Clause 14
Counter-Terrorism Bill
4:45 pm
Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Law Officers; Beaconsfield, Conservative)
We now come to the issue of national security, which features in more than one of the subsequent clauses. As the Minister is aware, I have sought to delete the words “national security” from a number of places. I emphasise that this is a probing amendment. It is, nevertheless, a rather important one for reasons that I will explain briefly.
The Bill is about counter-terrorism, so it is ultimately about the prevention or detection of crime, which, as the Minister will see when he looks at clause 14, features clearly in the words in proposed new subsection (1AB), which refers to
“purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution”.
That covers not just the investigation of a crime after it has been committed, but the prevention of a crime before it is committed.
I believe the Minister will have little difficulty agreeing that, in the scope of counter-terrorism work, it is not immediately obvious what difference there might be between the interests of national security and the prevention of crime, because one would have thought that the sort of activity that takes place in the interests of national security is the prevention of crime, quite apart from its detection afterwards. I do not think that the Committee can simply gloss over the question of what other than the prevention or detection of crime, or, for that matter, the identification of a deceased person, is covered by the ambit of national security.
The term “national security” has a legal definition. It covers the scope of the activities of the security services and the Secret Intelligence Service. The Committee is entitled to ask the question, because I suspect that activities that previously have been conducted—I am mixing my metaphors—on the wrong side of the blanket, if one talks about conception, are now being brought to the right side of the blanket, and things that previously simply did not have a statutory framework at all are now being given one. If they are to be given a statutory framework, the Committee must ask exactly what it will be.
For example, is it being suggested that fingerprints, impressions of footwear or samples, however they may be treated in the different clauses—the amendments do not apply only to clause 14—can be used to protect the economic interests of the United Kingdom? What is the scope to which national security will apply for those purposes? That is the nub of the question that I wanted to ask the Minister.
Let us consider some of the later clauses to which the amendments would make deletions. Amendment No. 65 would amend clause 18, which deals with material not subject to existing statutory restrictions. The clause states:
“This section applies to...DNA samples or profiles, or...fingerprints, that are not held subject to existing statutory restrictions.”
I must assume that, in essence, that is security services and SIS material collated by from time to time taking DNA samples from possible suspects whom they have under surveillance in one form or another.
The clause goes on to state:
“Material to which this section applies that is held by a law enforcement authority in England and Wales...may be retained by that authority and used—
(a) in the interests of national security”.
That appears simply to be putting on a statutory footing what I suspect has already been happening, but perhaps the Minister would like to confirm that that is indeed the case.
I will leave until consideration of the detailed amendments to clause 18 itself the discussion of the counter-relationship, which is using material from the SIS and the security services to bring a prosecution. We touched on that, but the proper place to consider it will come later.
I hope that I have made my main point clear to the Minister. The amendments centre around the definition of national security. An understanding of that as we start our consideration of the clauses would help the Committee to understand what we are in fact making legal for the future that was not previously covered by any legal framework whatever.