---

Dignity at Work Bill [HL]

3.7 p.m.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for a right of dignity at work for employees, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen.)

On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Homelessness Bill

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the order of commitment of 12th November be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill

3.8 p.m.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[THE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Clause 110 [Implementation of the third pillar]:

Lord Wallace of Saltaire moved Amendment No. 126B:

Page 65, line 41, after Xmay" insert Xnot"

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 126B is very much concerned with the incorporation into the Bill of procedures for the first pillar of the European Union

3 Dec 2001 : Column 584

which are now undertaken by the third pillar. I had the honour to chair a Select Committee of this House which was concerned with scrutiny of the third pillar of the European Union. That committee was very conscious of the extent to which parliamentary scrutiny of third pillar issues was deficient. As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee rightly observed, there are significant differences between the legislative process under the first and third pillars. The third pillar is a process,

Xwhich is more akin to the negotiation of treaties than to a conventional legislative process".

During many discussions in that committee about third pillar issues, we identified a number of instances when it was not at all clear how far Her Majesty's Government were committed to different elements under the third pillar. There is a British opt-out from the Schengen side of the European Union. But having opted out, Her Majesty's Government have opted in again. So, whereas Clause 110 sets out to give substantial powers to the Government to accept items of what is in itself a highly ambitious agenda under the Tampere European Council's five-year programme for expanding the area of justice, freedom and security within the European Union, we are therefore concerned that we should circumscribe this power as much as possible.

The purpose of the amendment is, therefore, to limit the amount of jurisdiction given to the Government. It sets out to add the word Xnot" after Xmay". Amendment No. 126C would insert Xexcept"; and Amendment No. 126D would add a sunset clause, thereby limiting the amount of time during which the Government could adopt into British law specifically those elements that are part of the framework decision on counter-terrorism. Thus we could avoid giving the Government a general authority to accept into British law under secondary legislation a whole range of other items on the extensive Tampere agenda.

We accept that the 1994 and 1995 supplementary convention on extradition is likely to be dealt with under separate legislation; so, in some ways, that part of our amendment is of less immediate relevance than the rest. The elements on which we insist—and on which we hope the Government will yield some distance—are that the authority given to the Government under the clause should be limited to matters which are necessary to deal with current events and which come under the framework decision on counter-terrorism, and that the provision should be time-limited.

Those are the essentials of our amendments. We very much hope that the Government will come some way towards meeting our concerns. If those concerns are met, we shall be able to accept Clause 110. If they cannot, we on these Benches will have to consider our approach to the acceptance of the clause as a whole. I beg to move.

Lord Williamson of Horton: I share some of the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about the potentially wide scope of elements of the Bill to be brought into effect in the United

3 Dec 2001 : Column 585

Kingdom, not by primary legislation, but by secondary legislation—that is to say, by regulation. Although there may be some excellent decisions to be taken under the third pillar, we must recognise that the clause goes very far. It goes far into the future, by including obligations,

Xcreated or arising by or under the third pillar (whether before or after the passing of this Act".

It also goes potentially far up the scale of penalties. Although there are strict conditions, certain offences punishable by imprisonment,

Xfor a term of any length",

can be created. We must look to see whether we can limit this power, either by specific provision such as that suggested in the amendment, or at least by imposing a strict time limit.

I want to emphasise the point that we are dealing with intergovernmental provisions, not with Community provisions, in consequence of which a large part of the legislation will not be scrutinised by the European Parliament. It will not be scrutinised by any parliament at all until it arrives here in the form of a statutory instrument. Some of the material we are discussing is important for individual liberties. So I have some concerns. I hope that the Government will be able to reassure us, at least to some degree, on these points.

3.15 p.m.

The Earl of Onslow: This is the most depressing piece of legislation that I have seen for a long time. I find it extraordinary that the Government cannot understand, or appear to fail to understand, anything about the basis and the roots of our historic British constitution. They fail to understand that the British people owe their allegiance to the Crown in Parliament. That is the only way in which laws should be made.

The reference to the third pillar goes very wide of that concept. The clause allows Ministers to make laws, agreed in secret in Brussels, which would have a very wide effect. To introduce them by the back door, through rushed legislation, is an abuse of Parliament, an abuse of privilege and an abuse of executive power. The idea that by bringing in as yet unapproved European legislation by statutory instrument to try to stop a brace of Arabs flying some hijacked aeroplanes into some skyscrapers in New York fails every test of logic that has been given.

It is an incredible achievement for the Government, in their failure to understand British constitutional history and the checks and balances for which our ancestors fought, to fail even to get the Liberal Democrats—who are Euro-creeps par excellence—to agree with them on this issue. I was mildly ill mannered to the Liberal Democrats in our debate last week. On this occasion they must be congratulated on going back to the roots of their Whig forebears.

Everyone has said that this part of the Bill is a disgrace. If we in Parliament do not protect the rights and privileges of Parliament, the rights and privileges

3 Dec 2001 : Column 586

of free-born Englishmen, and the rights of privileges of our descendants, which were fought for by our ancestors, it will be an appalling failure of duty.

Viscount Bledisloe: I have put my name to the Motion to leave Clause 110 out of the Bill. But it may be convenient for me to speak at this stage rather than in the clause stand part debate.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, although I thought that he put the case somewhat too moderately. The powers given by Clause 110 are, first, an unprecedented use of subordinate legislation. Secondly, they are largely irrelevant to the fight against terrorism, and, thirdly, they are—I shall not be quite so emotive as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—a very serious invasion of the individual's rights and liberties.

The clause gives the Government power not only to enact by subordinate legislation a series of offences, but also to give powers to European policemen to authorise searches. They would give power to enact the European arrest warrant—which every Member who has spoken in debates on the Bill, apart from the Minister himself, regards as a very serious matter.

The Government will tell us that they have already said they will not introduce the arrest warrant under these procedures. But that is merely an example of what they could have done under these powers. It is only by the pure coincidence that it happens to be already on the stocks that they have given this one-off undertaking.

To see that what is proposed is an unprecedented use of subordinate legislation, one has only to look at the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee states that,

Xthere is no precedent for the grant of powers to amend United Kingdom law by order in such important and sensitive areas"—

namely, in the areas of crime and civil rights—

Xand the seeking of such powers in an emergency bill which is expected to pass through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament within some three weeks is truly innovative".

For a moderate and controlled body such as the Delegated Powers Committee to describe something as Xtruly innovative" is rather like Sir Humphrey Appleby describing something as Xcourageous"—it means that it is total folly.

Secondly, it is clear that the provision is largely unrelated to terrorism. Clause 110(5)(d) enables the Government to create a criminal offence, unless it is punishable by more than two years. There is not much terrorism that is punishable by less than two years. That is an attempt to smuggle measures through on the bandwagon of the emotion of September 11th.

---