Terrorism Bill 2005 Tuesday 20th December Lords Committee stage
The House of Lords Committee stage of the Terrorism Bill 2005 finished on Tuesday 20th December 2005, the last day of Parliament before the Christmas and New Year break.
The Report stage is scheduled for Tuesday 17th January 2006 and Wednesday 25th January 2006.
As is usual, all the amendments which were called for debate ended up being withdrawn:
- Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws brought up the Terrorism Act 2000 section 44 stop and search powers, the use of which have been vastly expanded beyond what was promised when they were granted in 2000.
- Lord Elton also withdrew his amendment of Clause 30 (now renumbered as Clause 31), which is another modification of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, after querying the concept of a "senior official".
- However neither he nor anyone else uttered a word about Clause 31 (now renumbered as Clause 32 Interception warrants , which went through on the nod. This also delegates powers for the renewal of Intercept Warrants under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, from the Home Secretary to secret, unaccountable senior officials. If signing Intercept Warrant renewals is too much for Home Secretary Charles Clarke, he should be delegating this to an independent Judge, not to a faceless bureaucrat.
- Baroness Cox continued to raise the issue of the alleged security risk of a couple of security companies with Government and Blue Chip company contracts and access to critical national infrastructure being owned by a Saudi Arabian / Sudanese businessman who also invested in the pharmaceutical / alleged chemical weapons factory near Khartoum which was hit by a cruise missile strike by order of President Clinton.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws brought the question of the Terrorism Act 2000 section 44 "stop and search" powers, which the use of which has expanded far beyond what was promised when they were granted back in 2000, but, of course ended up withdrawing her amendment.
However this was not before the Home Office Minister
Baroness Scotland of Asthall went into Orwellian NuSpeak mode when asked about the rolling authorisations empowering Terrorist Act 2000 section 44 searches throught London which has been operating for the past two years.
Baroness Scotland of AsthallBaroness Scotland of Asthal: I make it clear that I am not, and will not be, in a position to give the noble Baroness any clarification on that at all. I am not in a position to tell her whether she is right or she is wrong. Bearing in mind the sensitivity of this issue, the noble Baroness should recognise the position in which the Government find themselves. If she were right, we
20 Dec 2005 : Column 1643
would not be able to confirm it; if she were absolutely, fundamentally and irritatingly wrong, I would not be able to say anything about it either.
Which is, of course, counterproductive rubbish.
In what way is the terrorist threat to London increased by admitting that the Police have the power to make anti-terrorist stops and searches ?
Baroness Scotland herself said a bit earlier earlier
20 Dec 2005 : Column 1642 12.15 pmWe have to remember also that Section 44 exists to deter and disrupt.
If Section 44 exists to "deter and disrupt" terrorist activity, it is a mystery how this can be done by keeping the fact that an area has been designated as a section 44 stop and search area a secret.
The existance of the rolling authorisations was revealed both by a High Court case involving non-terrorist pacifist demonstrators outside an Arms Trade exhibition in the London Docklands, and by John Denham, the Chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee.
There is no evidence that any of the tens of thousands of such stops and searches have actually deterred or disrupted any terrorist attacks whatsoever, tehy certainly have not caught any terrorists red handed on their way to commit an attack.
They have caused many innocent people unecessary stress and financial losses, not just to people from the Islamic communities, but also for example, to people like David Mery.
Lord Elton also withdrew his amendment of Clause 30 (now renumbered as Clause 31), which is another modification of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, after querying the concept of a "senior official".
However neither he nor anyone else uttered a word about Clause 31 (now renumbered as Clause 32 Interception warrants , which went through on the nod.
Our comments on first reading this clause when the Bill was first published still stand.
This clause also delegates powers for the renewal of Intercept Warrants under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, from the Home Secretary to secret, unaccountable senior officials. If signing Intercept Warrant renewals is too much for Home Secretary Charles Clarke, he should be delegating this to an independent Judge, not to a faceless bureaucrat.
Perhaps the Home Office officials no longer trust Charles Clarke to even bother to read such warrants, after the debacle with the first 10 Control Orders which he apparently signed, without noticing that the same template had been applied to people with different nationalities, accused of different (secret) terrorist activities.
Remember, that by allowing this modification to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to go through on the nod, Parliament has failed to scrutinise the wider implications for non-terrorist related crimes, which that Act also applies to.
Baroness Cox continued to raise the issue of the alleged security risk of a couple of security companies with Government and Blue Chip company contracts and access to critical national infrastructure being owned by a Saudi Arabian / Sudanese businessman who also invested in the pharmaceutical / alleged chemical weapons factory near Khartoum which was hit by a cruise missile strike by order of President Clinton.
Apart from managing to cast doubts on the loyalty of the British employees of these two companies, by claiming that they could be terrorist "sleepers", she was fobbed off by the Government Minister with the usual "we are already taking all the approriate measures" and "we cannot comment on specific cases" remarks.
Technorati tag: Terrorism Bill 2005