| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that he should divide the House on every amendment. I said that he is irreconcilable and there is nothing that we can do about meeting his requirements. He should have divided the House at Second Reading and he can still do so at Third Reading. It is not about the detail.
I have huge affection for the noble Earl and it is permanent. I have had it ever since he opposed the poll tax on the grounds that it was unfair that he and his head game keeper should pay the same local tax. That
will never go away. The affection and admiration that I have for him over that will never disappear. But he is irreconcilable. He does not want any part of this Bill. The only proper thing to do is to vote against it as a whole and not on every single amendment.I respond only to the single new point that was made; namely, the possibility of a refusal to disclose on request being reviewed. In theory that is the case and it is possible. But how would it succeed? The public authority does not have, and is not given, a duty to disclose. It is only in the unlikely circumstances that it could be said that a public authority was unreasonable—and unreasonable, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said himself in the Wednesbury sense—in refusing to disclose that there could be any question about it. It is a power and not a duty. I am sorry if I am being repetitive, but the public authority will be subject to the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act. The Human Rights Act does not require somebody else to pursue the public authority to secure that the human rights provisions are complied with. It is a duty on every public authority to comply with that Act. It would be an offence not to do so.
I conclude as I believe that we can bring this matter to an end. We believe that Clause 17 with the restrictions that I have set out—which have been so widely misunderstood by the public—is a significant help in combating television.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I meant to say terrorism. It is XNewsnight" time; I am sorry.
I have set out the safeguards that are in place. I have made it clear that the measure is aimed at terrorism but that it will help with criminal investigations. I recognise that the responses which have been made to Clause 17 are sincerely felt although I believe them to be misconceived. If there is anything we can do between now and Report to remove misconceptions and to narrow the distance between us, we are, of course, willing to try to do that.
Clause 18 [Restriction on disclosure of information for overseas purposes]:
[Amendments Nos. 66 to 68 not moved.]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Amendment No. 68 seeks to—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Amendment No. 68 was discussed with Amendment No. 63.
Lord Hylton: I hope that I may say a few words regarding Amendment No. 68, whether or not it has been moved.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): With respect to the noble Lord, there is no amendment
before the Committee at the moment. The movers of the amendment say that it has not been moved. If the noble Lord wishes to move it, he is, of course, perfectly entitled so to do.
Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 68:
- Page 8, line 38, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment. I had not read the amendment when I sought to obtain an assurance from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on precisely this subject matter. This amendment expresses more elegantly than I did the kind of thing that I want. I suggest the inclusion of only two words to those who drafted the amendment; that is, to add the words, Xand practice" after Xthe law" in the second line. That would cover the huge discrepancy which exists in many countries between what the law says and what actually happens. I strongly commend the amendment to the Minister although he has kindly offered to write to me. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has got the matter into play, I say briefly that I think his proposal is absolutely right. If foreign public authorities are to have the advantages of our legislation, they must provide comparable protections and that must go beyond mere law to practice because, as we know, the manner in which some judicial processes are carried on in other jurisdictions is not such as would give real protection to our citizens and public authorities.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have given the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the principal assurance that he sought; namely, that there are severe restrictions in terms of human rights with regard to who outside this country can receive information disclosed under this part of the Bill. However, this particular amendment is about data protection systems. The Data Protection Act already restricts the extent to which information can be disclosed to countries outside the European Economic Area. The significance of that is that data protection legislation is virtually common within the European Economic Area.
Before making disclosure for the purposes of an investigation where no proceedings are immediately in prospect, the data controller must usually ensure that the country has an adequate system of data protection in place. I repeat: an adequate system of data protection. That does not mean a formal law which is then disobeyed. Therefore, I believe that I shall be able to add to the letter which I am writing to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and which I shall place in the Library of the House, the assurance that is necessary for Clause 68.
Lord Hylton: I am delighted to find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Disclosure of information held by revenue departments]:
[Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 71:
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with an entirely different matter. However, I do not propose to worry the Committee for long because it is essentially a probing amendment. Paragraph (a) of Clause 19(2) refers to disclosure,
Therefore, for some reason, an addition is made to the policy by permitting disclosure of the information held by the commissioners of Inland Revenue and the commissioners of Customs and Excise to the intelligence services for any of their functions—that is, for any purpose whatever. It does not refer to an investigation; it does not refer to criminal proceedings; and it does not refer to the possibility of determining whether there should be an investigation or proceedings. It is the broadest clause in this part of the Bill that one can find. It is linked with Amendment No. 84, which I now appreciate is badly drafted. However, that amendment was consequential only, and I do not intend to refer to it further.
I want to know from the Minister for further consideration on Report why such wide powers are granted and what is the true purpose behind this provision. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I confess that I was not aware that this matter was not referred to in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. I simply looked at the amendment on its merits on the face of this Bill. The amendment seeks to remove from Part 3 the references to the intelligence services. Therefore, it seeks to remove a new statutory gateway which in their view—I am talking about the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ; that is what is meant by Xintelligence services"—would assist them in their vital function of combating terrorism.
One of the central objectives of the Bill is to assist the Government in combating terrorism. If vital information cannot be passed to the security services or, as the Bill states, the intelligence services, that would represent a serious impediment to that effort. I understand the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has in making a comparison with the previous Bill. But I cannot believe, in the specific context of terrorism—even though the noble Earl,
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The powers that are being sought are novel and extensive. They mean that the files of all taxpayers in this country will be available for consideration by the security services for any reason whatever. As I have said, the investigation of terrorism need not be involved. Having pondered the matter, I shall return to it.
X( ) Nothing in this Part authorises the making of any disclosure to an authority of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom unless the law of that country or territory provides, in relation to the use, retention and disclosure of the information in question, equivalent safeguards to those applicable under the law of the part of the United Kingdom in which the information is held."
Page 9, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).
Xfor the purpose of facilitating the carrying out by any of the intelligence services of any of that service's functions".
This is an entirely new provision which did not appear in the Bill that was withdrawn last May. That Bill contained only paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e).
10.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page