| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The width of these provisions has already been discussed in previous amendments, but the extension of the existing disclosure powers from proceedings to investigations, and even beyond that to deciding whether an investigation should take place, is, as I understand it, to apply to everything and not simply to terrorism. The purpose of this group of amendments is to try to confine the scope of the provisions; that is obvious.
My Amendment No. 51 seeks to include the words Xinvolving terrorism". Its purpose is to limit the scope of an inquiry for the purpose of this emergency legislation. Those are broad words, Xinvolving terrorism". We have to deal with the argument that the Minister has put forward; namely, that the Government want these wide powers because investigating bodies will not know whether a case involves terrorism until they decide to investigate and then carry out the investigation. I have used the words, Xinvolving terrorism" in my amendment to enable those who seek such information to say, XWe are from the security services and it is our duty to investigate the possibility of terrorism and information you may have which may assist us". That limits the scope of the people who can make that inquiry.
If a local police constable goes down to the fish counting centre and says, XI demand to see your records of anthrax infected salmon that have come into the River Dee in the course of the past few months", I imagine that his application for that information may be resisted as it would not appear from such a request that he was a person involved in investigating, or considering the investigation of, terrorism. It seems to me that this clause attempts to encompass the widest investigation or disclosure of information when it could be limited to the scope of the emergency provisions.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My name is attached to several of the amendments in the group. I want to make only one point in elaboration of what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said vis-a-vis health matters and to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, before the dinner break when he was categoric in saying that doctors would not come within the purview of Clause 17. I have to tell him that that is not what Human Rights Practice, which is one of the standard works in relation to the Human Rights Act, states.
The Health Act 1999 is one of the statutes enumerated in Schedule 4. Whereas at the moment health records can be obtained by police only on a circuit judge's order, and only then in respect of serious arrestable offences in respect of UK criminal proceedings, if this measure passes without this set of amendments being accepted, that will no longer be the case. The wide provisions of Clause 17 will be incorporated into the Health Act 1999. There will be no requirement for the criminal matters concerned to
be serious arrestable offences. There will be no requirement for the criminal matters to be confined to UK criminal proceedings.As I said earlier, Human Rights Practice states explicitly that doctors working within the NHS, and therefore within the framework of the General Medical Council, are part of a public authority and their records are therefore—certainly in terms of Clause 17—available for disclosure.
Lord Hylton: I believe that this series of amendments is helpful and my sympathies are with it. However, I should like to ask whether the Minister is able to give an assurance that, in principle, no officially held information will be disclosed to countries—for example, those in the former Soviet Union, in the Middle East and in a good many other places—which have criminal justice and human rights systems greatly inferior to our own. I ask that because I believe that such disclosure could put at risk asylum seekers and refugees already in this country and their families who may still be in overseas countries. Such people who remain overseas could be in danger of torture and other serious malpractice.
Viscount Goschen: This series of amendments appears to crystallise the arguments that we put forward in connection with a number of other amendments, including the group containing Amendment No. 37, earlier in this evening's proceedings. The Government have made it clear in a number of statements that the purpose of this legislation is very specific and that the Bill is targeted particularly at countering a heightened terrorism threat. That is why we are agreeing to the swift procedures.
In debate on an earlier amendment—I believe that it was Amendment No. 37—when we discussed the question of including words such as Xcounter-terrorism" in order to make the Bill more specific, the Minister appeared to indicate that that was altogether the Government's intention but that, in that case, the inclusion of those words would limit the freedom of the Government.
In this situation, as I read Clause 17(2)(a), these amendments are being inserted after the statement that the purpose of any criminal investigation must be to counter terrorism or must involve terrorism, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. Surely that gives the Government all the latitude that they need. The criminal investigation itself must be dedicated towards a counter-terrorism purpose, as is already stated in Clause 17(2)(a). But if, for example, another investigation which was not terrorism-based suddenly threw up information about terrorism, presumably at that stage there would be a fresh investigation which would be dedicated towards counter-terrorism.
Therefore, I believe that a number of noble Lords would be interested in listening to the Minister if he said that the word Xcounter-terrorism" was in some way not broad enough. As I suggested earlier this evening, the act might, for example, be a terrorist threat or a threat to national security, however broadly
the Minister wishes to draw the phrase. However, to leave the matter totally open appears to question the Government's statement that the aim of the Bill is purely to counter terrorism. I believe that this provides a very good opportunity for the Minister to confirm whether that is still the case or whether the Government wish the Bill to be applied more widely to issues that have nothing whatever to do with terrorism.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As has already been said, the arguments here, which are central to Clause 17, were visited when we dealt with previous amendments. I shall be required—indeed, I shall require myself—to give the same answers as I gave on previous occasions. I shall have something very specific to say about the General Medical Council, and one or two new points have been made to which I also want to respond.
However, fundamentally, I want to explain again what we are trying to achieve in Part 3 and, in particular, in Clause 17. The provisions of Part 3 are designed to clarify to public authorities whether or not they may disclose information. Restricting their disclosure solely to cases of terrorist offences would be a significant impediment to them. In each case it would force them to satisfy themselves, for fear of acting illegally, that the information was directly related to criminal conduct in relation to terrorism.
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, make the point that his amendments which use the phrase Xinvolving terrorism" are different. They do not appear to be different but I shall examine the point and consider between now and Report whether there is a significant and helpful difference in wording.
Under the present drafting, individuals need to satisfy themselves that information would be relevant to a criminal investigation or proceedings. The amendments would limit the provisions and render them significantly weaker—and Xweaker" is not meant in an abstract sense. It means weakening the pursuit of terrorism. I come back to that point time and again.
The Earl of Onslow: The Minister started by arguing that we can go looking for any criminal but then said, XIf we cannot do that, it works against our ability to act against terrorism". That is a logical inconsistency of the first order. Either one is looking for terrorism or one is looking for offences such as parking on double yellow lines or brothel-keeping. There is no point in saying, XYes, we are going to look for brothel-keeping", and hope that by accident we shall uncover terrorism. The Bill should not allow one to go trawling for brothel-keepers. Let us by all means pass an Act that allows us to go trawling for brothel-keepers but let us restrict the terrorism Bill to terrorist offences. That is the point that those of us on this side have been hammering home. The Minister argued that we can start with other offences and that accidentally we shall come on to terrorism. That cannot be the right approach and it is not what the Bill should do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I disagree with the noble Earl on a point of logic, quite apart from his
argument about terrorism. When the anti-terrorist squad, for example, or any other body is looking for terrorism, they are looking for activities that one can discover but which may not themselves be terrorist activities. Those activities involve other criminal activities that could lead one to terrorists. There is no alternative way to start an investigation involving terrorism other than by looking more widely.
Viscount Goschen: The Minister is being extraordinarily patient and I apologise for intervening again, but I am not sure that he is right. Clause 17(2)(a) states that the purpose of the investigation has to be to counter terrorism. My noble friend Lord Onslow pointed out that the Minister said that the investigation could be into anything. The Minister's argument is rather like suggesting that one should be given the authority to intercept all telephone calls on the off-chance that something criminal might be said. The authority has to be satisfied only about the purpose of the investigation, not that every little piece of information is definitely terrorist related. It has to be satisfied about the situation in which a person comes to it and says, XI am a counter-terrorism officer"—or an officer of the security services, for example—Xand my intention in asking for the information is to pursue terrorism". That does not involve asking the authority to judge whether that piece of information is terrorism-related or not; nor does it involve conclusions about the way in which the original inquiry came about.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page