| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Goodhart: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether he agrees that there are many cases in which a reasonable belief could arise in circumstances where no prosecution is possible—for instance, where it is based on inadmissible evidence or
where it is a belief on the balance of probabilities but falling short of beyond reasonable doubt. In those circumstances, is the Minister saying that there can be detention on the basis of a suspicion which falls short even of the balance of probabilities?
Lord Rooker: I do not think that the argument is about that point. The noble Lord's question would probably be best answered in the debates on the appeal procedure. The person will have the right to appeal. The certificate will have to be reviewed by SIAC. The Home Secretary will grant a certificate under Clause 21(1) on the basis I have outlined—that is, if he suspects that the person is an international terrorist as defined by the Bill—subject, of course, to the amendments that I shall be moving later in the debate.
Lord Elton: As the Minister has referred to his response to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord King— which I supported and debated with him—can he tell the Committee how this idea will be taken forward by the Government? First, is it likely to be a concrete proposition before we arrive at Report? Of course, one of the Government's objects must be to reassure the House as to the minimal risk of passing ill digested legislation.
Secondly, what thought has been given to what the product of such a review might be? Two days—one in each House—discussing matters of interest will be important, but the importance diminishes if there is no result from that except a sigh of, XOh dear, it's not working as well as we hoped".
Lord Rooker: I have put out this suggestion in order to listen to what noble Lords have to say. The product would be a consideration of how the Act has operated. It may be that those who have seen how it has operated will say, XWell, in this area, it is absolutely first class. Ministers have got it really bang to rights. But they have really screwed it up here and we think that there should be some technical changes". Therefore, any report they wished to make to the Home Secretary for debate in Parliament would contain recommendations—either, first, XEverything is okay", or, secondly, XWe think certain matters should be revisited".
How it will be taken forward will depend largely upon the reaction that we get from noble Lords. If people say, XThis is not what we want. It is not worth a candle", we shall have to look for some other way. But we have given the idea serious consideration. The noble Lord, Lord King, made a very positive point. He took account of one issue—not the detail of all the individual issues in the Bill but the central issue of the whole Bill being directed towards this emergency and the prevention of other emergencies, the precautionary issue, if you like.
Some measures will be Xsunsetted", some we do not propose to sunset, but we will look at the totality of the Act, after a reasonable period of time, and say, XLook, does the Act do what Parliament intended it to do and has it proved to be operationally feasible?". That will
be a useful exercise. It will take account of the fast-tracking of the Bill through both Houses. But it largely depends on the reaction of noble Lords. If we can come to some kind of agreement, it could be done quite quickly.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I imagine that there will be discussions through the usual channels or between the principal Front Bench spokesmen involved in the Bill. I hope that in those discussions will be raised the possibility of a small addition to the guarantee of time—that is, a guarantee that, if both Houses are of the view that a change needs to be made where Ministers have screwed up because of a technicality, to quote the Minister, sufficient time will be available to put right what has gone wrong.
That is a considerable undertaking—I do not ask the Minister to give it now because it is a commitment of parliamentary time—but it will make the difference between this being a nice gesture and an actual improvement.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I am in no position to commit any more parliamentary time than I have already committed—that is, a guarantee that the report will be debated in both Houses. I ask the noble Lord to put himself in a position, 15 months down the road, where the issue has been looked at in the way I have described, or in some similar way. If there were concrete suggestions for modifications which gained the acceptance, generally speaking, of both Houses, they would have to be taken seriously. However, I cannot guarantee the position; it would be a matter for discussion. It may be that this would not meet the needs or desires of the original proposal.
However, we have looked at the suggestion. We have not stopped looking at ways to improve the Bill. We understand that we are fast-tracking the Bill through Parliament. There are no guillotines in this House—noble Lords will have eight days of debate; the other place has had three. We understand that and we want to take it into account so far as it concerns the whole Bill and not only the narrow parts that we have already committed to statutory review. We shall use our best endeavours.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: To return to the amendment under debate, I gather from the Minister's reply that the word Xsuspects" is a device to avoid the Terrorism Act from kicking in—that Act providing, of course, ample remedies for a person who is thought to be a terrorist. How can the Secretary of State reasonably believe a person to be a risk to national security and not reasonably believe him to be an international terrorist? What other threats to national security does the Minister have in mind in using that phrase?
I follow my noble friend Lord Goodhart in asking again what level of information has to be placed before a Minister to give him the reasonable suspicion that a person is an international terrorist. Is it a 1 per cent of
certainty belief; a 10 per cent of certainty belief; or what? Guidance needs to be given both to the Secretary of State and to SIAC, which reviews his decision, as to the standard of proof that has to be put before the Minister for him to come to the conclusion that a person could be an international terrorist. I should be grateful if the Minister could deal with that point.
Lord Rooker: The terms of Clause 21(1)—in other words, the grounds on which the Secretary of State would issue a certificate—state that he has, first, reasonably to believe that the person's presence is a risk to national security; and then suspect that the person is an international terrorist. It may be, for example, that we cannot prove, on the second limb, that someone is a member of a particular organisation, but we have enough grounds for believing that that person's presence in the UK is a threat to national security. Because of the information available, it may be impossible to do anything more than suspect that the person is an international terrorist.
There are two limbs in the clause. Suspicion is less than belief, but the suspicion that someone is a member of a terrorist organisation has to go with the first limb. The two limbs go together; there has to be a belief that there is a risk to national security and a suspicion—not a belief—that the person is an international terrorist. We may not have the proof that a person is a member of an international terrorist organisation, but that will have to be set out in the certificate that is placed before SIAC. I cannot give an assessment of the risk on a scale of one to 10. I do not think that anyone would be in a position to do so until an actual case arose and a certificate had to be written.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Will the Minister forgive me for coming back on this point? How can the Secretary of State Xsuspect" that a person is an international terrorist—something rather less than Xbelieving" that he is an international terrorist—and then go on to Xbelieve" (which is the higher level of belief),
- Xthat the person's presence in the United Kingdom is a risk to national security"?
Lord Rooker: It is not. But I cannot go into it, because it will be a combination of facts that are known publicly and inadmissible evidence. The very reason that we shall not prosecute the person in the first place is that the evidence will be inadmissible in court.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment. Unless it is accepted, the provision makes no sense in practice. In moving towards certainty, Xbelief" is nearer than Xsuspicion". I shall not go into percentages as regards the burden of proof. This is not a trial; it is an executive decision, taken reasonably by the Minister. But as part of that process, he really ought to Xbelieve"—which is a higher standard than merely Xsuspecting". I am totally behind the issuing of
a certificate and have supported it all along. But to issue a certificate, with all the consequences, the Secretary of State really ought to Xbelieve". This is a sensible amendment, which works better in practice.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |