§ Sir Teddy TaylorTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to establish a wholly independent authority to consider exclusion orders under prevention of terrorism legislation; and if the persons so appointed will be subject to official secrets legislation in respect of the information provided to them. [4523]
§ Mr. HowardIndependent persons have been appointed to consider exclusion orders since the prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was introduced. The European Court of Justice has ruled 357W that the method of appointing the independent advisers is satisfactory. They are subject to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1989.
§ Sir Teddy TaylorTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in cases where recommendations to exclude persons under the prevention of terrorism legislation are not approved by the wholly independent persons appointed to consider such cases. [4524]
§ Mr. HowardThe Secretary of State is not bound by legislation to accept the advisers' recommendations. Responsibility for national security results rests ultimately with the Secretary of State. However, in recent years, advisers' recommendations have generally been accepted. These recommendations have by no means always supported exclusion orders, which have sometimes been revoked accordingly.
§ Sir Teddy TaylorTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the procedures to be followed by the wholly independent persons appointed to consider recommendations for exclusion under prevention of terrorism legislation with particular reference to the rights of persons being excluded learning of the nature of the evidence offered against them. [4525]
§ Mr. HowardThe adviser will offer the individual concerned an interview, either in Northern Ireland or in the British embassy in Dublin. Legal representation is permitted. The adviser will have access to the documentation on the basis of which a recommendation for exclusion has been made. The adviser will submit a report to the Secretary of State who then makes a final decision.
Exclusion orders under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 relate to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or travel for those purposes; details are highly sensitive and could not be divulged without prejudicing the fight against terrorism. That is why any individual may make representations to an independent adviser, and all cases are subject to further oversight as part of the annual review of the operation of the prevention of terrorism Act.
§ Sir Teddy TaylorTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been excluded from the mainland of the United Kingdom under prevention of terrorism legislation; and on what basis he has concluded that none of them will be entitled to compensation. [4526]
§ Mr. HowardFour hundred and forty-one people have been excluded from Great Britain or the United Kingdom since the introduction of this legislation in 1974. Differentiation between those excluded from Great Britain and those excluded from the United Kingdom since 1974 could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.
To claim compensation, an individual would have to show that he had suffered loss as a direct result of the failure to follow procedures deemed necessary by the European Court of Justice. There is no evidence to support this in any of these cases, since the Court has called into question the process, rather than the fact, of exclusion. In 358W many instances, the decision to exclude was subsequently backed up by an independent adviser who had had a chance to interview the individual.
§ Sir Teddy TaylorTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he had made of the cost of providing a wholly independent review of persons considered for exclusion under protection of terrorism legislation. [4527]
§ Mr. HowardAn independent review process already exists. Each individual who is excluded is offered the opportunity to make representations to an independent adviser. The European Court of Justice judgment in Gallagher concerned the point at which the reference should be made to an adviser. We are currently considering its implications.