---

Terrorism Bill

I do not think the amendment is necessary. I shall explain why. In one sense, we could have had the debate on Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 with this amendment as they fit in with it, but I shall try to take them out of sequence. The amendment adds a section of text to Section 6(1) of the Intelligence Services Act as inserted by Clause 30(3) of this Bill. The purpose of Clause 30(3) is to establish that the senior official nominated by the Secretary of State can issue Section 5 warrants in urgent circumstances and that he may do so only if the actions covered would be authorised by a current Section 7 authorisation if carried out overseas. That is how I understand the noble Lord puts the matter. I believe that this amendment is intended to establish that the actions authorised by such a warrant, issued by a senior official, will be treated as if they were authorised by the Secretary of State under Section 7 authorisation. I see the noble Lord agreeing with that. I am grateful to the noble Lord for attempting to clarify that, although I do not believe that it is necessary. Referring back to Section 7 authorisation may be misleading, as Section 7 authorisation may relate only to actions taken overseas, whereas Clause 30(3) relates to the issue of warrants in urgent-circumstances actions in the British Isles. So Clause 30(3) is intended to set out the limits in which a nominated senior official may issue a warrant under Section 5 of the Intelligence Services Act and the subsection does not, therefore, set out the effect of the warrant. The short answer to the question raised by the noble Lord in relation to the actions is, of course, that they are lawful and not criminal. So by reason of the warrant under Section 5, the authorisation is relevant only as a precondition of issue and an urgent warrant in the circumstances proposed by the new powers. The difficulty that the noble Lord sees does not actually exist in fact. As I said earlier, the subsection does not set out the effect of the warrant; the amendment appears—I say ““appears””—to insert the effect of the warrant. I can understand from the way in which the noble Lord put the matter that that may not be what he thought his amendment did, but it appears to do that. It is unnecessary as the force of the text is already provided in the relevant parts of Section 5 of the Intelligence Services Act. The noble Lord need not concern himself with the fact that the way in which the clause has been put together would somehow put the official who was authorising it into a difficulty greater than that—I see the noble Lord shaking his head—