---

Terrorism Bill

It may be easier if I explain how we say these two fit together. Under the current provisions in the Intelligence Services Act 1994, the Secretary of State may issue an authorisation under Section 7 to enable the carrying out of acts overseas that would be contrary to UK law if carried out in this country. In order for an authorisation to be issued in the first place it is required that the issuer be of the opinion that the target for acts authorised under Section 7 is located outside the United Kingdom. Only the Secretary of State or, in some specific circumstances and situations, a senior official, are entitled to issue an authorisation. An authorisation will then be passed to the agency permitted to carry out the actions it sets out. If, in carrying out the action, the person holding the authorisation discovers the target to be within the United Kingdom, the changes made by Clause 30 provide that they will continue to be authorised to carry out the activities in question, if those actions are such that they could have been authorised under Section 5 of the Intelligence Services Act. The duration for which they would continue to be authorised to carry out acts, while the target is in the UK, is a maximum of five working days. This should provide sufficient time to assess the situation and return to the Secretary of State to obtain a warrant under Section 5, if judged appropriate. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord might be intended to require the person authorised to carry out actions to return instantly to the person issuing the authorisation and make them aware of the fact that the target is actually in the UK. This may not be possible in an urgent operation, and would eliminate the necessary flexibility that the clause is intended to produce. I remind the Committee that this particular provision is intended to ensure that no damaging hiatus exists in an authorised operation intended to disrupt terrorist groups and others, overseas, if members of that group and their property were to enter the United Kingdom. This provision gives us that flexibility. The noble Lord’s amendments relate to Clause 30(6), which inserts new subsections (11) and (12), among others, into the Intelligence Services Act. The belief referred to in those subsections belongs to the person carrying out the action outlined in the authorisation. This is clear in the amendment. The location of the target property will not always be known as being in the United Kingdom, so the amendments would relate this belief back to the person issuing the authorisation. We would argue that this misunderstands the specific situation—that it is not the person issuing the authorisation who carries out the action. The amendment would also create the eventuality in which an individual holding an authorisation would be required to return to the person issuing it in the case that the target enters the United Kingdom, forcing them to cease any actions they are carrying out. It is precisely this case that this clause addresses: in allowing the continuation in the UK of actions that have been authorised overseas, it grants a breathing space to the agency responsible in which a warrant need not be sought for actions in the United Kingdom and which would avoid criminal and civil liability. Such a breathing space is necessary, as it is often the case that a warrant may not be obtained instantaneously. If this provision is amended, it would not be possible for the operation to continue if the target for actions were to be discovered to be in the United Kingdom, while the warrant was sought. I hope that has better explained why we say that the amendment is not necessary and the two have to go together as we have constructed them. We think that the clause is sufficiently clear to achieve its effect and the amendments tabled by the noble Lord strip out the very usefulness of the amendment made in Clause 30. I hope that, following that explanation the noble Lord will agree that his amendments are not necessary and he will withdraw them. I accept that he was probing for an answer and I hope that he has now received a full one.