Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 55, 56, 59 and 63. I would add to that list if it gave noble Lords the opportunity to leave the Chamber before I get to the substantive part of my amendments. All of these amendments take us to the clauses in the Bill dealing with what are called enhanced terrorism prevention and investigation measures—that is, measures which the Secretary of State can introduce during a period between Parliaments when she,
“is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities”,
that individuals,
“have been, involved in terrorism-related activity”.
My amendments are particularly directed to the extent of those powers.
Clause 26(9) provides:
“A temporary enhanced TPIM order may make appropriate provision (including appropriate variations from the provision contained in the relevant provisions of this Act) in consequence of, or in connection with, the creation … of the enhanced TPIM power”.
As my noble friend the Minister is aware, my Amendment 54 is particularly directed to understanding what is meant by “appropriate provision”. What are the limits of appropriate provision in this context? Does it mean anything in this legislation? That does not seem logical to me because it is there anyway. Does it mean simply up to the boundaries of what is acceptable under the Human Rights Act? What does it mean? I appreciate that as well as the enhanced measure there is an enhanced standard of proof, “the balance of probabilities”, for introducing these provisions. I would have read this as a provision on how the measures would be applied—measures including residence, geographical area, association and communication—but the reference to variation from provisions,
“contained in the relevant provisions of this Act”,
makes me doubt that that can be the correct reading, so what is “appropriate provision” in this context?
On quite similar lines, Amendment 56 would amend Clause 26(11), which provides that,
“a temporary enhanced TPIM order includes … provision amending any enactment”.
That seems a very considerable power and I hope that the Minister can help your Lordships to understand what the Government have in mind. It is hard to think which measures are not in the Bill, apart from imprisonment in a conventional prison without trial or deportation which, while we are past the days of Botany Bay and cannot deport UK citizens, was something else that came to mind. I am pretty stuck as to what that subsection means.
Amendment 55 is not very elegant. It would, no doubt, have been easier if I had added some commas to it. However, it concerns what is elsewhere in the Bill relating,
“to standard TPIMs notices … orders”,
which are,
“the subject of standard TPIMs notices”,
and “measures”, which is the defined term meaning the measures that can be taken under a standard TPIMs notice. I want to be sure that the various procedures which apply to all of those apply to enhanced TPIMs. I think that is the case but I would like to have assurance on that.
Amendment 63, to which Amendment 59 is consequential, is about commencement and is of course a probing amendment. I am not suggesting postponing the arrangement—at any rate, not at this stage of the Bill—but asking the Minister whether he can give further information to the Committee about the timetable for dealing with the draft legislation for the separate enhanced TPIMs Bill. I know that he said at our last sitting that we will come to pre-legislative scrutiny of that in due course, essentially, although I do not recall which phrase he used. It would be more satisfactory to know what timetable we are working to, so that we all have a context for this Bill. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for bringing forward these amendments, which are all essentially probing amendments. I commend her for so doing, as this is what the House does very well. I hope I can respond to and answer most of the points she has made in her four amendments—in fact, there are five, but they are in four batches.
If I start with Amendment 54, which is about the meaning of “appropriate”, I must first describe what subsection (9) does. It provides that a temporary enhanced TPIM order,
“may make appropriate provision (including appropriate variations from the provision contained in the relevant provisions of this Act) in consequence of, or in connection with, the creation, in accordance with this section, of the enhanced TPIM power”.
We believe that subsection (9) is essential to the clause. It allows the Secretary of State to make the consequent provisions to make sure that the enhanced TPIM regime functions properly, and it allows for equivalent provision to be made, to occur in paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the draft enhanced TPIM Bill.
This specifies that the operation of Schedule 6 to the TPIM Bill, which relates to the retention of DNA, is modified in order to accommodate the ETPIM regime. In particular, it takes account of the fact that the same individual may, at a different time, be subject to both an enhanced TPIM notice and the standard TPIM notice. I hope that my noble friend will accept that.
Amendment 55 would insert a new clause after subsection (10). The provisions of Clauses 26 and 27 already ensure that the order will apply the provisions of the Bill to the enhanced TPIM regime to the extent that it is appropriate. This includes all the nuts and bolts of the TPIM regime; for example the role of the court, and the way in which the TPIM notices are varied or revoked. The provisions that are not applied to the order are those which are not yet relevant. For example, an enhanced TPIM notice may not be extended for a year under the order, as the order, unlike the enhanced TPIM Bill, only lasts for 90 days and cannot be renewed.
Amendment 56 would delete the provision allowing the Secretary of State to amend any enactment under the order-making power. The noble Baroness stated that the amendment was not quite as elegant as it ought to be. She may have raised a point that we will certainly consider. At this stage, we want to see whether that provision is necessary; we will come back to the noble Baroness, have discussions with her, and possibly bring forward an amendment on Report.
Amendments 59 and 63, which are to be taken together, relate to commencement. I think the noble Baroness was really asking not so much about commencement but rather consideration of the draft legislation of the enhanced Bill. Obviously, it must be for the usual channels to decide what is appropriate, which committees are available, and so on. However, I am sure that with discussions between the usual channels—between the Government, the Opposition and others—we will come to the right solution as to how the enhanced TPIM Bill should be considered by this House and another place, or perhaps both together, while bearing in mind the resources available to both Houses. Different noble Lords will have different views on this, to which we will listen in due course, as will the usual channels, as always. I hope those explanations are sufficient for the noble Baroness but if they are not we can discuss them further. However, with that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I thank the Minister for all of that. With regard to his reply on my first amendment, I shall have to take his word for it. That is my failure of concentration, not his failure of explanation. It is certainly a reply that deserves to be read in Hansard as it was quite technical.
On Clauses 26 and 27 applying to the extent that is appropriate and what is not appropriate, the Minister seemed to give examples rather than a complete reply. I am sure that his brief includes examples for him to give, which is fair enough, but it would be helpful to understand the extent of the point. May I ask him to let me have a complete answer in writing after Committee stage? These clauses are quite difficult to follow. I think I said on the previous day in Committee that a flow chart would be helpful in some cases. Given the powers that the Secretary of State would be granted, it would be appropriate to have as extensive an understanding of what is meant as possible.
Lord Henley
My Lords, whether I can provide a flow chart is one thing but I certainly promise to write to my noble friend so that we can sort these things out between now and Report. At this stage I will just give a commitment to write to her but that commitment does not necessarily extend to providing a flow chart.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I do not think I was asking for a flow chart but I share the Minister’s wish to get this sorted out before Report. These issues do not lend themselves terribly easily to debate across the Floor of the Chamber. As regards the enhanced Bill, I hear what the Minister has to say. I thought it was worth continuing to ask the question. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I shall also speak to my Amendment 61. The heart of the Opposition’s concern with the Bill is the worry that the Home Secretary’s powers to deal with these very difficult and potentially very damaging cases are being weakened. Nowhere is this more evident than the central issue of relocation without consent. Relocation powers have proved to be extremely useful in disrupting terrorist activity, as has been confirmed by the police on a number of occasions. Indeed, as we discussed on the first day in Committee, the Home Secretary herself argued in May of this year—just a few months ago—in the case of CD that he needed to be removed from Greater London to protect the public from a terrorist attack.
Ministers have claimed that we need not worry because they will put greater surveillance measures in place of the existing legislative provisions. I again remind the Minister that, in evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place, the senior representative of the Metropolitan Police said that to get the resources required so that there will be sufficient surveillance measures in place, to get people trained, and to get the right equipment would take more than a year. The point I put to the Minister is this: it is simply not credible that the security environment has changed so dramatically in the past three to five months that the powers needed then are not needed now.
With the Olympic year coming up, can the Minister honestly say that the powers are needed less in the coming months than they were needed by this Home Secretary, who has used those powers on five occasions? The Minister has argued that the public can be protected by a less intrusive and more targeted regime. He has talked about the need for this regime to be complemented by additional resources for the police and security services, allowing more surveillance, and it is acknowledged that it will take time for those measures to be put into place.
My amendment offers a very helpful way forward for the Government. I am suggesting that the new measures are not brought in until 1 January 2013. This will allow us to get through the Olympic year using current legislative provisions. I am also suggesting that Parliament has some reassurance from the terrorism co-ordinator that the additional resources have been provided and, overall, that there can be confidence that the new provisions of this Bill, if enacted, and the additional measures that will need to be brought in in relation to surveillance are fully in place. I think that that is a very good offer from the Opposition; it will allow the Government to reassure both the security services and the police and to ensure stability over the next 15 months. The Government will be able to implement the new measures from 1 January 2013. Surely it will be worth the Government pausing over the next year to get us through the Olympics and then move to the introduction of these provisions. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says that relocation has been very useful in disrupting terrorism activity. The problem I have is that I do not know and I do not know whether he knows. He may well believe that that is the case, but I am not sure that any of us really knows. That has been a difficulty throughout the debate on the Bill.
I have a couple of points on the drafting of Amendment 61. It seems to me that it slightly muddles accountability. Is it not for the Home Secretary to take the decision on the resources and to take responsibility for what resources are applied, rather than it being an arrangement with the terrorism co-ordinator who, I take it, is the co-ordinator within the Metropolitan Police? I am slightly concerned that the amendment dilutes the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The terrorism co-ordinator of course has a role in this. We have all heard senior police officers say that they will do what they can within the resources provided to them, and they are very cautious about saying that they have enough resources.
My second point is to ask whether it is possible to identify precisely the right resources and deploy them. That could well be something of a moving feast; the resources required will vary from time to time. I of course understand the concerns that lie behind the noble Lord’s amendment, but I am not sure whether it is a practical way of satisfying us all and, indeed, the public.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I am assuming that the Government are satisfied that the available resources are sufficient to maintain security in this country. If that is not the case, it would be very troubling indeed.
Lord Henley
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for that comment. Yes, we are satisfied and it would be very troubling if we were not. Perhaps I may also deal with the brief point made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about the terrorism co-ordinator. I am assuming that by that term used in the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, means a senior national co-ordinator for counterterrorism, but I shall let him address that in due course.
I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. She emphasised, first, the point of the role of Home Secretary and, secondly, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, himself addressed—that we should look not just at the Bill on its own but at the Bill plus the additional resources that have been promised. That is the most important matter before the House at this stage. It is not just the Bill that we are talking about, but the whole package that the Government have put forward.
I thank the noble Lord for his clear explanation of the concerns that lie behind his amendments. I appreciate that he raised the subject of relocation and the case of CD, in which, on that occasion, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary used relocation. However, as I have said, we must look at the package; and it is because the package will be in operation that we believe that relocation will not be so necessary in the future. As the House will be aware, there has been considerable debate over the past few weeks, here and in another place, about the arrangement for the transition from control orders to the new system of TPIMs. These amendments are an attempt to return to the issues raised by amendments tabled in another place and debated at some length on Commons Report.
The Opposition have been consistent in expressing their concern that the police and the Security Service may not be ready for the commencement of the Bill when the time comes. These amendments, in common with those tabled in another place, are intended to provide reassurance on that point by delaying commencement of the Bill or by making it subject to agreement with the police on the readiness of the significant additional resources that we are providing. However, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, that must, in the end, be a matter for the Home Secretary.
I accept that such concerns, particularly in the run-up to the Olympic Games, are well intended and are born of a concern to deal with matters that relate to the safety of the public. However, I am happy to confirm that I do not believe that they are necessary. As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the public will be protected by the Bill because we are satisfied that there are sufficient resources available, including in relation to the date on which the Bill comes into force. We believe that the Bill plus the robust package provide the appropriate measures to protect the public, and alongside it there will be considerably increased resources to strengthen covert investigative capacity. We have repeatedly made it clear that for obvious reasons we are not able to provide details of that additional funding or its deployment, and that remains clear. However, we have also been clear—and I am pleased to confirm this again—that we have been in discussion with the police and the Security Service for some months on this matter, and arrangements will be in place to manage effectively the transition from control orders to TPIMs.
I hope that those assurances are sufficient for the noble Lord. If they are not, we will obviously come back to this matter on Report. However, I hope he will accept that we obviously cannot go into detail on what the resources are, and he would not expect me to do so. However, what I have said should be sufficient to allay his fears and I hope that he will therefore be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, although I am disappointed by his response. I just refer the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to the evidence given by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stuart Osborne to the Public Bill Committee when he was asked about the effectiveness or not of relocation orders. He said:
“The relocation issue has been very useful for us being able to monitor and enforce at the current time. Without that relocation, and depending on where people choose to live, that could be significantly more difficult”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill Committee, 21/6/11; col. 5.]
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that it is a question of the Bill plus resources. He said that he is confident that, alongside the provisions of the Bill, sufficient resources are being made available to the police and security forces. Of course, I can only accept the assurance that the noble Lord has given but I simply wonder whether he is wise to move to a new system within a very short period of the Olympics coming to this country. I wonder whether there is not a case for the implementation of this measure being delayed until after the Olympics. That really is the intention behind my amendment, which is meant to be helpful, and I hope that the Government will give it further consideration between now and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“( ) This Act expires at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which it commences.
( ) The Secretary of State may, by order, revive the Act if a draft of such an order is laid before and approved by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
( ) An order made by the Minister under this section is to be made by statutory instrument.”
Lord Rosser
My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the Bill and the TPIMs that it sets up require annual renewal, as is the case with the present control order legislation. That legislation is clear in its temporary nature and it has a sunset clause, which requires an annual vote in Parliament to consider whether the powers are still required. The Bill before us makes no provision for a yearly sunset clause but provides for a five-year limit, not requiring a first vote until the end of 2016 or early 2017 if its operative provisions are to continue and not expire.
Both your Lordships’ Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have queried this provision in the Bill. The Constitution Committee questioned whether it was constitutionally appropriate for the extraordinary executive powers involved in TPIMs to remain in being for a lengthy period of time. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said that it was disappointed by the Government’s reluctance to expose their proposed replacement regime for control orders to the rigours of formal and post-legislative scrutiny, which annual renewal would entail. The Joint Committee was of the view that the TPIMs regime was less severe than the control orders regime but still felt that TPIMs remain,
“an extraordinary departure from ordinary principles of criminal due process”.
The Joint Committee also noted that the UN special rapporteur on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, in a recent report to the UN Human Rights Council, had observed:
“Regular review and the use of sunset clauses are best practices helping to ensure that special powers relating to the countering of terrorism are effective and continue to be required, and to help avoid the ‘Normalisation’ or de facto permanent existence of extraordinary measures”.
The Joint Committee recommended that the Bill should also,
“require annual renewal and so ensure that there is an annual opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise and debate the continued necessity for such exceptional measures and the way in which they are working in practice”.
In a recent letter responding to your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, the Minister in the other place claimed that five-yearly rather than annual renewal would allow the system to operate in a stable and considered way and would allow proper and detailed consideration to take place on whether the legislation was still required. Annual renewal also allows for proper and detailed consideration, and rather more frequently than once every five years. As for the assertion that five-yearly renewal will allow the system to operate in a stable and considered way, that rather suggests that the Government see TPIMs as not far short of a permanent arrangement, despite the exceptional executive powers, including the profound impact they can have on the liberty of some individuals. That is a key reason why annual renewal is necessary—precisely to ensure that these are regarded as temporary and not permanent measures.
We agree with the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Annual renewal is required for the current control order regime because of the considerable and exceptional executive power that it confers, most of which remains in the current Bill in respect of TPIMs. In addition, we now have the draft enhanced terrorism prevention and investigation measures Bill, which could be brought into being at short notice and which provides further extraordinary executive powers.
This Bill, like the control orders legislation, covers difficult issues relating to the rule of law. It provides powers to act in cases where prosecution is not possible but where, nevertheless, security concerns about the activities of a small number of individuals are such that it is felt that executive action has to be taken, which considerably restricts liberty through control orders, or in future through TPIMs, when the Secretary of State reasonably believes that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity. Whatever one’s views on the need for control orders or TPIMs, these are considerable and exceptional measures, and for that reason alone it is surely only right and appropriate that Parliament should have the opportunity and the duty to decide each year whether or not the situation remains such that these measures and the associated powers should continue in being or, instead, be allowed to expire. It is surely not appropriate, in view of the profound impact on the liberty of individuals of these exceptional measures and powers—the Minister accepted on Second Reading that they were exceptional—that an important check by Parliament on the exercise of those executive powers, and the continuing necessity for them, should be almost eliminated by permitting Parliament that opportunity to decide whether the situation remains such that they should continue, or be allowed to expire, only once every five years. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I support the amendment, but I do not hold out much hope that it will do any good. It was different six years ago when the Conservative Party, and Lord Kingsland in particular, were in favour of relaxing, rather than strengthening, the 2005 Bill. Despite that, we argued the toss on renewal every year for six years and achieved precisely nothing. Now the Official Opposition are in favour of strengthening the Bill, and I see no reason to suppose that the Government will themselves be of that view—I hope not. I, therefore, suspect that in debating this matter every year for the next five years we will largely be wasting our breath, though I support the amendment for its symbolic value.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I am rather more optimistic that it will do a great deal of good. I agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about the need for an annual review because of the exceptional nature of these powers, and because of the need for Parliament to have the opportunity to consider such matters annually. But there is a further factor. An annual review will surely impose an important discipline on the Government, and this is an area where we inevitably need to trust the Government. It will require Ministers periodically to consider the need for these measures, what they can say to justify them in parliamentary debates and whether or not these measures need an amendment. This is an important discipline, particularly in a context where the factual circumstances that are said to justify these exceptional measures are not going to remain static for as long as the next five years.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I support the amendment. Unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, I do not think it is pointless. We should always remind ourselves that emergency measures have a way of seeping into the legal system as a whole. We have learned that over time. Often, things that are introduced as emergency measures end up remaining on the statute book for far too long. The fact that we come together and annually review a matter—even if we do not manage to persuade the Government—does mean that the matter is before us, and we are still talking about something that is being used as an exception to the rule. I therefore urge those who are listening to see why this is important, and that we do have the annual review that we have always had in the past.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, these provisions followed a lengthy counterterrorism review and represent the views of the Government as to where the line should be drawn between the necessary powers, by way of TPIMs, and the liberty of the individual. This legislation has been through the other place and is going through your Lordships’ House in a thoroughly orthodox way, and the provisions are being carefully scrutinised. TPIMs contain a considerable number of safeguards, which have already been discussed in Committee, and they reflect a considered compromise between the various arguments. The Bill does not represent a response to the immediate crisis, as the 2005 position did, and has not gone through Parliament by way of accelerated procedures; it represents the result of lessons learnt.
The provisions can be repealed by an order-making power or in the way that any other legislation is repealed. It is tempting with extraordinary powers—and I readily concede that they are extraordinary powers—to suggest that they should be under more or less constant scrutiny. But where the Bill represents a considered response, five years is an appropriate time in which Parliament and the Government can consider this particular take on a particularly difficult situation. At that juncture, the Government and Parliament can think again. For the moment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd suggested, squabbling every year about this would not improve matters, and we should rest with the provisions as they are.
Baroness Hayman
My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that an annual review would simply be squabbling about the provisions of this Bill. I am tempted to speak, despite my resolution not to speak on controversial issues for several months after leaving the Woolsack, because the issue of a sunset clause was one on which in 2005 I abandoned loyalty to my Government and put forward the amendments to have a sunset clause, which eventually transmuted into the annual review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
I would be saddened if these measures, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, are less draconian in some ways than control orders and represent a considered view, were considered the best that we can do. I am not certain about that, but we will have further debates on Report on some of those issues. I wonder whether that exonerates us from the responsibility of devoting what is not a great deal of time every year to looking at these extraordinary provisions in both Houses of Parliament. It seems to me to be a proper recognition of the retreat from some of the processes that we have held dear for centuries in this country in terms of the administration of the criminal justice system. I do not argue against the premise or fact that there is a need or problem that is not easily solved by the normal criminal justice system; I argue that, because of the extraordinary nature of these measures, it is incumbent on us as parliamentarians to keep them under review. I do not think that that is a dreadful burden.
However, I am delighted to see the opposition Front Bench such enthusiastic supporters of measures which I remember they were not quite so enthusiastic about when I proposed them six years ago.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I strongly support the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. It seems to be highly desirable, to put it at its very least, that, as problems change, there should be an annual review of the existing law dealing with terrorism. Like all previous speakers, I, too, support the amendment.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I have three brief points to make, which will take me a little time, about why we do not accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. First, we believe that renewal every five years strikes the right balance—a word I have used on many occasions; secondly, I believe that annual renewal is unnecessary, and I shall return to that in more detail; and, thirdly, there are other means by which the Bill can be amended or repealed.
First, I thank my noble friend Lord Faulks for his comments reminding the House that the provisions that face us follow a very lengthy review of all our counterterrorism provisions by the Government, with the announcements earlier in the year and consideration of this Bill, in due course, in both Houses. This is very different from what happened with the 2005 Act. We believe that renewal every five years strikes the right balance and reflects the need to build in effective safeguards to ensure that the powers do not remain in force longer than necessary. It also reflects the competence of Parliament to apply intense scrutiny to legislation and to arrive at a position when it will not need to be reviewed annually. We are moving to a position where we hope that each Parliament will last five years, so each new Parliament will have the opportunity to debate this in the context of the situation at the time and take its own view. That is in line with the length of Parliaments, as I have said, provided by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
Secondly, I believe that annual review is unnecessary. I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, say that he was wasting his breath. He never wastes his breath in this House. I have been here for many years and I have listened to him with great devotion on many occasions. I do not always agree with him, but he is not wasting his breath. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is more optimistic and feels that an annual debate provides a better opportunity for these things, as do the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, a copy of whose book Just Law—however you pronounce it—sits in my room in the Home Office to this day, and I will always have it there to be reminded about how I should go about my duties. However, I have to say that I do not agree with her, or with others, on this occasion about whether annual renewal is necessary.
The important thing is to distinguish the process we are going through on this occasion from the process we went through following the 2005 Act. This Bill will be subjected to full parliamentary scrutiny with the usual timetable—we still have not completed it in this House—allowing for a settled position to be reached. In contrast, the 2005 legislation was, as the noble Lord will remember, rushed through with very little opportunity for debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, reminded the House of her role in that. We believe that that makes annual renewal an appropriate safeguard for the 2005 Act, but one that we do not think is necessary for this Act.
My third point is that there are also other means by which the Bill can be amended or replaced. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, stressed that these powers seem to be permanent, but I ask him to look very carefully at Clause 21(2) which states that:
“The Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument … repeal the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers”.
It is unusual to give the Secretary of State the power to repeal something, but that provision allows her, if she feels they are no longer necessary, at any stage to repeal and take away the powers that she has given herself. Again, I make this point in terms of how, if it becomes clear that the powers should be changed, the legislation can be amended by Parliament at any time in the usual way.
I appreciate that many noble Lords feel that an annual debate would be preferable to one every five years. It happens on other occasions. I think there is some financial Motion that we debate once a year under EU rules following some vote in this House, and I have noticed, and I think other noble Lords will have noticed, that the number of participants in that debate seems to decline each year as time goes past, so I wonder whether a debate every year is necessary, given the fact that this Bill has been given full coverage in both Houses.
I appreciate that others may feel differently but, at this stage, I think that what we are offering and have brought forward as a concession in another place—a debate once each Parliament—is appropriate and will be sufficient, given the other safeguards in the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will feel that on this occasion he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for the contributions they have made based, I have to say, on considerably more experience and knowledge of the issues involved than I can claim to possess. Perhaps I should also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on her determination on this point with the previous Government.
There is no disagreement that this amendment raises a key issue of real significance. It is about parliamentary oversight of extraordinary and exceptional executive powers which directly affect to a considerable degree the freedom and liberty of a small number of individuals whom the Secretary of State reasonably believes are or have been involved in terrorist activity. That oversight, involving human rights and civil liberties, cannot be properly exercised if done only once every five years. In reality, the Bill would be amended or dropped in the intervening years only if it were the Government, not Parliament, that wanted to change the legislation. That is surely a fact of life.