party, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Can I turn back to recklessness for a second? Recklessness is a common test in relation to physical acts against the person, but it is not usually used in speech offences. A report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights said 12 years ago, in 2006, thatQ
“recklessness is normally applied to actions that are themselves within the realm of criminality…if you hit someone or deceive them then it is absolutely appropriate for a jury to be able to convict you of an offence even if you did not intend the consequences of your actions. The same nexus between action and consequence should not exist for speech offences. Speech does not naturally reside in the realm of criminality. This is why the element of intention should always be attached to speech offences.”
Could both of you comment on that quote from the JCHR report? Can you determine the difference between speech offences and physical acts?
Gavin Newlands (Scottish National Party, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Q On the lack of time, which has been brought up, do you think that three clicks or three online viewings of terrorist content over, say, 25 years—just to pick a number out—shows enough intent to support terrorist activity to then prosecute someone? Do you think there is any danger whatever that in the end police time and resources could be spent on targeting innocent individuals who are of no interest, rather than focusing on individuals who obviously support and encourage terrorist activity? Do you have any concerns on that front?
Gavin Newlands (Scottish National Party, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Q Would it be better if there was a term limit, with clear direction for prosecutors in that respect?
Gavin Newlands (Scottish National Party, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
I have one more question, Chair, but I will pass to my colleague, who wants to ask a follow-up.
Joan Ryan (Labour, Enfield North)
As we are in an oral evidence session, I am taking people in the order in which they indicate, which I think is fair. Mr Chapman will have to wait.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Assistant Commissioner, can I bring you back to clause 1—expressions of support? How dangerous was Anjem Choudary over the years? Obviously he is convicted at the moment, but how dangerous is an individual of such inspiration to radicalisation and to people around the country?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q The number of those cases is in the hundreds—is that not correct?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q How long did it take us effectively to get a conviction against him? For how many years was he on our radar, and we were worried about him?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Dozens? I think it was 20 years.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q We knew he was dangerous, so why did it take us so long to achieve a conviction? Was one of the factors the gaps in that legislation—the difference between inviting support and inspiration for support?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Would it be right for me to say that you see this clause as trying to deal with the significance of inspirers, people who use their profile and presence to inspire people recklessly into joining a proscribed organisation or following those beliefs?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q One of the criticisms will be: “But what if four blokes are down the pub and they say, ‘You know that bloke Tommy Robinson, I think he’s a good geezer’.” Those blokes, as they would have been described to me, would not necessarily be prosecuted because the discretion of the prosecutor would say: “Well that is just freedom of thought, that’s people chatting around a bar, versus someone addressing loads of people at Speakers’ Corner”. Is that where you see the prosecutor’s discretion being able to stop that happening?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q If I were to take the Hitler test, the inspiration test—Adolf Hitler stood up at a Nuremberg rally and did not say to his followers, “Join the fascists in Britain”, but said, “I think they’re fantastic”—at the moment, he probably could not be prosecuted for that offence, unless he said, “Go out and join them”. Would that be right?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q So the power of inspiration is our biggest danger to radicalisation and this clause seeks to deal with that, would that be fair?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q The last Labour Government rightly brought in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, which effectively deals with incitement both in public and private places. It was not called thought police at the time. It dealt with people using hate against religions as a cause, as opposed to proscribed terrorist groups. Is that why we cannot use that Act to prosecute? If people stand up and say: “I hate the Jews”, you could prosecute them now for inspiring or inciting hatred, but you could not prosecute them if they stood up and said: “I think ISIL”—or National Action—“is fantastic”?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
So the principle is already embedded in law around inspiration when it comes to racial hatred, but not when it comes to terrorism?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Have we had any problems with the use of the Religious Hatred Act over the last 12 years?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Could I move on to the publication of images, the clause 2 issue? Assistant commissioner, do we see quite a few cases where people use their Facebook page or upload images of themselves standing behind flags or speaking to a group of people, for example, in the back of a house, with a black flag or a Hezbollah flag or a National Action flag or whatever else behind them. The image is up there, but because it is in a photograph, it is difficult to prosecute. Is that a challenge?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Is it common for some of the foreign fighters in Syria beaming themselves backwards, effectively, saying to people, “Look at me, aren’t I great?”
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Would you say this clause is more of a modernisation reflecting how the internet is used, rather than anything new or magical? Is it just that people are using the internet differently and we need to adapt to that?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Yes, and if you dressed up in some of the bizarre uniforms.
On clause 3, I am keen to be open to solutions on the three clicks issue. Would you both agree that streaming, again reflecting modernisation, is a major problem and that the law as it sits is not capable of defining the difference between streaming and downloading?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Maybe, for those who are worried about three clicks, a definition of streaming that does not use clicks but a more technical term might be a solution, as long as we deal with streaming as a problem; that is the main challenge.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q May I fast forward and ask a question about the hostile state powers on the border? How important is “no suspicion” in the use of these powers? Why would we need to maintain it?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q If I had intelligence, let’s say, that a hostile agent—maybe an assassination team or people using non-official cover—were going to come to the UK and take the nine o’clock flight from Amsterdam, but we did not know who they were, only that they were taking a flight. If we had to have suspicion, would that prevent us being able effectively just to target the flight, because we would have to have suspicion about an individual? Or is just suspicion that they might be on a particular flight enough to be grounds for suspicion? Or is it too general?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Would that breadth of suspicion being challenged as not narrow enough, also apply to a method? Let’s say that we had intelligence that a hostile state agent was moving a radioactive substance in a flask but we did not know which flight, so we decided to target all people carrying flasks. That would be too broad because that would potentially cover every flight coming into the country. So, we would not be able to do that if we had a suspicion test.
Matt Warman (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)
Earlier you mentioned the prospect of extraterritorial powers and that Australia has them and we do not. As you know, a lot of MPs brought that up on Second Reading. Could you say a little more about how helpful they would be and how they might be used in practice? Would you just like to cut and paste the rules that Australia has or would you like to do something slightly different, if you could start with a blank piece of paperQ ?
Matt Warman (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)
Yes.
Matt Warman (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)
Q Do you have a sense of how many people have been inspired to travel and how many people, if you were implementing an Australian-type system, you might have had the opportunity to prosecute already?
Matt Warman (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)
Q Is there anything you would add, Mr McGill?
Afzal Khan (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)
This question is to Mr McGill. We have heard a number of questions on the three viewings. With the viewing itself, does that mean whole or part? What proportion would have been viewed to be counted as oneQ , two, three?
Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)
I just wanted to ask about support for proscribed organisations versus the lone wolf situation. To what extent do you think the Bill defines the expression of an opinion or belief in terms of a terrorist offence, without the actual action that goes with it to prepare for an act of terror? I am thinking of a case that was quite celebrated about a decade ago: the lyrical terrorist. Do you remember this? It was a 24-year-old shop worker Q from the Heathrow Airport branch of WHSmith, who was writing dodgy things on the back of till receipts about beheading people. She initially was sentenced, but it was quashed afterwards. Would that case be different under all this? It is just the risk that, potentially, satirical activity could be criminalised. She claimed she was writing poetry. I think she also had some dodgy stuff in the house that could have aided terrorists. In the end, it was seen as too weak and was all overturned. Would that be different under this legislation?
Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)
Q Anything different, assistant commissioner? Do you remember that case? It was on telly a lot, and I think it was partly out of public outcry that it was overturned.
Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)
Q Some CPS prosecutor did.
Douglas Chapman (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline and West Fife)
This is perhaps a follow-up to Mr Newlands’s earlier question about viewing material over the internet. There is no doubt that a lot of people out there wish to do us harm, but can you foresee any situations in which people who may be fairly innocent—with mental health problems, for example—could be caught up in the Bill inadvertently? We have, for example, seen some cases involving people with autism who have been pulled into the counter-terrorism area—probably through their mental health issues—almost by error. Can you see any safeguards in the Bill, or in the justice system, that would protect people in those circumstances, so that they would not be unnecessarily criminalised, with all the anguish that goes with thatQ ?
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
A very quick question: in clause 3(2), on obtaining or viewing over the internet, it is clear that,Q
“on three or more different occasions the person views by means of the internet a document or record containing information of that kind.”
That is quite clear—three clicks and you’re out—but how do you define views? What is the definition of views? Is it a five-second YouTube advert or the like? Is it 10 minutes? Is it an hour? What is the definition of views when it comes to that?
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
Q What if somebody clicks on it by accident, views it for three seconds, says, “Oh,” and then moves away from it?
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
Q It goes back to Mr Newlands’s question about the period of time. Is it over a 25-year period? Is it a 10-year, five-year or one-year period? If it is a matter of seconds over a 25-year period, that is not really a pattern of behaviour.
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
I would like to move us on to corporations and local authorities. I was a councillor in Tower Hamlets at the time when we had three of our schoolgirls go to Syria, and it became clear that it was not just a counter-terrorism issue but a safeguarding, welfare and child-grooming issue. I wonder in what ways this legislation proves that you are working with local authorities. Do you think there are still any gaps in that working? I would also be interested if you could talk a little about how the Prevent agenda tries to build children’s and other people’s resilience against radicalisation, as one of the best ways of trying to stem the whole phenomenon of Islamic and far-right radicalisationQ .
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q Do you think this legislation goes some way towards dealing with that issue, or do you think that local authorities are neither financially equipped nor have the expertise to be able to do what you need them to do?
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q Do you have anything to add, Mr McGill?
Neil Coyle (Labour, Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
I want to go back to clause 2, which deals with the personal publication of images. Is this Bill not a potential vehicle for a wider power, which might be welcomed by police authorities, to compel any individual or media platform to remove images that incite or glorify any form of violence?Q
Neil Coyle (Labour, Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
Q Most of us are grateful to have seen the new Government focus on this and, in particular, the social media companies finally coming to the table. But that has been under threat of regulation—so, again, is there not the space within the Bill to take that forward? I think you are suggesting both that it is beginning to happen but that the Bill offers the opportunity to go a bit further and give the power that could be used if media companies do not continue to work closely with Government. Is that fair?
Neil Coyle (Labour, Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
Q In clause 3, what does this Bill do that the French legislators failed to do? Linked to that is the point made by the hon. Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and for Dunfermline and West Fife—namely, that we know vulnerable people are being deliberately targeted, or groomed, by those who want to incite them to undertake violent acts. You seem to be suggesting that a click of a fraction of a second would count towards a realistic prospect of conviction, but then seem to draw back and suggest, for example, that for someone with a learning disability, the public interest clauses would prevent a prosecution. Bearing in mind what the other witnesses would like to see and the case they might be making, are you suggesting that that is where the reasonable application would land and that that would be the trigger for a Prevent-type intervention, rather than a prosecution?
Neil Coyle (Labour, Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
Q To follow up on the point about the quick click, if you want to call it that, you are suggesting that because there is no time limit in the Bill, it could count towards a prosecution. We have to be mindful of that, and it might be worth considering some kind of time limit.
If someone is grooming, for want of a better word, someone vulnerable, and they send them an email link without any explanation, would the person being targeted be able to prove—as the onus is on them to do—that their excuse was reasonable, that the link was sent by someone they trusted and that it was a case of misplaced trust? How would that pan out in practice?
Neil Coyle (Labour, Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
Q On clause 19 and terrorism insurance, despite the Prime Minister talking about the attack on London bridge and Borough market as a terror attack on the night it occurred, it took a considerable amount of time for it to be formally classified as a terror attack. The Ministers have suggested that one of the reasons for that was that three police authorities were involved—City of London, the Met and the British Transport Police. Is the Bill also a vehicle for trying to speed up the process by which acts of terror can be classified, so that those affected, particularly businesses and employers, have better protection when claiming from their insurers?
Neil Coyle (Labour, Bermondsey and Old Southwark)
I will take that as a yes.
Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)
Q You may have a different view of this question, depending on which end of the telescope you are looking through. Is there anything that you would have liked to have seen in the Bill to help you with your respective jobs and tasks that is not there?
Gavin Newlands (Scottish National Party, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Q If I can draw attention to schedule 2, the retention of biometric data. Mr McGill, we—or certainly I—have heard that removing the oversight accorded by the Biometrics Commissioner could be seen as a retrograde step. Any data vulnerability is an issue, but it is particularly important when it comes to biometrics. In America there was a hack of 5.5 million unencrypted fingerprints, which would obviously be an issue if it were to happen over here. With all that in mind, could you provide any examples that would support the notion that the detection of crime is improved by retaining the biometric data of people who are not charged, whose charges are dropped or who are, indeed, found innocent?
Gavin Newlands (Scottish National Party, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Q It would be useful if you provided the Committee with more examples. The Bill is asking for an extension from two plus one to five years; that would be more than double in some cases. To justify that, it would be useful for the Committee to have that information.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen)
Q I have a narrow question. Clause 12 concerns the power to enter and search houses. I am trying to get a practical sense of that. There are, of course, various requirements. On at least two occasions there has to have been attempts at entry before. The purpose is this:
“to enter premises specified in the warrant for the purpose of assessing the risks posed by the person to whom the warrant relates;”
Could you expand on that? Mr Basu, what exactly do you think is meant by “assessing the risks”? What practically would be likely in a situation like that?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q I think we are coming towards the end. Can I just thank you very much for your evidence? Could I ask you to set the scene, assistant commissioner, of where we are with today’s threat and to put in context why these powers are needed?
Joan Ryan (Labour, Enfield North)
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the assistant commissioner and Mr McGill for giving evidence this morning and for their time. It has been most helpful to the Committee. Thank you very much. We will now move on to our next panel.
Examination of Witness
Joan Ryan (Labour, Enfield North)
Q We will now hear oral evidence from Richard Atkinson, chair of the criminal law committee of the Law Society. We have until 11.25 am. I welcome you, Mr Atkinson. Thank you for being with us this morning. Will you please introduce yourself for the record?
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen)
Q Thank you for coming to give evidence to us, Mr Atkinson. I want to turn to the border security part of the Bill and issues of detention and access to a lawyer. There is no right to consult a solicitor in private in the Bill. The way the Bill works is that there is a one-hour period without the right to consult. Beyond that, there is a further six-hour period. The Bill is pretty clear about the power attached to it:
“a detainee who wishes to exercise the right”
may in some circumstances do so
“only in the sight and hearing of a qualified officer.”
Is it a concern that there is no right under the Bill to consult a lawyer in private?
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen)
Q From what you are saying, there is a practical solution for any legitimate concerns there may be. There is also a situation—in a police station, for example—where you can have a duty solicitor or lawyer made available. That person could be someone of particular standing and reputation in whom we could all have faith and whom we would not have those concerns about.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q In your earlier replies, you talked about how an individual who was detained could have a conversation without legal advice or compromising themselves. It is right, is it not, that in this environment such a conversation would not be admissible in court, under the grounds of the stop?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q What are those exceptions?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Let us take perjury. Whenever any of us goes to the airport, a passport control person will ask us, potentially, where we are going or where we have been. They will question us, won’t they? They have the power to do that.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Do we have a right at that stage—because this is all about being at the border—to ask for a lawyer then?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q What about customs, because we are really talking about a customs screening in the example of a passport? If I am coming in from a country with my baggage, a customs officer stops me and asks me where I have come from—there is the screening—and they wish to search my bag or my person, they will take me away. They can take me to a side room. They can hold me while they examine my bag, screen it, and take it through an X-ray machine. Do you have a right to a lawyer in that environment at the border?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q But that is a detention. You can be held, I think, for quite some time. We have all seen the television programmes; it happens all the time. How long has that power been held at the border by customs officers?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Because you started your critique of this part of the law by referring to the long established view, the cornerstone of British advice. If I may give you a clue, it has been centuries that customs has had that power at our border in order to protect our border.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q That is the particular bit that you would have the most beef with—the discussion between, effectively, a client and a lawyer when they are allowed access to a lawyer at that stage.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Let us go to the access to a lawyer point, because I think there is an amendment down about that. On access to a lawyer, would you venture, therefore, it should happen from the first—not from the screening? Not from the initial detention, in the way customs is done? Or would you say that they should really have access as soon as they have gone beyond the screening?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q I am just trying to get consistency. Does that mean you think that when a Border Force person, a customs person, seeks to detain you for an hour or however long to examine and question you further, they, too, should have access to a lawyer?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q But they do that every day in their thousands across the country, because that is how we control our borders.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q That is a significant shift in what you would desire on the borders of our country. There would be thousands of lawyers. Let’s say someone goes beyond “Are you Ben Wallace? Did you come from Jamaica on this aeroplane? What’s in your bag?” They start taking my bag away, screening it, X-raying it, and asking me questions about what hotel I stayed in. Are you saying they should have a lawyer there?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q I think it is right to say that access to a lawyer on the border has been qualified quite considerably over many years. Would you not say that? Whether it is a customs stop or not conducive to the public good or a whole load of establishing, it often goes beyond screening.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q As the Minister, I definitely take your point about access to legal advice and that privileged space. Do you understand why we are trying to use schedule 7 and schedule 3 on the hostile state? Do you understand why there is a need to try to establish people coming into our country? What alternatives would you proffer as a way to deal with people who sometimes do not want to answer the screening questions, obviously, but may have a lot of evidence on their telephones?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q So the Law Society does not oppose the concept of the schedule 7 or 3 type stop; it just wishes better access to legal advice.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Does it oppose the lack of reasonable grounds, the no suspicion?
Afzal Khan (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)
Q I would like to ask about the confidentiality between the solicitor and the client. It has been long-established that that is a privileged sort of advice. You also said you understand where the legislation is trying to go and why the Government are trying to pass it. Is an alternative available where both could be achieved without compromising and losing one?
Gavin Newlands (Scottish National Party, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Q In addition to access to justice and legal professional privilege, or lack of provisions in the Bill, are there any other aspects of the Bill that concern you? Do you think any of the provisions, such as three clicks, could result in aspects of the Bill being successfully challenged in court under human rights laws?
Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)
It was at the Old Bailey, and it was overturned by the Court of Appeal—
Joan Ryan (Labour, Enfield North)
Order. You need to speak through the Chair.
Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)
Q I am surprised nobody in this room has heard of that case, because it was on the TV news at the time. It was at the Old Bailey and was overturned by the Court of Appeal.
My question is about to what extent you think that clause 3 could risk criminalising thought without action—people may not have to do anything. That is what that case hinged on.
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
Q The provisions under clause 17 and schedule 2 will bring terrorism offences under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in line with those under the Terrorism Act 2000, in relation to biometric data. To what extent do you think it is necessary and proportionate to retain biometric data for individuals who are arrested for terrorist offences but not charged?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Can I just come back on the oversight of retained material? That is mainly paragraph 11 of schedule 3, on page 40 of the Bill. You have talked about an independent barrister or legal view about legally protected privilege. The Bill says that when a number of things are seized, including legally protected privileged material, but also broader material such as journalistic material and even health material, it has to go before the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office is an independent body, headed by Lord Justice Fulford. That body will then have to make the decision on whether that material could be examined or destroyed and so on. They are all judges. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner is Lord Justice Fulford, and his judicial commissioners are obviously former judges. What is the gap—what is missing—therefore between that oversight and the oversight that you think needs to be improved?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q I am not entirely sure that that is correct. I think he will initially seize it. I think he needs permission. He must be informed of the retention. The Bill talks about the retention by the commissioner where
“there are reasonable grounds to believe”.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q The Bill states in schedule 3 that
“an examining officer may retain the article…for the purpose…while the officer believes”.
Paragraph 12 states:
“This paragraph applies in relation to an article retained by virtue of paragraph 11(2)(d) or (e)…The Investigatory Powers Commissioner…must be informed of the article’s retention”.
Paragraph 12(4) states:
“The Commissioner may…direct that the article is destroyed, or…authorise the retention and use of the article”
subject to whatever.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q We should get some clarity on this. The legislation talks about seizing, rather than viewing. That may be enough to trigger it. If I claim something has legal privilege, that may be enough to trigger that a judicial commissioner looks at it—it is then referred to the commissioner, as opposed to your assumption that it will have to have been viewed before the request for judicial oversight.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Are you happy with the Bill’s oversight of that process, with the judicial commissioners and the independent commissioners being the ones who give the authorisation to retain or destroy material?
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen)
Q Staying on this point, but moving away from the distinction about whether a document is privileged, do you think it would help if the Bill said, “Every single time this power is used, the commissioner will be informed about it”?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
The judicial commissioners will be the oversight for the use of the hostile port stops overall—the annual report or whatever it is.
Joan Ryan (Labour, Enfield North)
As there are no further questions from Members, I thank you, Mr Atkinson, for your time and evidence this morning. As the Committee is not due to meet again until 2 pm, I invite the Government Whip to move the adjournment.
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
Q83 While we are waiting for Max Hill QC, let me say that we are expecting a vote, for which we normally allow 15 minutes. There is no injury time and Mr Hill must leave by quarter to 3, so after the Division, as soon as we are quorate—which is seven Members, including myself—we will resume questions, even if some people are not back. [Interruption.] Ah, here he is. Good afternoon, Mr Hill.
The Committee will now hear oral evidence from Max Hill QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. For this session, we have until 2.45 pm. Mr Hill is aware that we might well have an interruption due to a vote. Mr Hill, would you please introduce yourself for the record?
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
Thank you.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen)
Thank you, for coming along to assist today, Mr Hill. I have read some of your writings about the Bill and watched your evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, so I am aware of your views. Could I ask first, just in broad terms, about clause 3, which updates the streaming offence from the downloading offence? Do you think the clause is satisfactory as it is, and, if not, what changes would you suggestQ ?
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen)
Q I will combine two questions about how to improve the clause. First, would it help to be more specific on the face of the Bill about the reasonable excuse defence and what that might include? Secondly, should we have a time limit—12 months, to pick a time limit out of the air, or perhaps another period—for the streaming offence in clause 3? Would those two changes assist?
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
Thank you. I am conscious that quite a few people want to ask questions.
Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)
FollowingQ on from Mr Thomas-Symonds’s question, can I probe slightly? Given the pressures of time, I hope that it will just be a slight probe.
I listened with great attention to what you said, Mr Hill. As a matter of principle, do you think that a clause that aims to track, monitor and quantify streaming, its effects on behaviours and so on, perhaps amended to reflect some of the issues that you have set out, merits inclusion in an Act of Parliament? You have suggested some improvements or embellishments to the clause, but if you were given a free hand, would you say, “If you are going to have it, you need to embellish it,” or, “Actually, it would be better not to have it at all”? Does that make sense? I am not a lawyer, so I am not very good at asking these lawyerly questions.
Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)
Q Mr Hill, you talk about lowering the threshold. Obviously, that is a subjective assessment. Perhaps the threshold set in part of the 2000 Act was about right given the circumstances at the time, the challenges the country faced, the nature of terrorism as it presented itself, and indeed the scope and reach of the internet. Are we now, 18 years subsequent to that, right to review and potentially to lower the threshold because the opportunity to engage, search and disseminate information is such that it is now much easier and available to affect a larger number of people than was the case even 18 years ago? I know it does not seem that long ago, but in technological and internet terms, it is a millennium ago.
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
Thank you. I am conscious that we could have a Division very soon and I am conscious that the Minister and the shadow Minister also wish to ask questions. I hope Mr Doughty is happy that we swap places and put Mr Dakin next, and afterwards I will call the Minister?
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
Thank you, Mrs Main. Given your experience, Mr Hill, do you have any other misgivings about the Bill as drafted that you have not already raisedQ ?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Can I go back to the clause pertaining to section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000—the streaming clause or the three clicks provision? The original section of the Terrorism Act 2000 is very clear: it is about collecting material, which can include a record which is electronic. Back in 2000, broadband was pretty slow, if it worked at all, so most people watched things by down- loading; nowadays it is streamed, because, first, you do not want to use up your own data and secondly, that is how most of us live our lives. If you are going to watch iPlayer, you do not download each programme before you watch it. Streaming is a reality that is not reflected in the 2000 Act; that simply refers to the way that people look at records. In your experience of doing the job so far, is streaming now used quite broadly by terrorist suspects in learning things, spreading belief or radicalisation, or indeed training? Do you see a lot of that?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q If we all agree that streaming is a problem and is a modern reflection of how people are viewing things, would another solution to your worries be simply to amend section 58? The first line of section 58 says:
“A person commits an offence if (a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind—”
so that in and of itself is an offence with a reasonable excuse defence in it.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Are you happy with section 58 of the 2000 Act as it stands?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q But as it stands at the moment, it can be an offence on its own?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q If you were to just amend subsection (a)—
“A person commits an offence if…he collects or makes”—
and added “, or streams”, would you be satisfied with that? Would that address the issue we are getting at?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Could that already be the case for academics downloading, recording or collection information under the existing section 58?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q And it has not been struck down by any of our courts?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q The Government are always being probed for judicial discretion. There is the idea that we have a tendency to be too prescriptive and want to encourage judicial discretion. Is that not, a bit like the appellate guidance that you talk about, a place for judicial discretion?
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
We are now quorate, so we will resume the sitting.
Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)
I want to ask two questions. The first is about the detention provisions, the removal of property and so on. Parts of the Bill mirror the existing schedule 7 powers, and I have encountered concerns about how Q those operate. We obviously want these powers to operate effectively, but we also want to maintain the public’s confidence around their use. Where do you think the Bill is on that? Do you think the balance it strikes is right?
Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)
Q That is very helpful. On an unrelated issue, the Home Affairs Committee, on which I sit, has been discussing the issue of extremist and terrorist content online. Obviously, there are provisions in the Bill relating to those viewing such material. I have a lot of concern about the failure of technology companies to remove such content adequately. The voluntary approach works to an extent, but it has not worked in many areas. We have identified very serious examples of where major companies such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have not removed content. Obviously, there is a different legislative environment in Germany and other countries. I have tabled a new clause requiring manual and automatic searching of all proscribed organisations. I accept that there is a difficulty with the wider boundaries of what is or not, but given that we do have a legally defined list of proscribed organisations, what is your view about whether more needs to be done to regulate such activities—
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
Mr Doughty, that was too long a question. I am conscious that Mr Hill has got to go at 2.45 pm, and several of your colleagues wish to get in.
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
Mr Khan will ask a quick, succinct question, and then, Mr Hill, you have three minutes or so to answer.
Afzal Khan (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)
You have talked about lowering the threshold in the Bill and about no preparation for an act being necessary, yet we see that sentencing is up to 15 years. How fair and safe are these changesQ ?
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
I call Dr Rupa Huq, but I think you have only a second to ask your question.
Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)
Just a quickie. You mentioned clause 3. I just wonder what you think—Q
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank Mr Hill for his evidence. Perhaps you might be my first port of call in the next session, Dr Huq.
Examination of Witness
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
Could you please introduce yourself for the record, Mr Clancy?
Gavin Newlands (Scottish National Party, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Welcome Mr Clancy. From a Scottish or a devolved perspective, is there anything in the Bill that the Committee should take cognisance of?Q
Gavin Newlands (Scottish National Party, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Q We heard this morning, in terms of some of the Bill’s provisions, such as the three clicks and the lack of a time limit on that, that to rely on prosecutorial discretion, rather than having fixed limits and so on in the Bill, is a step too far. Do you agree?
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen)
Thank you for coming along, Mr Clancy. I appreciate your evidence about terrorism legislation being reserved to the UK and about the memorandum of understanding between the Attorney General and the Lord Advocate and so on. However, moving beyond that, do you have any concerns about clause 3 of the Bill that you have not already referred to?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Thank you very much for coming today. May I ask your view of clause 1, which is obviously the part of the Bill that talks about expressions of support, and the challenge around that? Critics have used the phrase “thought police”. Obviously, we are trying to grapple with the threat from inspiring—people who do not specifically stand up and say, “Join ISIS”, but use their position recklessly to promote such organisations by saying, “I think they are great,” and so on. Correct me, because I may not know this. Is the previous legislation that deals with the area of incitement and religious hatred devolved or reserved?
Section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986 and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 effectively do the same thing: they set out that, for an offence to have been committed, you do not have to tell people to hate, or say, “You must attack Muslim people,” or, “You must attack Jewish people”. You can express in a private or public place sentiments or views that could have the consequence of inciting racial or religious hatred. Do you see a read-across from that position, which is accepted in established law, to clause 1, so it relates to encouragement towards a proscribed organisation?
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
Does anybody else have more questions for Mr Clancy? Yes, Mr—
Gavin Newlands (Scottish National Party, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
It is okay, Chair, I forget my name quite often as well, and my Mum certainly does.
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
It is the glasses dilemma. Sorry, Mr Newlands.
Gavin Newlands (Scottish National Party, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Q It is fine. I have two questions if we have time. We heard this morning from your colleague of the Law Society of England and Wales that there is great concern that schedule 3 has both access to justice issues and issues pertaining to legal professional privilege—that is, the inability to consult a lawyer in private. Do you share those concerns, or do you have a different view?
Gavin Newlands (Scottish National Party, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Q Back to your earlier point about prosecutorial discretion, do you think there is a danger that elements of clause 3 risk criminalising thought without action?
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen)
Q Just one question, Mr Clancy, arising out of the Minister’s question about section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986 and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Both Acts are about the use of abusive, threatening or insulting behaviour to stir up hatred, but do you agree that there is a distinction between that and actual recruitment to the cause, which is what the clause in this Bill is talking about? Are they different things?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q I want to follow on from the previous issue of the person collecting the materials and the three clicks. I do not know if you heard my question to Max Hill, which was that given that section 58 of the 2000 Act is well established, has been used and has not been struck down by challenge in a European court setting, if instead of defining by three clicks it was to explore simply adding in streaming, with the reasonable excuse defence, do you think that would solve the problem of streaming as opposed to holding or downloading information?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q To reflect on section 58, when we talk about collecting electronic records or making a copy, we do not qualify that by saying that the definition is that it has to be longer than 10 seconds long or it has to be an hour long. We do not do that already; we do not seek to narrow it there.
Andrew Bowie (Conservative, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)
You mentioned in passing in an answer to Mr Newlands that access to legal advice and issues surrounding confidentiality were different in the Scottish and English legal contexts. As this is a whole UK Bill, I wondered if you might expand on that. I would also ask what your experiences have been in the Scottish context of the operation of the counter-terrorism ports power, in terms of detainees having access to legal adviceQ .
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
If there are no further questions, thank you for giving your time to give evidence to the Committee. We will move on to our next set of witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
We will now hear oral evidence from our last panel of witnesses. They are Corey Stoughton, advocacy director of Liberty, Abigail Bright, executive member of the Criminal Bar Association, and Peter Carter QC, a member of the Criminal Bar Association. Both Abigail Bright and Peter Carter are also barristers at Doughty Street Chambers. We must end this session by 3.45 pm. Would the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen)
Q If I could start with you, Corey Stoughton, could you turn please to clause 14 of the Bill, which is the traffic regulation clause? Having read some of Liberty’s previous comments on the Bill, I know that there is a concern here about the imposition of charges, which would have an impact on legitimate protest. Could you explain your concern about that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen)
Q Turning from that issue to the retention of biometric data, do you think there should be additional safeguards to protect those who are wrongly arrested as a result of mistaken identity or poor intelligence?
Matt Warman (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)
Again to Corey Stoughton, your briefing says that clause 3 risks criminalising academics or journalists. Q I used to be a journalist, and I cannot myself recall a case where a journalist has been prosecuted for the kind of things that you are worried about, and which we would all be worried about. Is there a case that I have not noticed, or is this a theoretical inquiry, in which case, are you simply arguing for responsible prosecutions?
Matt Warman (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)
Q Is it your argument that that chilling effect is immeasurable because we do not know what it is, or do you have any sense of what that chilling effect might be?
Matt Warman (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)
Q Are those concerns backed up with evidence, or are they concerns about what the future might look like?
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
Order. This is very engaging, but I have loads of Members who are trying to get in, so I am going to have to ask that answers be quite concise. I am also conscious that there are two other members of our panel who have given of their time today. The Minister and the shadow Minister now also want to come in, and I do not want to miss them out either.
Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)
Q I want to ask all of you the same question I asked Max Hill about the detention powers in schedule 3, which obviously replicates powers in schedule 7 to the 2000 Act. There is obviously a balance between operating effectively and ensuring it is done fairly and appropriately, with compensation and so on. Where do you sit on the detention powers and how they are applied?
Stephen Doughty (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)
Q Is that the same for you?
Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)
Q Can I ask the witness from Liberty how you would amend clause 3?
Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)
Q This may be a little rhetorical. I remember, not exactly, it has to be said, with unalloyed pleasure, the very long debate that we had on the Investigatory Powers Bill—Mr Newlands and Mr Warman will also remember this—about the distinction between a journalist and a citizen journalist. It might just be my impression, but there always seems to be a disconnect between realpolitik and the outlook of Liberty. When was the last time that Liberty demonstrated either an appreciation or an understanding of the need for, or indeed a welcome of, any proposed legislation to deal with the significant and frightening threat that this country faces from those who wish us ill, both within it and outside it?
Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)
I did not actually use the word “radical”. That is an interpretation.
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
Thank you. That is now very much on the record.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Can I ask all three of you the same questions, to hear your views? First, to Liberty, as it stands section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 basically hinges on the collecting or downloading of material. Is it your view that that, too, should be struck out?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
It is either a principle or it is not. You either think it is wrong or it is not. Would you venture that section 58 is not needed?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q So downloading terrorist content and manuals on how to make a bomb and all that sort of stuff should not be an offence?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
That is training. What about downloading ISIS or al-Qaeda propaganda materials?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q On the broader issue of biometric data, the Government have responded to the Biometrics Commissioner’s recommendations. I hear the points about there not being enough safeguards and there being other issues previously. Does that mean that two years is too much already?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q First, the head of counter-terrorism would not have agreed with that. If you heard his evidence this morning, I think he welcomed the ability to deal with the streaming challenge. Secondly, on its own, as a stand-alone, section 58 is an offence—simply to collect material—and it does not necessarily have to be linked. Obviously you can deploy a reasonable excuse. My question to other witnesses has been: it may be that people do not like the three clicks and that sort of route, but if we were simply to amend section 58 to add in “he collects, makes or streams”, would that not achieve the same issue? There would still be reasonable excuse as a defence.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Would that not already exist? If I were to bring a charge under the existing section 58, and I proved that you had downloaded lots of things but you had not done anything with them, it is likely that a prosecutor would not prosecute. I do not think there has been a case in that environment. So as the offence stands at the moment you have to do more with it than just effectively download it.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q There are hundreds of examples of academics and journalists downloading some of this data, and they have not been prosecuted. There is no evidence of a chilling effect on existing journalists under the existing section 58. There is no evidence that prosecutors have been abusing their discretion to bring charges—or, indeed, that the judiciary has successfully allowed a prosecution.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q I just want to explore reasonable grounds in the schedule. How focused is reasonable grounds in the law that currently governs stop-and-search? Is it very specific to an individual? Is it currently able to be used in a broader environment where you simply have an indication that a knife is about to be used in an area? In other words, how elastic is that concept?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q If I had intelligence that we suspected that a hostile state would move some radioactive material via a passenger on an aeroplane into this country over the next six months, would that be too broad to target flights from a certain part of the world? For reasonable grounds to be satisfied, would that need to be narrower?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q But it may not get that narrow. It may not be something you can further explore. It may simply be that you know that between June and September, there is a plan to bring something—a radioactive material—into this country, and that is what I, as the Security Minister, will have to take a defence against.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q But would not using reasonable grounds or grounds of suspicion be doing that?
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
Q Looking at the powers of detention at the border, I see that there is no access to a solicitor for an hour, and there is a power for someone to have to speak to their solicitor within the hearing of an officer. Does that concern you?
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
Q And on the second part—about the conversation with the solicitor being in the presence of someone else?
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Scunthorpe)
Q But “in the sight of” is different from “in the hearing of”.
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
I wanted to raise this when we were debating the three clicks issue, but it seems to me that there are parallels between viewing terror material and viewing child pornography content. I am keen to understand your Q positions on the issue of establishing a pattern of behaviour and when is an appropriate time to prosecute somebody for viewing material.
Does Liberty believe that you should never be prosecuted simply for viewing material? Or are you arguing that, in the case of terror, viewing the material is not sufficiently serious, in comparison with something such as child pornography, that you should be able to convict somebody for it?
Julia Lopez (Conservative, Hornchurch and Upminster)
Q So a beheading would not be considered the same?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q I just wanted to clarify: terrorism content or extremist content?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q Inspire, a magazine written by al-Qaeda and promoted around the internet, or an ISIL document? Are those terrorist? I would say it is created by terrorists for spreading terrorist theology and hate.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q No, would you say that was terrorist content or extremism content?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q So a magazine written by al-Qaeda, claiming to be by al-Qaeda, which gives a theology about kufr and attacking everyone else, is inherently a terrorist publication?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
Q I understand the issue about extremism content, but when it comes to terrorist content, surely there is a crossover to the paedophile streaming and viewing?
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
Order. I am just conscious that the Minister is asking the questions.
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
You should just watch them; you will see people being executed in the background. I would guess that is harm.
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
If there is a moment left, I will come back, but I am conscious that Dr Huq would like to ask a question before we run out of time.
Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)
This morning, as you were saying, I asked the two panels about clause 3 and the potential for criminalising thought without action. I raised a case that was quite high profile at the time, and nobody from the two panels this morning had heard of them.Q
I wanted to ask you about, first, the issue of thought without action and secondly, the difference between lone wolves and proscribed organisations. The case I wanted to raise was the first ever person convicted under the Terrorism Act, in 2007, the 23-year-old “lyrical terrorist”—the person writing extremist poetry about beheading people. That resulted in an Old Bailey conviction that was later overturned by the Court of Appeal. What are your thoughts on that and this Bill? How would they apply? Have you heard of that case? Nobody this morning had, and I was surprised by that.
Simon Hoare (Conservative, North Dorset)
Are you sure you did not dream it?
Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)
It was all over the news at the time in 2007 and it was overturned in 2008.
Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)
Q Was Liberty involved in the 2007-08 case?
Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)
Q For good measure, Ms Bright?
Rupa Huq (Labour, Ealing Central and Acton)
Q I have another short question. Are the three of you aware of the Prevent programme having lost the confidence of certain communities? Do you have any comments on that?
Ben Wallace (Conservative, Wyre and Preston North)
GPs are not covered by the Prevent duty.
Gavin Newlands (Scottish National Party, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)
Q I think we have covered a fairly wide area. I want to go back to biometrics, because we missed out on that answer previously. Ms Bright and Mr Carter, do you think it is justifiable to retain biometrics information for five years, without oversight by a Biometrics Commissioner of those people who are not charged, whose charges are dropped or who are found innocent? Do you think that is of any use to the police and the security services?
Anne Main (Conservative, St Albans)
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the allotted time for the Committee to ask questions. I thank Ms Stoughton, Ms Bright and Mr Carter for the evidence they have given the Committee.