| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we now have the formalities out of the way and perhaps I can say to the noble Baroness that it is not a question of topping up my legal education; like her, I do not have any. But we both try to conceal that as best we can.
The Minister is right in saying that this has turned out to be a much more controversial and important Bill than was originally intended. I am not sure that, had the Home Secretary realised the degree of controversy there would be on some of the measures in the Bill, he would have been quite so willing for it to start in this place. Be that as it may, I agree with the Minister that we have done our duty. We have taken the trouble to examine every part of the Bill and to understand and take a consistent view on its provisions.
Many parts of the Bill are relatively uncontroversial. We have always agreed with the strategy in Parts I and II for the strengthening of the ability of the police to fight serious crime which lies behind the establishment of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. We have had differences in relation to the constitution of the governing bodies of those organisations but they were relatively minor, bearing in mind the overwhelming need--on which we are all agreed--for the effective combat of serious crime.
When we turn to the remainder of the Bill we see that part of the difficulty in which the Government have found themselves is that, having announced a programme of action in a political conference speech, the Home Secretary has been forced to divide up his legislative measures into a number of pieces and the relationship between them has not been entirely clear. We said at the time of the passage of the Security Service Act last year that it would have been better if the other part of the equation had been brought before Parliament at the same time. That has proved to be the case. The Security Service Act contained a number of controversial elements but, on the whole, it met with the approval of your Lordships. This Bill has brought out a number of specific issues which ought to have been debated at the same time as that Act. I refer in particular to the issue of intrusive surveillance.
I was somewhat amazed to hear the Minister say in her speech that no clear view was taken by this House on the issue of prior judicial authorisation. I believe an extremely clear view was taken by this House on the principle that there must be prior judicial authorisation. There were relatively minor--I emphasise this today as I emphasised it last week--differences in relation to the best method of achieving prior judicial authorisation. But on the issue of whether or not it should take place, your Lordships had heavy majorities against the Government which will stand us in good stead when the issue goes to another place. I should be surprised if Ministers in another place can turn their backs on the view of your Lordships' House. A majority of 64 against the Government is not peanuts. They will not be able to turn their backs on that view and, in the end, will have to recognise the justice of the case.
What that shows, I regret to say, is that the Minister still does not understand the difference between the principle of prior judicial authorisation of external control of the police in their ability to enter into a citizen's house and plant bugging devices, and operational details. Operational details we can discuss and argue about; the principle is there and remains so.
The other important decision taken against the advice of the Government was on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, to exclude volunteers from the fees to be charged under Part V. If I hear again the argument that it is an enormous increase in public expenditure, I shall have to remind the Government that the equivalent of criminal record certificates have always been supplied without charge to many people, not only volunteers. The only change being introduced is some regularisation and extension of the system and, above all, the principle that the provision of the certificates shall be self-financing. That was never there before. It is an attempt by the Government to put on to employers--particularly employers in connection with vulnerable children and adults--charges for a service which was previously provided without charge. I hope that my friends in another place will not listen with too much sympathy to exaggerated arguments about public expenditure.
In addition to those matters which were carried against the express wishes of the Government, a number of valuable changes have taken place as a result of concessions by the Government or a change of heart by them. They include the establishment of a body of commissioners; greater powers for the commissioners; and an extended remit for the commissioners which requires them to look at every authorisation speedily--those are all significant changes. Other changes include time limits and authorisations, where our amendments were overlapping and effective; parliamentary oversight for the code of practice, in response to the wishes of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee; an undertaking, to which effect has not yet been given, to ensure that subject access under the data protection Acts will no longer be available. There must be many more examples which I should remember, but have not, of improvements which have been brought forward by the Government or will be brought forward as a result of pressure in this House.
Many unsatisfactory elements still remain in the Bill. By the narrowest of majorities--or by no majority at all--we still have an unsatisfactory position as regards legal professional privilege and excluded confidential communications. We still have too much secrecy and too many restrictions on the role of the commissioners. There are still amendments which ought to be tabled in relation to the role of the police authorities in the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. There is still a problem which we have not succeeded in resolving on what happens when there is inaccurate information on criminal record or conviction certificates.
Nevertheless, I repeat what I said at the beginning: this House has done its job and we must be grateful to those outside who have taken an interest. I refer, in particular, to the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation; to the Law Societies of England and Scotland; to the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association; the British Medical Association, the local authority associations, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, Liberty and Justice.
I thank sincerely and profoundly my noble friends Lady Hilton and Lord Williams of Mostyn for their support. I always enjoy working in a team like this and it is particularly enjoyable when we are able to support each other in the way that we have, all of us with other responsibilities. Also, despite the occasional acerbities between us, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for his collaboration and for the way in which, in the end, we found ourselves in agreement on the more important issues.
I reciprocate the kind words expressed by the Minister about my colleagues. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I have faced each other across the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. Very shortly there may be some change in roles, which will be of interest. Even under extreme pressure I have always enjoyed working with her and I know that the respect I have for her will carry on as we continue to work together. I have also enjoyed working with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown.
The Minister said that sometimes she and her colleagues have been criticised by the media. I can assure her that they have been criticised nothing like as much as I have been criticised by the media in the course of the Bill--sometimes in the public prints by Members of your Lordships' House. She has not been called "contemptible", as I have. Sometimes that hurts and there has been quite a lot of it. However, the Bill is about to pass. It addresses serious issues and there are many respects in which it deserves major improvement. I hope that another place will not only respect your Lordships' wishes but will continue to improve the Bill.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I was going to remark, and I do it now with great confidence, that one of the characteristics of discussion of the Bill has been the good humour on all sides of the Chamber. We have certainly disagreed. Perhaps I should say, bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said about collaboration and the reaction of the Minister this afternoon, that I was totally taken by surprise when the noble Lord raised the point that he did at the beginning of business. For that reason, it was a double whammy when I found that the Minister had conspired with the noble Lord not only to put me on the spot but to give me an opportunity to say something. The good humour of our discussions is something I shall carry away with me.
I do not want to comment at the same length as the noble Baroness and the noble Lord about the substance and purpose of the Bill. I wish only to say about the vote on the principle of judicial authorisation--a fairly important vote that your Lordships chose to make--that I am very open-minded about what form it will take. The amendment I moved was, I believe, the best way of achieving the purpose. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, takes his own view. I would not be dogmatic about the formula the Home Secretary eventually produces, given only that the principle is accepted. Once that has been done it is natural and proper for the Home Secretary to find the best way to implementation consistent with the purposes of the Bill.
From time to time the police have expressed their anxiety and fear that our wish for judicial authorisation was in some way a reflection on them. I do not believe that that was in your Lordships' minds. Without covering the ground again, I say only this. I believe that, loyally as they do their job and carry out their responsibilities under statute, the police are already turning their mind to how best to implement the decision made by your Lordships' House. If the Home Secretary discusses the matter with the police, particularly with the chief constables, he will find them ready to come up with a solution--perhaps a gloss on either of the amendments carried by your Lordships--so that the Bill can eventually pass in such a way to enable them to carry out their necessary and difficult operations, but under judicial authorisation.
I wish to make only one other point about the progress of the Bill. It is certainly true that it has been subject to scrutiny. All of us who look forward to the reform of your Lordships' House will nevertheless say that the role played by the Cross Benches and by the Government Back Benches was a very important one on virtually all issues before the House. Whatever the future of your Lordships' House may be, I hope that there will be room for Cross-Benchers with minds of their own who are prepared to speak for and against the Government of the day, of whatever complexion, and also Back Benchers of the Government of the day who will feel able, from time to time when appropriate, when the spirit moves them and when the issue is large enough, to criticise their own Front Bench. If we have in your Lordships' House, as a result of reform, only yes men and women, it will be a much poorer place in its legislative role.
We spent many hours examining the clauses of the Bill but there was one period of three-and-a-half hours on Report late at night when I do not believe we adequately fulfilled our role of scrutiny. I raised at that time, and mention now in passing, the report of your Lordships' Procedure Committee of two years ago, confirmed in a report of your Lordships' committee published on 2nd December last year, about not continuing after ten o'clock except when circumstances seriously and urgently require it. I put that thought not in order to provoke any response today--that would be inappropriate--but I think that we should seek to ensure, if we are to continue to scrutinise Bills in the way they should be scrutinised, that matters of great importance to our country, and of equally great importance to those outside who are concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, rightly said, with the progress of such a Bill, should be properly dealt with. It was 1 a.m. when I moved an amendment which attempted to exempt child minders from the fees that would be charged under Part V of the Bill. Whether such an amendment was carried or whether such an amendment was acceptable it would be inappropriate to argue today. But such an amendment should not be discussed at 1 a.m. if we are to be seen by everyone and by all those organisations outside as properly doing our job.
For me this has been a congenial Bill, one of some excitement and a good deal of hard work. But no one has worked harder than the noble Baroness,
Lady Blatch. No one, least of all myself, has ever regarded her as a lackey. She is a servant of her office. I do not believe that the Home Secretary could be served better by anyone in this House than the noble Baroness in the manner she has served him on this Bill and on other legislation.I pay tribute also to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whose assiduous pursuit of so many issues is a source of admiration to many of us. I wish I had his capacity to comprehend a Bill, because I, like him, have no legal qualifications. He learnt before my arrival in the House because his competence has been shown not only on this but on many other occasions. My pleasure in taking part in the debates has been heightened by the participation also of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton.
As for my own colleagues, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford is a relatively new Member of your Lordships' House, but I think your Lordships will agree that at all stages he contributed with great distinction; and again we learnt from him. We learnt, as always, from my noble friend Lord Lester.
I have enjoyed the proceedings on the Bill. It is an immensely important one. It was thought to be a mouse of a Bill when it started. It turned out to be a mouse that roared.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page