NOTICE OF DECISIONS (Hansard, 17 June 1998)

§ Mr. Maclean
I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 6, line 17, at end insert— '(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5), the Commissioners shall not have to give reasons where the decision to refuse is based on information received from the Royal Ulster Constabulary or Security Services and where these organisations warrant that revealing the information would be prejudicial to national security or put at risk the lives of individuals.'
Clause 11 causes me concern as it is drafted. The commissioners can, quite rightly, refuse an application. The clause forces the commissioners to give reasons for their decision. The rules in schedule 2 permit the Secretary of State or the Royal Ulster Constabulary to give information or evidence to the commission on behalf of the security services. The Secretary of State or the Chief Constable of the RUC would have responsibility for giving information to the commission that may lead it to determine that the person concerned is still a danger to the public or is involved in terrorism. The commission may then refuse to grant that person's application for release.
The commission is under an obligation to give reasons to the individual. It would be highly detrimental to the security forces, to the RUC and to national security if the commission were forced to give reasons that revealed potentially confidential information supplied to it by the Secretary of State or the RUC.
468 Paragraph 5 of schedule 2 allows the Secretary of State to make rules for the provision about evidence and information, including provision for the giving of evidence by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and the RUC. The Government may say that the rules they make under schedule 2 will deal with the problem. I should be interested to know whether the Government believe that any rules they may make by statutory instrument or order under schedule 2 could set aside the provisions in clause 11, which require reasons to be given to prisoners in those circumstances.
I will be delighted if it is the Secretary of State's view that the security services, the Secretary of State herself and the RUC will be protected when they give evidence or information to the commission, that the information will be kept confidential and that the sources of their information will be protected and will not be revealed. As the Minister stressed, sensitive issues are involved.
One does not talk about the RUC's knowledge of weapons because that could reveal sources. Similarly, the RUC may not wish to reveal to the commission its sources of information on people whom it thinks are terrorists. Those sources must be protected, and reasons must not be given for doing that. Is there a mechanism in the Bill to prevent reasons from being given? Clause 11 does not permit exceptions. Will the rules to be made under schedule 2 be ultra vires because clause 11 does not permit rules that would make exemptions from it?

§ Mr. Ingram
We do not yet have the rules to which schedule 2 (5) specifically refers, because we are framing the legislation as we go along, accepting Opposition amendments as well as tabling our own, and that may have an impact on the rules. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members who may be concerned about this matter that, through the normal processes, we always protect those who give information. We would never put at risk anyone who was acting in the interests of security.
We are mindful of the need to protect such people and, in the light of my assurances, I do not think that the amendment is necessary. We give the right hon. Gentleman the absolute assurances that information and those who give it will be protected under the rules, which will be made available in draft form in due course.

§ Mr. Maclean
I am grateful to the Minister. I would never question the Government's integrity on these matters. We should do our absolute utmost to protect sources of information. I was merely concerned about the mechanisms, the legal procedures, in the Bill that would allow the rules to ignore the provisions of clause 11. That clause seems to provide for no exceptions: reasons must be given. I hope that the Minister will seek legal advice about whether an amendment, perhaps one better drafted than mine, is necessary. For example, it could state that reasons would be given in all circumstances except where the Secretary of State has drafted rules under schedule 2.
The Chief Constable of the RUC has to ensure that none of his officers or people acting on their behalf put at risk. Is there not a danger that he might not want to give information if he thought that the rules were inadequate? If he has the slightest fear that it would be possible, perhaps under judicial review, for the 469 commissioners to be ordered to reveal the sources of information, he may decide that it would be better to let a terrorist be released than to provide it. That is a technical question, and I am happy to let the Minister reflect on it and perhaps answer it tomorrow, if that is appropriate.

§ Mr. Ingram
The right hon. Gentleman adopts a wise approach in allowing me to reflect on that matter, because it involves some sensitive issues. He asked whether schedule 2 and clause 11 are incompatible. I shall reflect on that, and if there is any weakness in the legislation we shall amend it. I am satisfied that it is robust enough to achieve the protection we seek through the rules. Obviously, we have carefully considered the issue because of the matters that the right hon. Gentleman raised. We shall always reflect on valid points, and if there is a weakness, it will be corrected.

§ Mr. Maclean
In view of the Minister's reasonable response, and on the basis that he will reflect on it, I am delighted to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.