| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor announced in the Pre-Budget Report 2003 that he would give an enhanced role to the Office of Fair Trading to tackle this problem. I acknowledge that it is a problem. The Office of Fair Trading has set up a payment system task force that will report very shortly. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, will be pleased with the outcome.
8 Mar 2005 : Column 627
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is largely the profits of the banks—and commerce and industry generally—and those who work for them which pay the taxes that support the public sector in this country, which has burgeoned under the present Government?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course, banks pay taxes on their activities in this country, but I must point out that our major banks earn a great deal of their income overseas. For example, less than 30 per cent of HBOS's profits arise in Europe—I should not have said that word to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I am sorry; I hope that he will pardon the expression.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, while I recognise the profits made by banks, can my noble friend advise the House, and particularly me, of the extent to which the banks contribute to the well-being of the British economy?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I addressed that in the first part of my original Answer. Whatever, aesthetically, we think about the banks, they are an essential part of any economy. They contribute to our economic growth and prosperity.
Income Tax(Trading and Other Income) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a money Bill, and read a first time.
Prevention of Terrorism Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 1, I should point out that if Amendment No. 1 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 2 because of pre-emption.
Clause 1 [Power to make control orders]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 1:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 1, 9 and 10 give effect to the changes that we made yesterday. They were debated on the first day of Committee, last Thursday, and I do not propose to go over the same ground again, since it is so fresh in all our memories.
Amendment No. 1 simply underlines that the making of a control order of whatever type is to be done by the court, not by the Secretary of State. Government Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 do the same thing, but we believe that Amendment No. 1 is a
8 Mar 2005 : Column 628
simpler way of expressing it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister why it is necessary to use a rather more complicated form.
I move swiftly on to Amendment No. 9. It might be helpful if I do not go into its merits again, as we have debated them at length, but simply set out briefly the machinery contained in Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. The steps for obtaining an order under Amendment No. 9 are that the Secretary of State applies to the court and there is an immediate preliminary hearing. The court may hold a hearing ex parte—that is to say, without notice to the suspect—and will determine, first, whether to make the order and, secondly, whether to give directions for a full hearing to determine whether to confirm it. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to look at the material that may be provided on an ex parte basis and to decide whether it is justified.
In making a control order at the preliminary hearing, the court will first have in mind whether the Director of Public Prosecutions has certified that there is no reasonable prospect of prosecution—that is because all sides are agreed that the preferable way of dealing with terrorist suspects is to prosecute.
Secondly, if that certificate is given and there is no reasonable prospect of prosecution, is the material, which, if not disproved, is capable of being relied on, that the individual is involved in terrorism-related activity? Thirdly, are there reasonable grounds for believing the imposition of obligations is necessary to protect the public? Fourthly, if the obligations appear at the preliminary hearing to infringe Article 5 of the European Convention, it is necessary to ensure that a designation order derogating from Article 5 is in place—that is, has been passed by both Houses of Parliament—and that that derogation order arises out of a public emergency. That is the first step that the Secretary of State takes to apply for an order when the court looks at it.
There is an interesting amendment later, arising from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, concerning whether the court in the preliminary hearing should be the district judge in England and Wales and his equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am sure we will have an interesting debate on that in due course, because that is new material.
The next step in making the order is the full hearing in the High Court, which either confirms the order, with or without modification, or revokes it. The full hearing will be a hearing inter partes, at which the person subject to the control order is properly represented. The court has to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it is necessary for public safety for the control order made at the preliminary hearing to be confirmed.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as I understand it, although I have not had the opportunity to consider it all, the amendment is explanatory. Am I right? If I am, it is incumbent on the Government to come forward at
8 Mar 2005 : Column 629
a later stage, after the Bill has been considered, with an explanatory note. However, I do not think the Bill has to be amended.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, there is no new material in the amendment. It follows the machinery the Government were proposing when they were simply talking about a derogating order. We are saying that, following the decisions we took yesterday, the preliminary hearing followed by the full hearing in court are to apply to control orders generally.
Amendment No. 10 deals with the duration and renewal of the order. A non-derogating order has a 12-month limit, and is renewable for a further 12 months by the court on application. A derogating order lasts for six months. Again, it is renewable by the court if the court deems it necessary, and if the overarching derogation order made by Parliament is still in place.
I have tried to give your Lordships a view of the framework of these amendments to give them some context. Amendment No. 11 is in this group. It is simply a hiccup in the text, and I say nothing about it. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I have nothing further to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, about the amendments in this group, except Amendment No. 12, with which I can deal telegraphically, as the substance of the matter was decided by your Lordships yesterday.
Your Lordships will see that, at line 44 of page 3 of the Bill, the following expression has been inserted in paragraph (c) of Clause 2(1):
"The court may make a control order against an individual if it . . . has been informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that there is no reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution of the individual for the terrorism-related activity".
Your Lordships will recall that we regarded the insertion of this subsection as crucial to the protection of the rights of the citizen. We must have exhausted all our efforts as to whether a proper prosecution can be brought in a criminal court before turning, as a matter of last resort, to a control order.
In the course of the speeches that were made, I, and a number of other Members of this House, took the view that this obligation on the DPP should continue during the period after the control order is made. That is what Amendment No. 12 seeks to achieve. If it is accepted by the Government, or put on the face of the Bill by some other means, it will be located at line 10 of page 9—the first line after the Clause 7 heading—
The crucial import of the amendment is simply to say that, once the control order is made, the DPP will continue to have an obligation to see whether a successful prosecution can be brought. If he so decides,
8 Mar 2005 : Column 630
and so informs the court, the control order should then be terminated and the normal prosecutorial scheme should begin. That is the purpose of the amendment.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |