Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2007

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the recent case. In the control order cases before the Law Lords, they affirm that the procedure of reviewing control orders may in some cases lead to unfairness, but not that it necessarily would or had. They agreed that the judge reviewing the control order would have to identify a significant injustice to the controlled person for it to be arguable that there had been a breach. A Law Lord stated that it is highly likely that the special advocate procedure will safeguard the suspect against significant injustice. Clearly, these matters are still being considered and I do not expect that the noble Lord expects me to give a definitive view on those points tonight. In general, the whole construct of the special advocate system, particularly in relation to SIAC, is to provide a judicial process to test the evidence against the appellant while preserving the source of that evidence from being placed at risk of compromise. I fully accept that there are very basic arguments about the broad principles involved. It is a difficult judgment to get the balance right. But the Government have to assess the threats to this country and have procedures in place. We are of the view that the special advocate procedure is probably the best way to achieve that balance. I understand that there will always be arguments about it. I apologise to the House for using the wretched word ““stakeholder””. If my boss knew I was using it, he also would give me the ticking off I received from both noble Lords. He detests that word, and I do not like it either. If I had been more astute I would have not used it tonight: I have been rightfully brought to task for it. It means that we consulted the most relevant bodies with a concern in these matters. They basically said that they thought the changes being made were sensible. On that basis, I hope that I will be forgiven. On Question, Motion agreed to.