| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall be equally brief and, I hope, helpful. There is nothing in the Bill which excludes or disapplies the powers contained in Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or equivalent provisions. Therefore we believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister. As soon as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, departs from the Chamber, sweetness and light break out--I have the ability of course to alter that section of Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 93 [Authorisations: procedure and duration etc.]:
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in principle we have no problem in agreeing to Amendment No. 42. In my notes it is the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Perhaps I may be given a moment to sort out my notes.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the House. We have amendments in parallel, to which Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 are alternatives. We are effectively pursuing the same ends except in relation to Amendment No. 49, where we suggest that there should be monthly reviews in addition to the three-monthly renewal period.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have no reference in my notes to this amendment. I do not know whether it is within the rules of the House to move to Amendment No. 50 while I sort out Amendment No. 42.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, we are agreed about Amendments Nos. 42, 44, 46, 47 and 48. Only Amendment No. 49 is additional.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is unforgivable on my part. We spent so much time on the earlier amendments that I have not concentrated enough on this group. I do not have any reference to these amendments in my notes. I wonder whether the House would give me five minutes to ensure that I get them. I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure for five minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 10.16 to 10.21 p.m.]
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 42:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I offer my profuse apologies for the delay. I had here a group of amendments but no notes. This group of amendments reduces the authorisation times from 15 days to 72 hours for oral authorisations and from six months to three for other authorisations, which will not inhibit their operational effectiveness. I would have been arguing much more coherently had I been better prepared for this particular group of amendments and arguing that the Government's amendments are preferable. In the hope that the noble Baroness will accept them, I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, yes indeed we do accept the government Amendments Nos. 42, 44, 46, 47 and 48. The only point which I really would wish to argue in addition is that the authorisation should be reviewed on a regular monthly basis and not left for three months. We feel that in an issue as important as this, involving the surveillance of people's homes, at least a monthly review of the situation is appropriate and that it should not be left for even three months. Otherwise, we welcome the reductions in the time limits which the Government are suggesting. In fact our own suggested amendments are on all fours with those propsoed by the Government. I would not therefore intend to pursue our own alternative forms of words, which in some cases are actually defective, I think. We urge the Government to consider whether it would be appropriate for the authorisations to be reviewed on a monthly basis so that three months are not allowed to elapse between the initial authorisation and the next.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry to have to sound unhelpful. We believe that it must be for the commissioner to do what he believes is appropriate. We genuinely believe that there will be a pecking order of priorities for him to be more vigilant about, but it really must be a matter for him. We shall continue to evaluate the working of the Bill when it becomes an Act. The annual reports to Parliament will give us even more indication of how well it is working and of the degree of monitoring and review that will be necessary.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I recognise that the authorising officer will, effectively, now be the commissioner rather than a senior police officer, given that the earlier amendments have been passed. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, is shaking his head at me--
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that I started the muddle. As I understand it, the authorising officer will be a circuit judge.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, that is my understanding, in which case I do not think that our amendment is appropriate any longer. That was the point that I was about to make. If the authorising officer had remained a senior police officer, there would have been no difficulty in reviewing the authorisation on a monthly basis because a great many police operations are reviewed on a monthly basis. My point was that a
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before our amendment is withdrawn and in a spirit of helpfulness--
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I may be wrong, but I believe that the amendment being moved is Amendment No. 42. The other amendments are grouped with it, so the noble Baroness cannot withdraw any of her amendments yet. I believe that that is correct.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Baroness. A problem is now developing. Some of it is due to semaphore, which is useful because I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to be right in his indication that the authorising officer still remains the senior police officer. The amendments which have been successfully moved--whether we are talking about the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh or that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers--do not bite on the definition of "authorising officer". Amendment No. 24, which was moved by my noble friend Lord McIntosh still retains a descriptive categorisation of "authorising officer", but his application may not take effect until approval.
I am not pointing any finger at anyone, but one is now getting into a significant degree of muddle because of the nature of the amendments that have been passed. As I understand it--this view may be shared by the Lord Advocate--the authorising officer still remains the senior police officer. The "commissioner" has been inserted whether as a commissioner who has formerly held, or is presently holding, high judicial office or as a circuit judge, according to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. It will be extremely difficult to continue discussing amendments of detail when the terms and terminology are being transposed so constantly. I merely raise that point although the noble Lord, Lord Lester, may well share that concern.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am finding it difficult--I am sure that the Minister will find it even more difficult--to consider the amendments properly when a major shift was made earlier by the acceptance by the House of the two main amendments. I respectfully suggest that one would have a better focused debate if the Government had the time to take stock of what other, wider consequential amendments are needed when deciding what to do in respect of those two earlier amendments. I cannot help thinking as we go through the amendments that this is a situation of "more haste, less speed". It might be desirable to find a way procedurally to return to these amendments at a later stage and perhaps to deal now with later clauses in the Bill which are not affected by them. I believe that that is commonsense and I hope that it is helpful.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in principle I do not disagree with the suggestion that we return to this group of amendments once we have seen the Bill in its new form, except to say that, whether either of the amendments survives in this Bill in this form, the oversight and monitoring arrangements do not change. That is what we are talking about as far as concerns those amendments. I find it difficult to see how circuit judges can be second-guessed by the commissioner, but that is by the by. I believe that it is appropriate to withdraw any amendments associated with my name on the Marshalled List and return to them at the next stage of the Bill when the dust has settled on today's proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.43 and 44 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McColl of Dulwich): My Lords, if Amendment No. 45 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 46 to 48.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 49 not moved.]
Page 36, line 28, leave out from beginning to ("it") and insert ("72 hours beginning with the time when").
10.30 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page