| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it will not be the first time that large numbers of noble Lords have been in this Chamber and have stayed only for the amendments in which they have an interest and have then departed the Chamber, very often much earlier in the day. So I do not regard that as a very good reason for curtailing our proceedings at this moment.
If there was any case whatsoever for accepting the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it would have been perhaps earlier on in Part III, because if there is any cool reflection to be done at all on the effects of the amendments passed earlier in the day, it would be in relation to Part III. We are almost through Part III now. This has been in the diary for a very long time. It has been agreed through
the usual channels. I am certainly prepared to see through the work of this part of the Bill today. All noble Lords were informed that this would be one day on Report and that the proceedings would be completed today. It is my view that we should get on and do that now.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the noble Baroness the Minister has referred to this part of the Bill, and I understood, until her final sentence, that she was making the suggestion that we should complete the consideration of Part III and that should be the end of the business for today. She referred to parts of the Bill. Is the noble Baroness now saying that it is not the endurance of Members of your Lordships' House which is at stake, but the credibility of the Bill and the credibility of the House in the eyes of the public? Is the noble Baroness indeed saying that, irrespective of progress, we should go on and on to complete the amendments on the Marshalled List? Is she saying that we should do that irrespective of the quality of our discussion and to whatever hour we go on?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not think it helps the issue of how long we take on this part of the Bill by continuing this debate. I feel that we should move on and complete the Report stage of the Bill tonight. I said that if there were a case at all for curtailing our proceedings, it would have made more sense and been more logical to have considered not taking Part III today while we reflected on the impact of the two amendments. They do not have an impact on the rest of the Bill.
I believe that we should now make haste and move on to the next part of the Bill. In the meantime, we have not completed the amendment on the Marshalled List which is before the House at the moment.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am not quite sure of the present position. Are we still considering Amendment No. 89? If so, perhaps I may intervene on that amendment.
I am a lawyer and confess--if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will allow me to say so--that I am not wholly in agreement with his definition of the application of judicial review. But having said that, it seems to me that it is an administrative act that the commissioners are being invited to perform under paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 7. It seems to me that this amendment applies the right test for an administrative action by the commissioner and it is not appropriate to apply the judicial review test, although, as I said just now, the noble Lord's definition of judicial review is one with which I cannot wholly agree.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I find this an extraordinary amendment in the context of the main amendment that was passed this afternoon. The commissioner would review the merits of the decision of the authorising of intrusive surveillance when a complaint was made to him. But the commissioner is making the decision. He is giving the approval for the authorisation. This amendment would give the
commissioner the power to review the merits of his own decision making, where he approves intrusive surveillance. I find that this amendment makes no sense whatsoever.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that that is exactly the reason why we should not continue our consideration of this Bill tonight. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is correct. I should have been glad to have taken instruction from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, about the meaning of judicial review principles. I am sorry that I have been denied that opportunity. I do not find the Minister's view on this amendment helpful.
I am seriously considering whether, so far as concerns the Opposition, we should simply not move any of our amendments on Part V and bring them all back at Third Reading. In my view, that would be in breach of some of the conventions of this House because a Third Reading is supposed to be limited to matters which cannot be resolved earlier. But if we cannot resolve matters in a civilised way at a civilised time of day, we shall have no alternative but to do that. I do not believe that it is the way that your Lordships should consider Bills. But if we get to midnight and are still on matters of such fundamental importance as criminal conviction certificates and criminal record certificates, I give notice that it is highly likely that we shall simply move all that business to Third Reading, at the expense of the proper consideration that we should wish to have. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 89.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 90, I must tell the House that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 91.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 91:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 92:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendments tabled to Schedule 7 and Clause 97 are closely linked.
The purpose of the first amendment to Clause 97 is to clarify more specifically the grounds on which the Prime Minister may exclude material from the commissioner's report laid before Parliament. As presently drafted, the Bill limits the discretion of the Prime Minister to excluding material prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of any police authority, service authority, etc. This amendment makes it clear that material may also be excluded on the grounds that its inclusion would be prejudicial to the prevention or detection of serious crime. The amendment seeks to ensure greater consistency between
The amendment to delete Clause 97(5) is necessary, as the Bill, as presently drafted, does not allow the commissioner to give the reasons for his decisions without the consent of the originator of the document or information provided to him. The wording of this clause is clearly at odds with the amendment to Schedule 7, which requires the commissioner to report his findings to the authorising officer who gave the authorisation and to the Prime Minister. It is right that the commissioner should have full discretion to disclose information about the exercise of these powers to the Prime Minister and so that he can report any concerns about the way the provisions are being used. It is also right that the authorising officer should be informed of reasons why an authorisation has been quashed and the destruction of records ordered, especially as the authorising officer may well be required to pay compensation, although that is a question still to be answered. This would not be possible if the commissioner did not have the discretion to disclose documents.
I hope therefore that the amendments will be welcomed. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the face of it, there can be no objection to Amendment No. 92 and its consequential Amendment No. 95. The fact that the Commissioner should make a report of his findings to the authorising officer is entirely proper, although of course there will have to be a consequential amendment following the passage of Amendment No. 24.
I worry when I look at Amendments Nos. 118 and 122, which are grouped with Amendment No. 92. Amendment No. 118 restricts the publication of the report and Amendment No. 122 removes the restriction on disclosure without consent. When I was notified of the intention to group these amendments together, I expressed my surprise that it was thought that amendments which appeared to go in opposite directions should be consequential one upon the other. I expressed that surprise before the grouping of the amendments was finalised. I would still welcome a explanation from the Minister as to why what appear to be not mutually contradictory amendments in the literal sense but amendments moving in different directions should be grouped together in this way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 94:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 68, line 19, after first ("the") insert ("Chief").
Page 68, line 21, at end insert (", and
(b) make a report of his findings to the authorising officer who gave the authorisation or in whose absence it was given and, under section 97(1), to the Prime Minister.").
Page 68, line 23, after first ("the") insert ("Chief").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page