| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister most warmly for that most generous tribute. Whatever may happen in the next Parliament and whenever it may be that we three meet again, I will inevitably think of the Table over there as the cauldron. It is most appropriately provided with water for which I have been most grateful on many occasions. Both the Minister and I have very much enjoyed our numerous engagements. At times they have been inconclusive. I always think of speaking from this side of the House as being a little like bowling. I found the Minister's defence impregnable.
Whatever I have come up with, the Minister's bat always seems to be there. Thinking of new ways of getting round it has been a wonderful challenge. But his defence! Well, I do not see how to get round it.He knows the story of my dentist who used to bowl to his clansman, the Australian "Slasher" Mackay. He asked him whether there was any way of getting him out. He thought for a long time and replied, "Hand grenades". I do not propose to employ them on the Minister because I have found that not only have we developed that relationship of trust, which is essential for doing any business across the Chamber, but we have also come to look on each other with a good deal of warmth. I very much enjoyed our exchanges and our conversations inside the Chamber and out. He is a person with whom any day I am happy to do business.
I am also extremely sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, is unable to be here today. I offer my sympathy for the reasons why she is not able to be here. I very much enjoyed working side by side with her--speed at one end and spin at the other. It is an ideal bowling combination. I am sure that the two of us have been far more successful than either of us could ever have hoped to be alone. I believe that the contrast of styles has been a very great asset. I have very much enjoyed working not only with the fire and the force with which her arguments are put forward, but also with the weight of academic knowledge and intelligence which is behind them. I have been proud to work beside her.
I too should like to offer thanks to all those who have helped us with this work; to the team behind me in our Whips' Office who have been rushed off their feet with amendments many times; to organisations which have advised us and to all those in the Chamber on both sides of the House and in all quarters of the House, who have enlivened the debates in which we have taken part.
Now a brief word about this Bill: it is not the Crime (Sentences) Bill. This is a Bill which has general agreement as to its object. We all support what it is trying to do. We all believe that this Bill should become law. My concern about it has been with misdemeanours and not with felonies.
As I see it, this is a "tea-break Bill", rather like the old "tea-break car" which is what an unlucky purchaser occasionally acquired. The Bill has been prepared in considerable haste. In my view, it could have done with rather more scrutiny than it has yet received. We all understand about the pressure caused by the unexpectedly early prorogation. Inevitably, there are deals in such circumstances. It takes two to make a deal: there must be give and take. On this Bill, I believe that the Opposition have sold themselves a little cheap in the deal that they have made. The Bill is to become law, but it could have been amended with considerable benefit before becoming law.
The Minister knows that there is great doubt about whether the Bill is legal under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. He knows, I believe, we are told that an action will begin immediately the Bill becomes law. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould--in case it falls to her honourable friends
to implement the Bill--is well aware that her party and mine have agreed that the European Convention should be incorporated in British law. I warmly welcome that declaration. So, the Opposition might be wise, if they are in charge of the Bill in future, to make it their fairly urgent business in the next Parliament while the major Bills are being prepared to tidy up this Bill to bring it into line with the European Convention and to ensure that it is legal. I am sorry that we have not done that--amendments to achieve it could have been offered.The Bill may risk doing damage to people who have been guilty of innocent misrepresentation. I have not moved my amendment that Clause 14 should not stand part of the Bill, but that is a symbolic point about an issue which whoever is in charge of this matter in the next Parliament should think about again. If there is tidying up legislation, I hope that point will be addressed.
The need to pursue fraud is urgent. The need for fairness is also vital. I am not sure that this Bill always achieves that balance. The Bill means well and I welcome it for that reason, but there is still more work to do--and somebody will have to do it. I wish them well with it, whoever they may be.
Police Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.--(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
1
Clause 21, page 9, line 34, leave out from second ("NCIS") to end of line 35.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. In speaking to Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, 103 to 107, 122, 124 and 125. These are minor and technical amendments to tidy up the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad provisions in the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.--(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
2
Clause 23, page 11, line 37, after ("subsection (1)") insert ("or (2)").
Page 11, line 39, after ("direct") insert ("the Director General of NCIS,").
Page 11, line 41, after ("Constabulary") insert ("or").
Page 11, line 42, leave out ("or the Director General of NCIS").
Clause 66, page 27, line 38, leave out from second ("Squad") to end of line 39.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 6--(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3
4
5
6
7
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7 to Part III of the Bill. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 to 68 and 108 to 120. These amendments are of more substance.
I do not believe that there is any dispute about the need for the police and Customs to use intrusive surveillance techniques against serious and organised criminals. These techniques must be available to the police and Customs if they are to gain the vital intelligence necessary to disrupt and bring to book our most dangerous criminals.
A great deal has been said about the provisions of Part III of the Bill. Debate in this House confirmed the extent of the concerns evident at the Government's original proposals for chief officer authorisation and independent oversight by a surveillance commissioner. I have to say that some of the concerns were unfounded and I cannot agree with them. But the will of this House was made very apparent with the passing of contradictory amendments. We have therefore taken Part III away and applied detailed consideration to the most effective way of returning the Bill to a workable condition. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced a number of modifications to Part III in advance of Second Reading in another place. These modifications have been discussed and approved. Part III has therefore been effectively rewritten. But I hope these modifications will serve to illustrate to this House our commitment to provide further safeguards to meet the concerns of this House, while ensuring a system which enables the police and Customs to be able to continue to get the benefit of these techniques so necessary to the fight against organised crime into the next millennium.
We could not accept the amendment approved in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. This would have required all intrusive surveillance to have the prior authorisation of a circuit judge. We could not accept that judges can properly be expected to make these decisions. But there are other difficulties. Accountability would be reduced: judges cannot be called to account in the same way as chief officers. Furthermore, the absence of provisions for urgent cases would seriously inhibit the fight against serious crime. It could even endanger life, and I think particularly of hostage situations in which an immediate response can be vital.
The amendment approved by this House in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, does not present quite the same difficulties. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has responded positively in another place by modifying this amendment to produce a system of authorisation which builds upon existing accountability arrangements, leaves operational decisions to those best qualified to take them and provides for effective independent scrutiny.
Amendment No. 36 builds upon the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and requires that the prior approval of a commissioner be obtained before an operation begins in the most sensitive categories of case. These circumstances will include cases in which there are reasonable grounds for thinking that the operation authorised under Part III could involve intrusion into dwellings, offices or hotel bedrooms or could affect legal privilege, confidential personal information (including spiritual counselling and medical consultations) and confidential journalistic material. The Government have added definitions of legal privilege and the other prescribed categories for the purposes of Part III in Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39. These definitions are based on those which exist under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Prior approval will not be necessary in urgent cases, but the commissioner would have to be notified as soon as reasonably practicable after the authorisation had been given. He will able to quash the authorisation if he is not satisfied with the reasons given for considering the case one of urgency.
Government amendments approved in another place also provide for authorising officers and complainants to appeal to the Chief Commissioner against decisions taken by commissioners. On reflection, we have taken the view that there should be avenues of appeal for authorising officers or complainants to challenge what they consider to be unreasonable decisions taken by commissioners. Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50 provide the necessary mechanism for the making and consideration of these appeals which represent a further significant safeguard.
The addition of this appeals mechanism is one of the considerations which requires a clear demarcation to be drawn between the responsibilities of the chief and the other commissioners appointed for the purposes of Part III. Amendments to Clause 98 therefore clarify that the commissioner shall keep under review the performance of functions under Part III. This is a crucial point. The Chief Commissioner will not be responsible for day-to-day approval of authorisations or investigation of complaints. These are functions of the commissioners.
The Government have responded positively in another place to the concerns raised in this House. What has resulted is an effective system for the authorisation of these operations by those best qualified to make these operational decisions, with the addition of a number of effective safeguards. I commend these amendments to this House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.--(Baroness Blatch.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page