Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Hansard, 4 February 2004)

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
My Lords, the Newton committee recently published its report reviewing the whole Act. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, will shortly publish his second review of the working of Part 4 of the Act. Those reports will inform the debates that will shortly take place in both Houses.

§ Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In a civilised society, no one condones terrorism of any kind. Britain already has the most draconian terrorist powers in western Europe. Does the Minister agree that to add further to that by undermining the principle of trial by jury and radically lowering the burden of proof is wholly unacceptable? There is already an inquiry into the quality of our intelligence services. Would not the Home Secretary's latest proposals do a great deal of harm and undermine British justice without making our country any safer? How can we condemn the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo Bay when our own action leaves much to be desired?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I acknowledge the noble Lord's concern and make clear that the comments of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary were about stimulating a debate. There is no proposed change or plan for change at present; but there is the beginning of a debate. My right honourable friend said that he will publish an options paper, setting out the options for that debate. Nothing has been ruled in; and nothing has been ruled out.

§ Lord Judd
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the priority for the Government must be the 679 protection of the values and systems that make our society worth living in, and that central to those are our traditions in the administration of justice? Does she therefore agree that any special measures that are introduced to meet the danger of terrorism must be as small as possible and last for the most limited period possible? Does she further agree that if we do not follow that course, we shall play directly into the hands of extremists, who will exploit the apparent contradictions?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend that the tradition of this country is beyond compare in our adherence to human rights and the rights of the individual. I also agree with him that it is therefore absolutely proper for any step that we take to make ourselves more secure to be proportionate and fair.

§ Viscount Bridgeman
My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, does the Minister agree that conviction for a criminal offence on the balance of probabilities is without precedent in the United Kingdom?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, the noble Viscount is quite right: at present the standard of proof for a criminal offence is that it be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I must acknowledge that the circumstances of international terrorism and terrorism in this country call for a debate, but I endorse what the noble Viscount said.

§ Lord Carlisle of Bucklow
My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that there is no purpose in having a debate unless the Government have proposals? Is she seriously telling the House that the Government propose that the standard of proof for achieving a finding of guilt in the criminal courts is to be lower for terrorist offences than for any other type of offence? That is an extraordinary situation.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I am not saying that that is necessarily what will happen. I am saying that my right honourable friend has said that he intends to publish an options paper so that there can be a discussion.

§ Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Part 12 of the Act, which makes it illegal to bribe foreign officials, is especially important? Can she give an undertaking that the legislative certainty of that provision will be maintained?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that Part 12 is an important part of current legislation. Of course, I cannot pre-empt what Parliament will do when it considers the matter, but I can say that it appears that Part 12 serves us well.

§ Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, when the Government consider the matter, will they please rule 680 in the possible repeal of the provision that currently makes it inadmissible to produce telephone intercepts in court to convict terrorist suspects? That might at least mean that the 14 people of whom we all know who are currently detained receive a trial—rather than no trial at all.

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, of course I hear what the noble and learned Lord says about the matter and understand why he makes those comments. I am in the happy position of being unable to assist your Lordships with what will be in the options paper and what will not.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness of what her noble and learned friend the Attorney-General said only two weeks ago when talking about the standard of proof. He stressed that it, remains for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant… As far as I am aware, that remains true in all respects and I regard it as a very important part of our justice system".—[Official Report, 20/1/04; col. 912.] Will the Attorney-General be consulted by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the matter?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the exposition of the law as enunciated by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. In all things, his advice is always most welcome; I assure the House that he gives it freely.

§ Baroness Hayman
My Lords, as a member of the committee, I thank my noble friend for what she has done to ensure that we have proper time to debate the committee's report in the House. Does she agree that calibrating the right balance between the protection of the rights of individual suspects and of the community as a whole at risk from terrorism is a delicate and difficult business? If so, does she accept that the extremely broad-brush approach with which the current debate has been kicked off is unlikely to achieve the necessary delicacy?

§ Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend about the delicate balance of which she speaks. I am confident that when the House comes to debate the issues, it will bring to it the acuity and balance that they deserve.