---

Lord Rooker: I speak before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, as I cannot speak to it after she has done so. I shall take advice on her suggestion and come back to her.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I thank the Minister for his reply. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 60 [Duty to notify Secretary of State before keeping or using any dangerous substance]:

[Amendment No. 143AB not moved.]

Clause 60 agreed to.

Clause 61 [Power to require information about security of dangerous substances]:

[Amendment No. 143BA not moved.]

Clause 61 agreed to.

Clause 62 [Power to require information about persons with access to dangerous substances]:

[Amendment No. 143BB not moved.]

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 144:

Page 31, line 17, after Xmay" insert Xreasonably".

3 Dec 2001 : Column 672

The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. In this House we always have difficulties in relation to what is or is not Xreasonable". Clause 62 provides that:

XA police officer of at least the rank of inspector may give to the occupier of any relevant premises"—

that is, somewhere that holds these nasty materials—

Xa notice requiring him to give the chief officer of police a list of",

persons who have access, and so on. We have no difficulty with most of that until we reach Clause 62(7). That subsection states:

XAny list under this section must . . . identify the access which the person has, or is proposed to have . . . state the full name of that person, his date of birth, his address and his nationality".

If we are dealing with counter-terrorism, there is no difficulty with any of that because we are dealing with individuals and, indeed, that information must be known.

However, paragraph (7)(c) states,

Xcontain such other matters (if any) as may be prescribed".

The difficulty there which we have sought to resolve with this amendment by inserting the word Xreasonably" is that Xsuch other matters" might become unreasonable for some unfortunate reason. Such cases are not unknown because we are talking about human relations. For example, the head of a firm operating that type of business may have an argument on a Friday night with a local policeman of the rank of inspector or above. That may all sound highly improbable but, sadly, it is not unknown.

Therefore, we considered that it would be better if paragraph (c) included the word Xreasonably" so that it read,

Xcontain such other matters . . . as may reasonably be prescribed".

That would keep the matters relevant to the issue and not simply create an administrative burden which otherwise might become unreasonable. At the end of the day, while we have every obligation to do everything that we possibly can to contain the appalling problems which terrorism can create, we also have an obligation to ensure that we do not create burdens such that business cannot function effectively and profitably. If it does not function profitably, it will not function at all. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: I hope that I shall be able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that his proposed amendment would not in practice provide any additional safeguards against the possibility that the police might ask for information about people with access to dangerous pathogens beyond what is reasonable.

As the noble Lord said, Clause 62 states that the police may seek the name, address, date of birth and nationality of such people. They may also ask for additional information which may be prescribed. If it were prescribed, it would appear in regulations under the negative procedure. Therefore, it would be for Parliament to decide whether any information which it is proposed that the police should be empowered to ask for about such people were reasonable or not. If it were not considered reasonable, the regulations would

3 Dec 2001 : Column 673

not pass. If it were possible that an unreasonable set of regulations could pass, their application could, of course, be challenged in the courts.

One other reason why we do not believe that we should agree to the amendment is that it would cast doubt on the validity of many other regulations where none should exist. A court might take a more limited view of what matters were reasonable than might the Secretary of State, who would have the benefit of advice from the police as to why they wanted additional information.

We have no current plans to bring forward any regulations under this subsection. The immediate question that comes to mind is: if we did have, what would it be? The answer is: information. Having taken advice during the day, I can tell the Committee that, if extra background information were required, we might, for example, seek details of the qualifications or, indeed, the place of training of the people working in the laboratories. However, we have no plans beyond those set out in the Bill. With that explanation, I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I believe that I heard him say that the reassurance that my noble friend sought was contained in the fact that any other requirement that was to be put on the list would have to be agreed through a statutory process. Can he show us where that requirement is set out in the Bill? It does not appear to be in this part, and I am not sufficiently familiar with the Bill to know where it is.

Lord Rooker: There is no way to prescribe other than by a statutory instrument. The police have powers on the face of the Bill, in primary legislation, under Clause 62(1). That measure has the force of law because it is set out in the Bill. If the list had to be added to, that would be defined in Clause 75, I believe. If something is prescribed, it is axiomatic that it is set out in regulations. The interpretation which is set out in Clause 75 provides a definition in line 19. It states,

X'prescribed' means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State".

I hope that that answers the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The information for which the police can ask is clearly set out on the face of the Bill. The definition of Xprescribed" clearly indicates that regulations have come before Parliament.

Lord Elton: I am most grateful. That is quite clear.

Lord Dixon-Smith: Like my noble friend Lord Elton, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. Unfortunately, I am not a government Minister and the noble Lord is. I hope that he will forgive me the irreverence, but I am less confident than he is that an unreasonable regulation under the negative procedure will never slip through the House. Not least of the problems that we have in relation to the Bill is the number of occasions on which it is dependent on regulations. We have constantly argued that the regulatory procedure suffers from the much

3 Dec 2001 : Column 674

greater disadvantage of inadequate supervision. That said, I have listened to what the Minister had to say and I shall study it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 144A not moved.]

Clause 62 agreed to.

Clauses 63 and 64 agreed to.

9 p.m.

Clause 65 [Denial of access to dangerous substances]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 145:

Page 32, line 12, at end insert Xor the security of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom"

The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a rather more serious matter. Clause 65 refers to Xaccess to dangerous substances", and states that the

XSecretary of State may give directions to the occupier of any relevant premises requiring him to secure that the person identified in the directions . . . is not to have access"

and so on.

Again we are dealing with the problems of people who might be terrorists, associated with terrorist organisations, or who have behaved suspiciously in the past.

Clause 65(3) states:

XThe Secretary of State may not give the directions unless he believes that they are necessary in the interests of national security".

It is acknowledged and a fact of sad history that the United States is all too often a prime target for terrorist groups, particularly Al'Qaeda. That may continue to be so, and other countries may well become terrorist targets. We thought it desirable to add to the end of Clause 65(3) the words,

Xor the security of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom".

That would permit the Secretary of State to make such a prohibition if he was concerned that somebody who was associated with a terrorist organisation that was involved with terrorist activity which would not affect this country, but which might affect some other part of the world. I ask the Minister to consider the position carefully. The amendment would do nothing to endanger the fundamentals of the Bill but would enhance the power of the Secretary of State to deal with such situations and, more importantly, it would give encouragement to our friends and neighbours that we were concerned not only with our own interests but with theirs. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: We have a great deal of sympathy for this amendment and were it not for what I am about to say, we would have accepted it. I hope that I can show why it is not necessary. The purpose behind it will be covered.

The events since 11th September have drawn attention to the international nature of terrorism and the terrorist networks. It is conceivable that there may be someone in this country who is intent on terrorist activity in another country but who poses no

3 Dec 2001 : Column 675

immediate terrorist threat here. In such circumstances, we would not expect the Secretary of State knowingly to allow that person to have access to substances that could be used to devastating effect by those intent on terror. That would not be in the interests of national security. Those who trade in terror pose a general risk to the security of the international community. The risk is a general one. Dangerous substances in the hands of one terrorist could well end up in the hands of others. Adding a specific reference to the security of other countries to the term Xnational security" would imply that the expression had more limited meaning in other statutes, which we must avoid.

I remind Members of the Committee of the words that were quoted last Thursday during our debates on Part 4 of the Bill on the case of Rehman which concerned the meaning of the phrase,

Xthe interests of national security"

in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, which came before the House on appeal earlier this year. In referring to the events of 11th September, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said that they are a reminder that

Xin matters of national security, the cost of failure can be high. This seems to me to underline the need for the judicial arm of government to respect the decisions of Ministers of the Crown on the question of whether support for terrorist activities in a foreign country constitutes a threat to national security".—[Official Report, 29/11/01; col. 495.]

We should take it that the term Xnational security" in the context in which it is used in this Bill encompasses the concept of international security at the same time. That is the point behind the amendment, which is why we have sympathy with it. We want to avoid that specific use of words simply because of other Acts. The purpose behind the amendment is covered in the Bill.

---