Live Urgent Question House of Commons

particularly those who served on the committee for both houses, and I

would like to express my thanks to them for what they have done. I

think the Secretary of State's courtesy will be appreciated across

the house and I thank him for what he has just said. Order. To ask the

Home Secretary to make a statement on the case of Jamal al-Harith.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. At the outset, let me make it clear that

the United Kingdom takes the security of its people and allies

very seriously but will not hesitate to take action in the case of self

defence. The Government strongly discourages people travelling to

conflict zones. It is however the long-standing policy of successive

governments not to comment on intelligence matters. The monitoring

of individuals is an intelligence matter and the Government does not

and cannot comment on individual cases. Neither can the Government

comment on whether particular individuals have received

consultation payments. In November 2010, the then Minister for Justice

in informed the Government that... The details of that settlement were

subject to legally binding, confidentiality agreements and we

are therefore unable to confirm whether any specific individual

received such a settlement. More broadly, the Government's priority

is to dissuade people from travelling to areas of conflict in

the first place and our strategy works to identify and support

individuals at risk of radicalisation. In 2015, over 150

attempted journeys were disrupted. The Government's process to provide

support to individuals at risk of being drawn into terrorism was

rolled out in 2012, there have been over 4000 interventions to prevent

radicalisation. But we have been clear, we will seek to prosecute

those who travel abroad to commit terrorist attacks and our brave men

and women of the intelligence services and Lauren Forsman agencies

work everyday to make so that the risk to our is minimised. Yvette

Cooper. Mr Speaker, it is reported that Jamal al-Harith has died in a

suicide attack in Mosul and in doing so has killed many others in an

extremist regime. If these reports are accurate, he is a dangerous man

involved in extremism and should be condemned from all accounts. It is

reportedly receive a payment from the Government after concerns about

defending the case that he took would lead to the revelation of

intelligence and compromising national security. The former

reviewer of counterterrorism has provided information about this case

and so too has the former Home Secretary. I should just say to the

Minister that everyone understands there will be information that

cannot be revealed because of intelligence reasons, however he has

provided far too little about such a serious case. Can he confirm whether

Mr Jamal al-Harith was made any payment and also notwithstanding the

subsequent welcome legislation which had cross-party support to tighten

the law, would he agree that people across the country would feel

sickened that the idea of large payments being made to someone who

may have been involved in serious terrorist activity? We know that Mr

al-Harith was subjected terrorist monitoring of the 2004. Was he

subject to monitoring between 2010 when the payments were reportedly

made and leaving the country in 2014? Was he considered for a patrol

order or a TPIM? It is reported that al-Harith left to join Isil in 2014.

Was he being monitored at that time? Was he on any order watch list at

the time? The reason for as asking that question is because we want to

know legitimately whether this was lack of intelligence in his case or

whether there was some failure in the border watchlist system, in

which case there are some legitimate questions for this house to pursue.

What happened about the payment that was allegedly made to Mr al-Harith

and does the Government know whether any of that money was subsequently

used to fund extremist activity? Was there any monitoring in place for

any of these compensation cases that took place? And has there been any

attempt since Mr al-Harith left for Syria and Iraq to recover any of the

payments that have been made? Is any of that payment left now? And can

the Minister at least say whether the Government is now reviewing this

case and will at least provide a report to the intelligence and

Security committee who will be able to listen to all the questions

around intelligence so that we can understand whether such a serious

case has been properly pursued and that every possible action has been

taken both on the half of our national security and on the half of

the British taxpayer. Can I thank the right honourable

lady for her questions, can I also just say, like air unlike my

constituents we will be outweighed and is appointed by the sums of

money that had been paid, but I can't comment on the individual

cases, and unlike former Home Secretary is the government is bound

by its legal obligations that it has made and we cannot break those legal

commitments, but I can say that some of the one mobility that led us to

have do pay those damages, occurred when she was a member of the Labour

government and when those individuals brought claims against

us. I think it is important that we recognise that that is why some of

these claims at be paid out. And that is

why in outrageous sums of money that is reported, this government and the

Coalition government, brought forward the consolidated guidance,

David Cameron brought forward, to make sure that our intelligence

services act within the law and make sure that they get the full support

of the law in order to do their job and that is also why we brought

forward the Justice and Security act 2013 to make sure that in future

claims brought by such people held in quite an obey in 2004 can be

challenged in court with out revealing sensitive intelligent

information and therefore allow us to defend many of those claims, and

also why that act brought in stronger powers for the intelligence

and Security committee in order that that committee can investigate such

incidents and make sure that it gives confidence to this House that

such events are properly investigated lessons I learned that

they need to be, but also allegations can be put to rest if

they are found to be false. That happen as a result of these type of

payment and that was done under the Coalition government of David

Cameron to make sure that we minimised the risk of it ever

happening again. I note that you are aware that before I came to this

place I worked as a government lawyer, although I didn't work on

this case specifically colleagues in the Department of which I worked

where involved of course in this case... Know it is not! In this

country we have a proud tradition of law and law that supports not only

people who are attracted to the General people, but also people in

whom the general public would not always have sympathy, the question I

would like to put the Minister is how much and to what extent, has he

worked and has this government worked to enable the rule of law to

be upheld to enable the secret courts built to come into effect so

that we can study these cases properly? Thank you. I am grateful

to my honourable friend for her question. By introducing

consolidated guidance to guide our intelligence services when they

operate abroad, by introducing the act that I referred to and beefing

up the ISC, all of that put simply is a much more robust structure, so

that we are not the victim of people coming along and trying to sue us

for actions we may all may not have taken. That is the most important

part of it but also it is important to point out to the House that we

will act in accordance with our inherent duty and right of self

defence. What we will always put first is the defence of our citizens

and our nation and make sure that we do that is the best of our ability.

Terrorism is the scourge of modern democracies, it has meant that the

front line of international conflict has moved from the battlefield to

our homes and high streets, therefore there will be natural

public concern about the case of Jamal Al-Harith, who was allegedly

played 1 million in compensation by the UK Government following his

incarceration in quite an obey. There will be natural public

concerns that the Minister has chosen to hide behind the notion of

sense of intelligence to fail to answer even the most simple factual

question about this case. I repeat, was there any payment, we do not

need to know how much, but was there any payment, is there any truth in

the idea that the settlement was designed to stop Al-Harith making an

embarrassing allegations about the torturing of the UK citizen? Given

the monitoring of British citizens are how was he able to leave the

country in travel to Sydney in 2014 and will the government rebuke this

case and refer it to the security and intelligence select committee

which we believe would be the appropriate and secret method of

dealing with these very important issues? Dashed travel to Syria. Of

course the intelligence committee has the power, now, because of our

acts to make sure that it has the power to properly investigate these

issues and members of that committee will have been listening to this

debate and it is highly for them to choose what they want to invest

about eight, but if they choose to we will of course comply as we are

obliged to and as we wish to do. And I think that is very important to do

that. The right honourable lady asked me to disclose intelligence,

operations concerning an individual I cannot do that, that has never

been the practice of this government, the last government and

the government before, and we are not hiding behind that phrase, we

are actually having to oblige ourselves in line with the legally

binding confidentiality agreement made between Her Majesty's

government and the parties involved. I am sure that she is not trying to

encourage me to break the law and reveal details about compensation!

It is reported that around ?20 million has been paid to form a

one-time obey detainees, 16 in number. This morning Lord Blunkett

suggested that that Sun should be formally reviewed, since the public

will be dismayed and particularly concerned if any of that money has

gone to fund terrorism, Willie undertake... My right honourable

friend raises an important point about the destination about what

happens to any money paid individuals, one of the reasons we

took through the criminal finance Bill is to give is even more powers

to track money destined for terrorism and to deal with it. I

think that that is incredibly important. The Commons of the former

Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, is of course the matter they him, no doubt

he may be questioned by intelligence and Security committee about what

role he and his colleagues took in making sure that British citizens'

interests where protected when they were in Guantanamo Bay at the time

which may have let these claims in the first place. Pan I associate

myself with comments of the honourable member for Pontefract and

Casa board and state that the SNP are committed to protecting the

people of Scotland and keeping our communities safe whilst recognising

that this needs to be balanced with the protection of Civil Liberties.

We recognised the way in which people are becoming radicalised and

constantly of Olding Ali much remain vigilant. Police forces across

Scotland have been extremely vigilant and many are working

closely with the Scottish Muslim community to prevent violent

extremism and radicalism, however it has been suggested that the reason

that Jamal Al-Harith was able to travel to Mosul was due to the Home

Office under the current Prime Minister weaken surveillance of

terror suspects due to issues of resource. What will this government

do to meet this duty of care and vigilance in the monitoring those

who have been vulnerable to radicalisation and address any

issues of resource in order to do this effectively? Can I just say to

the honourable lady that in my time as security minister how impressed I

have been with the Scottish police work across the United Kingdom to

put that United Kingdom citizens and people living in Scotland from the

threat of terrorism and I have been to visit them and nowhere in the

event and the filling the contest are that we agreed between the UK

Government and the Scottish Government is why we are seeing in

many areas people being prevented from travelling and persuaded away

from radicalisation. I am grateful for the Scottish Government and its

role in making sure that people are safer in Scotland. Of course

everything we do is within the rule of law, the rights of the country to

take action in self defence means that I would urge members to look at

the government memorandum that was written to the joint community of

human rights whether government restated U of when it is legally

able to take action against individuals, as do the funding point

that the honourable lady raises, we have increased our funding in

Prevent year on in so that we put a focus on persuading people, as much

as we put into the areas of the shoe. Mr Speaker, I was a strong

supporter of the 2030 act which was bitterly opposed by elements in this

House, some of them I am sorry to say on our own benches, but it is

quite a mother step in the right direction. Would my honourable

friend except that in the absolute heart of the concept of will look

law is public confidence in the system? The current framework of

human rights as it affects areas like our ability to monitor suspects

is unsatisfactory and it is one more reason why we have to review human

rights law in this country? I hear the points, but I would just remind

him that collectively this House took through the investigatory

Powers act with a huge amount of amendments tabled from all sides

that the government conceded on and we worked across parties to deliver

that we believe is a robust and successful piece of legislation that

can comply with human rights obligations bought also make sure

that our people are kept safe and give the powers to intelligence

services that they need in the 21st-century to face the fact that

posed against this, the tables. Mr Speaker, the root cause of the

problem here is the operation of the date pension time, Guantanamo Bay,

the government previously supported President Obama's as missing see it

close, the current president said he was going to load it up with some

bad dudes, does the government now support President Obama's position

of president Trump's position? We should see what the actions are in

themselves before we comment on the USA. As a young officer in Northern

Ireland is that torture, and degrading people doesn't like and

doesn't get the results that you want and usually extends conflict

and people should know that the use of torture will not be tolerated and

that is why I was delighted in the criminal finance Bill on Tuesday to

introduce a new power to allow the government and law enforcement

agents to freeze assets of people guilty of human rights abuse

anywhere in the world. Mr Speaker I'm grateful you calling me in this

important question. I was an Army officer servicing and though I was

not aware of the particular incident arising around this case I am aware

of the situation that could have caused rise to it and I welcome the

decision of David Blunkett. It is a difficult decision to know when and

how to put evidence in the public field that could endanger the lives

of fellow citizens, he took a difficult decision and perhaps

resulted in a payment that none of us, letters be honest comfortable

with, but if that payments saved the lives of others by not revealing

sources, it was the right decision politically and morally. We should

defend him. I would ask the Minister who is in his place to talk about,

rather than that decision the changes that have happened that

means that instead of playing those payments, today we can have a proper

trial, in a closed court admittedly, to hold the evidence to account and

to see what the real decision should be. My honourable friend is right,

at the heart of some of this was the inability for us to test the

allegations in an open court that were being put to us and that is why

we put forward the Justice and Security act in 2013 which brought

in the closed material proceedings and has also the swords is the beat

of intelligence and Security committee to make sure that that

wasn't a used or any other issues. I think we shouldn't forget there are

many people in this House who opposed this act which would have

left us facing even more claims, potentially pay-outs.

Understandably there is much concern about public money being given to

those engaging in terrorism, and obviously we all deplore it. But

those of us who campaigned against British nationals being held in

Guantanamo Bay are not going to offer any apology, that we were

right to campaign, and if people are suspected of terrorist offences, if

there is evidence. -- if there is evidence, they should be tried.

I'm not going to ask the honourable member to apologise for campaigning

on Guantanamo Bay. The best place for these things to happen is in a

court of law, with evidence presented. I sat on his bench is

listening to a labour company -- Government constantly trying to make

the intelligence with evidence, I think him and I were in the same

division lobbies. It is my long held experience that you do it in a court

of law, with the rule of law and with appropriate evidence.

Following on from what my honourable friend said, will the Minister say

if the Government is exploring any options to recover the compensation

paid to people from Guantanamo Bay? The taxpayers have been ripped off,

terrorists have prospered from the appalling activities, and the public

are rightly disgusted and they want to know what the Government is

trying to do to rectify that. My honourable friend makes a valid

point, and I will go from here and make sure that where we have legally

binding agreements, they are currently monitored, and where there

is a breach, we will recover any monies we can. The British public

will be completely bewildered by the lack of information the Minister has

provided for us today. This is not simply an issue of the individual

case, but it is a policy issue we need to reflect on. The debate is

already raging out there, with a lot of misinformation. There are issues

the Minister needs to answer on what the monitoring was, is he confident

we are monitoring our suspects? How are we monitoring people's -- people

through the Monday -- money-laundering laws we have, to

monitor any changes in behaviour? The Minister said the Government is

discouraging people from travelling to Syria. It looks to the British

public like they have funded it. It is a regrettable part, Mr Speaker,

of the operation of the security services and often are police, that

we cannot saying about our successes as much as we would like. Every day

we managed to prevent people at the border going across to do harm,

either within Europe or further afield, we often have to do this

based on intelligence we cannot reveal, but we use the powers we

have in order to do that. There are occasions where we have to discuss

whether we could have done more or less. That is why we give more power

to the Intelligence and Security Committee in this House, so we could

ask all the deep searching questions without putting at risk agents,

methods, capabilities and technologies, that we need so

diligently to protect, in order to make sure that more and more people

are kept safe, from an ever more determined group of terrorists.

There was a long campaign to return British citizens from Guantanamo Bay

and for them to face a proper trial. Does the Minister share my

disappointment that more effort was not made to see how more sensitive

information could not be held in camera, and would he confirmed that

that Laguna has since been addressed by the Government? Guantanamo Bay

goes back way before the Coalition Government got into power, it took

literally from 2010, 2011 when we started making plans for the Justice

Security act, to do that, I think the questions for what was done

before is a matter for a former Government. Can I does associate

myself from these disgraceful attacks -- attacks on campaigning to

release British suspects from Guantanamo Bay. Lord Carlile has

stated that Jamal Al-Harith and others were paid compensation to

prevent the release of security information. It is a bit late for

the Minister now to rest on confidentiality. Can he tell as

this, what was the date of the confidentiality Clause which the

Minister was citing, or is that also confidential? First of all, perhaps

I could respond to the right honourable gentleman's point about

the attacks on the Daily Mail. I don't think anybody has heard from

this dispatch box and attack on the Daily Mail. As I said in my answer,

November 2010 we made a legal -- legally binding confidentiality

agreement. The keyword "Legally binding", which I'm sure he will

understand but an obligation on us, it doesn't put an obligation on

former Home Secretary is by the sounds of things, but on this

Government, and should it even be an SNP Government, they would be

legally obliged to stick to the confidentiality agreement, and he

knows it. Does my honourable friend agree that as there were 16

applications for closed material proceedings in the first two years

after the passing of the Justice and Security act 2013, that potentially

millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money has been saved

simply because the security services are now free to present the evidence

that they have? I think, hopefully, the closed material proceedings are

doing what we wanted, which is to see of vexatious claims, test the

evidence, and make sure that where the allegations are unfounded, the

UK Government is not vulnerable to paying out money or compensation.

The Minister has admitted that the Government he is a member of has

made these payments. I accept his point about confidentiality, but can

I asked him a simple question. What was the decision-making process in

agreeing these payments? Which ministers agree to these payments?

That the Member for Maidenhead, the current climate Mr, when she was

Home Secretary, agreed to them, or is that banned by the confidentially

agreement? The best thing to do is to write to the honourable member. I

was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the right honourable

member for Rushcliffe in the Ministry of Justice. If I said that

my memory of the time was that it was the Ministry of Justice or the

Government, I may be misleading the House inadvertently. The best thing

is to write accurately, but we all take responsibility, the whole

Government stands by its legally binding commitment. Does my

honourable friend not agree that the best way to deal with tragic cases

like this, and the many other cases that have happened of this nature,

is to prevent radicalisation in the first place? Once radicalisation's

happen, when it is bought our intelligence services and border

officials, and work internationalisation --

internationally with other countries to deal with the consequences. My

honourable friend makes an important point, but the whole way we can

tackle this thread is by working together but internally in the UK,

at our borders, between all the agencies, and our international

partners, which we do more and more to make sure that when people are

the threatened to come to this country or when they threaten to

leave and do harm elsewhere, that the best our ability we deterred

them and deal with them. It is a pity we have not heard any regret

from the Labour Party, who lobbied intensely to have this dangerous

terrorist released in 2004, but given the fact that he was on the

loose, can the Minister explain why and how our security was so slack

that he was able to lead this country, he was able to use the

funds which he has had available to him to finance terrorism to go and

kill people? The honourable member knows from his own personal

experience the efforts that go into countering terrorism. The resource,

the man hours, and indeed the risk that are taken. -- the risks. He

will also know as a member in Northern Ireland but it is an easier

said than done job. It is very hard dealing with all the threats every

day, and people have to make judgments. I think we need to

understand that our successes are the issues we can rarely advertise,

and unfortunately in some cases people choose to focus on areas that

we have, you know, have come to light recently. It is really

important I think to remember that people get -- take in good faith

judgment calls to make sure that we keep people safe. It is not an easy

thing to do, and I have the highest regard for our intelligence services

and police, who have to make life or death decisions every day, without

any reward, recognition or benefit. Does my honourable friend agree that

this case shows the moral, legal and security dilemmas thrown up when

someone is suspected of terrorism or intending to commit an act of

terror, but there is insufficient evidence to conflict them? There

were loud protests in favour of closing Guantanamo Bay, and now I

cry when a former Guantanamo Bay detainee goes on and commits an act

of terror. -- now an outcry. There is a balance not only about how we

live -- live in our society, it implies an element of open borders.

It is also about the balance between the rights of individuals and the

rights of the state to interfere in people's lives. It is a very tricky

balance, and it is a life balance that is made as I say every day, and

we do it within the rule of law, and we are grateful as any Government

when we get the support of the House to improve those measures, such as

the Justice and Security act, that improved accountability of some of

our law enforcement agencies, and I think that is the real challenge,

and it will not change no matter who is sitting on the Treasury benches.

It is a balance we always have to try to achieve to do better now of

-- with. The Minister did not answer the question, is anybody currently

on a TPIM? As we know UK citizens have travelled to fight for Di Ash

and return to this country, can I say, I am very surprised indeed if

there are not some people on TPIM to make sure that we are protecting the

people in this country? Every year there is a manual bulletin of

numbers of TPIMs. I think nine was the latest number or maybe sex. It's

six, there we are. But will obviously be refreshed, and when

that is published you were able to see the next -- latest number. Can I

assure the honourable lady that TPIMs is one of the tools we use to

make sure people are monitored or deterred from taking dangerous

action. It is just one tool, we use it when we need to, and we will

continue to do so. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank my right honourable

friend for dragging the Home Office here. Obviously totally ill

prepared, no understanding of this real issue, and no concern about

what has happened. The former Home Secretary, the now Prime Minister,

cut 50% of our border staff, and has allowed this individual to go

through those gates unhindered. Also the fact that the measures they have

brought in has also affected, actually there was no sign of this

individual. It is no good hiding behind the security services, but

why hasn't Government dealt with this issue? I'm grateful to the

honourable member for his question. Although he might like to reflect on

some of his comments. First of all, it was this Government who brought

in extra checks which did not exist under his Government. When you use

an ego, it is not unmonitored, -- of course e-gates are monitored. Nobody

was dragged to this House, like the sound of my own voice, I am happy to

stay here all afternoon if he wants to answer questions on the issue. It

is not good enough for the Minister to simply hide behind intelligence

as an excuse for not answering the most basic questions about this

dreadful case, so let me try a policy question. What assessment has

he made the impact on the Coalition Government's disastrous decision to

scrap Labour's control orders, and his ability to monitor people like

this? First of all, the right honourable gentleman forgets the

position of the control orders were before the courts, because funnily

enough as I pointed out earlier, his Government didn't seem to have

acquired the right regard for the Human Rights Act or the rule of law

as they should, and were constantly seeing their measures struck down.

We do believe TPIMs are a good policy, we will use them wherever we

can and wherever we are needing to, to make sure that we do everything

to keep people under control who pose a threat, and so far we have

not abandoned that or failed to use it when the need presents itself.

Can the Minister reassures that he knows the current status and

whereabouts of the other three people released from what can obey

alongside Mr Al-Harith in 2004? Well, I'm going to say to the right

honourable gentleman that I cannot comment on the level of our

operations or knowledge or surveillance, however I can reassure

him that as I have said the powerful intelligence and Security permission

can ask all those details and investigate those issues

unilaterally, to make sure that if they need those answers they can get

them and reassure the House whether enough is being done or not enough.

Can I welcome the Minister's commitment to my phone from North

Durham to write to him and tell him which minister took the decision

about the compensation? He did mention the introduction of exit

checks and lead this individual subject to one when he left the

country, can he give an account on the government's point of view in

this case of what happened after that individual left the country? As

I said at the beginning of my answer, I cannot comment on the

individual case or on the intelligence behind it, but as I

have said the intelligence Security committee is perfectly able to look

into that, I would also say that the idea of which particular minister

did it, is likely a red herring, the United Kingdom government was

obliged to make certain agreements because of the vulnerability it

found itself under as a result of 2004 and the allegations divide when

a number of the people in your benches were members of that

government. Not on my benches. In fact I do not have the bench. But,

very comfortable chair. Basically, when the Prime Minister was Home

Secretary and all the Justice Secretary agreed warmly medium

pounds or thereabouts, for a man who went on to commit a significant

terrorist act which cover many people. Why the Minister thinks that

he can hide behind legal confidentiality and security so as

not to even assuage any of the basics concerns that all of our

voters will have is a mystery to me. The man is dead for a start and

secondly the Bill of Rights says that no proceeding in Parliament

shall be impeached or questions by any Court of law, he can tell us

anything he wants today if only he had the courage to do so. Mr Speaker

they always say the best the last, the honourable member absolutely

uses the word himself, "Legally" it seems to have missed his attention,

if he wants to investigate more than I think I would prefer him to the

intelligence and Security committee who have all the powers that this

government gave them and the Coalition governments to make sure

that they get the bottom of the issues. Thank you. Or death,

business question. Thank you, --- or death. Could the Leader of the House

gives the forthcoming business. The business the next week will be as

follows, estimates date Monday the... There will be a debate on

future drug prevention followed by a debate on health and social care.

Tuesday the 28th of that be, there will be a debate on the government's

productivity plan