The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill reaches the Lords…

Parliament returned to Westminster on Tuesday after the conference recess, and the Lords was immediately presented with one of those challenges it so often rises to, another anti-terrorism Bill, the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, which received its Second Reading.

From the Liberal Democrat benches, Jonathan Marks outlined the four key tests against which the proposals would be judged;

First, what is the purpose of the measure and what is the mischief it seeks to address? Secondly, is the measure necessary to achieve that purpose? Thirdly, is the measure a proportionate response to the mischief, having regard to the restrictions on liberty that it entails, and in particular would a more limited response achieve the purpose in a more proportionate way? Fourthly, will the measure be effective in achieving its purpose?”

http://bit.ly/2yraFuQ

Sally Hamwee, in her usual forensic style, highlighted the seemingly low thresholds for establishing criminal intent, in particular in defining recklessness and reasonable suspicion. The definition of a hostile act against a State was also, in her view, in need of rather better definition than was currently on the face of the Bill.

Martin Thomas gave a potted history of the issues surrounding the word ‘reckless’, with particular reference to some of his former cases, before turning his attention to the potential impact of the Bill on legal professional privilege. Paragraph 26(1) of the Bill states:

A direction under this paragraph may provide that a detainee who wishes to exercise the right under paragraph 23, to consult a lawyer privately may, if the direction is made, consult a solicitor only in the sight and hearing of a qualified officer

— that is, an eavesdropping officer.

As Lord Thomas noted;

It is important for people to realise that defence solicitors and barristers need to have professional privilege to see their client privately to carry out the sometimes rough interrogation of their own client, which can lead only to the proper result.

Andrew Stunell took as his theme the question of Channel panels. I suspect that there aren’t that many people who know that these are early intervention multi-agency panels designed to safeguard vulnerable individuals from being drawn into extremist or terrorist behaviour. More than 6,000 people were referred to them in 2016-17, and the proposal is to allow local authorities, who currently establish and run them, to refer people to them. Noting that only 6% of those referred are seen as requiring intervention, he queried the effectiveness of the current referral process, and indeed, of the entire Prevent strategy.

Summing up from our benches, Brian Paddick confirmed that our Parliamentarians would;

… support any necessary and proportionate measure that makes the United Kingdom safer or will help defeat terrorism, but we will not support measures that we consider to be disproportionate and counterproductive.

whilst reiterating our concerns regarding Prevent, and seeking not only an independent review of Prevent but a recasting of the programme with a much more community-based approach that is incorporated into other safeguarding functions.

The Bill reaches its Committee Stage on 29 October, and it will be intriguing to see whether the Government responds to some of the concerns raised from the Opposition and Crossbenches.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

One Comment

  • Hooray! Liberal Democrats tackling a bill that is horribly illiberal in places. A nice reminder of what we are here for.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarPaul Walter 19th Oct - 6:53pm
    "Boris said he would not obey the Benn Act, because there was no legal reason to do so" No he didn't. He said: "I will...
  • User AvatarRichard Underhill 19th Oct - 6:39pm
    19th Oct '19 - 9:34am "We’ll see where all the flakes fall at lunch time." We did not. The Letwin amendment was carried, Boris said...
  • User AvatarPaul Walter 19th Oct - 6:30pm
    Joan, your vote hasn't been ignored. The European Parliament, which controls decisions made by "the leadership" is elected by you and others in the UK....
  • User AvatarRichard Underhill 19th Oct - 6:08pm
    Mrs Thatcher's foreign secretary (Pym) tried to negotiate, so she sacked him. The Argentinian junta wanted the land. We wanted the people to be safe...
  • User AvatarMick Taylor 19th Oct - 6:00pm
    There is a big difference between the ID card system that we successfully opposed and voter ID cards. The ID system that was proposed and...
  • User AvatarRob Cannon 19th Oct - 5:20pm
    Is the LibDem leadership going to confirm that Stephen Lloyd will not be a LibDem candidate at the next election after voting for the withdrawal...