Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is the noble Lord aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights agreed with the Select Committee on the constitution of this House that the inclusion of non-emergency measures was inappropriate in emergency legislation required to be considered at such speed? Is he aware that all noble Lords across the House want this Bill to be an anti-terrorist Bill but they want it to satisfy principles of legal certainty and proportionality and not to go wider than that? The right of personal privacy with which we are concerned is a fundamental right.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is all very well if you stick to the definition of terrorism. We are not doing that because they are not working that way these days. International terrorists have rewritten the rule book. They operate in ways that were not conceived of a decade ago. We have to take appropriate measures.

I set out a brief response to each of the amendments. Turning to Clause 17, at the time a public authority chooses to disclose to the police, say, an address which they suspect has been used by criminals, it may have no idea that those who live there are part of a terrorist network. It would not know. Its piece of the jigsaw is not connected to the parts held by other authorities. It is only in the course of the investigation that the situation becomes apparent. Under the Bill as drafted, the police would receive information related to suspect criminal acts. The police are the investigators. It is their job to put the various pieces together to see whether they make a picture. Many times they will not, but it is their job to add those pieces to the jigsaw.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I have listened on many occasions to this argument from the Minister. He says that we have to have powers to deal with every possible crime because we do not know how it will all fit together and we do not see the picture at the end.

Surely it is possible, as the amendments seek to do, to confine the scope of the inquiry of the investigating authorities, whether the intelligence services or the police, to anti-terrorism. If they act in good faith, as I

6 Dec 2001 : Column 961

am sure they do and, for example, say to the public authorities which are required to disclose something, XWe are doing this in order to investigate terrorism", that is enough. No one will question it beyond that. However, with great respect, the Minister is instituting a dragnet which covers the whole realm and enables every possible corner of people's lives—their privacy, their tax returns and everything else—to be investigated by the intelligence services. The Minister has failed to answer that argument at each stage of the Bill.

Lord Carter: My Lords, I remind the House that we are on Report. I do not want to read out everything that the Companion states, but we are already out of order. However, the Companion states that arguments which have been fully deployed in Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on Report. Noble Lords should speak only once. At the end of the Minister's reply the only person who should speak is the mover of the amendment except for very short questions of fact.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, says. Clearly, we shall disagree on the issue. He obviously has a different view from the Government on the way the police conduct their investigations. We think that the police should have the power to assemble the pieces of the jigsaw. They have only the power to ask—

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, this is a question of fact. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that if some crime has been committed, the police already have plenty of criminal law under which to investigate it. That is the point. We are dealing here with the extension of that power. If, under their criminal investigations, they find a connection to terrorism, that is a bonus. What is not right is to use these extensions of the law ab initio for criminal investigations. That is the distinction.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, disclosure regarding criminal proceedings would be accepted because it is part of the statute. But if one does not have the information to start the criminal proceedings one has to investigate. The police are not getting a brand new power. They are getting a power to investigate prior to proceedings. It is widening an existing power to seek that information. To that extent, it aids their investigation: the putting together of the jigsaw in respect of terrorist offences. That is power that they should have and be able to use.

On overseas disclosures, I was somewhat taken aback. It will be very difficult for this country to fight international terrorism if we cannot co-operate with so-called Xforeigners"—used almost as a dirty word in this debate. Of course we have to co-operate with foreigners if we are to fight international terrorism. But the information disclosed will be fully compatible with the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights

6 Dec 2001 : Column 962

Act. All those checks are in place. We are not riding roughshod over people's civil liberties. It is axiomatic that we have to co-operate with foreigners.

Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord used a rather unexpected expression. He said that the police have to investigate before they can take proceedings. That has always been the case. It does not need to be written into a statute, even this statute, in any fresh way.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, the provisions need to be written into this statute because the police do not have the necessary powers, hence the extension of existing powers in the Bill. As an aside, perhaps I may speak to—

Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I beg the Minister's pardon for interrupting—

Noble Lords: Order!

Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Baroness please give way? I shall now read out our rules on Report.

    XOn report no Member may speak more than once to an amendment, except the mover of the amendment in reply or a Member who has obtained the leave of the House, which may only be granted to: a Member to explain himself in some material point of his speech, no new matter being introduced; the Lord in charge of the bill; and a minister of the Crown.

    XOnly the mover of an amendment or the Lord in charge of the bill speaks after the minister on report except for short questions of elucidation to the minister or where the minister speaks early to assist the House in debate.

    XArguments fully deployed in Committee of the whole House"—

here I paraphrase: these arguments have been very fully deployed in Committee; I am not sure whether the noble Baroness was present—

    Xshould not be repeated at length on report".

Could we now stick to our rules on Report?

Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I was not given a chance to ask my question. Perhaps I may ask a question of elucidation on the Minister's point about data protection. I am sure that the noble Lord is more of an expert on data protection than I am.

The proposed framework decision on terrorism, which is being discussed today by the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in Brussels, provides for exchange of information including where there is suspicion of a terrorist offence. What is the data protection regime which applies to that? Under the third pillar the normal EU directive on data protection does not apply. There are ad hoc data protection regimes for different parts of the third pillar. Can the noble Lord explain to me what is the regime for data protection and the exchange of information under the framework decision on terrorism?

6 Dec 2001 : Column 963

4.30 p.m.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall take advice on this matter. I am not up to date with the negotiations in Brussels today. The content of the Bill which this House is now debating fully complies—governments can get it wrong—as regards access and exchange of information, with both the Data Protection Act and the human rights legislation. There are no new powers being given to the police in this Bill. It is a power to disclose voluntarily to the police and for them to be able to ask questions. We are not inventing the wheel here and that point has to be taken on board.

Perhaps I may say something about Amendment No. 3 standing in my name. I hope that it will be accepted as a response to the debate. When one wants to accede in debate it is not always possible to be fully certain that the wording is correct. We had to consider the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, at Committee stage on 28th November. Therefore, I hope my amendment is acceptable. I cannot telegraph everything for the other day of the Report stage.

I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, as regards Clause 103 and the code of practice, that we shall be bringing forward an amendment in due course in this House to make sure that the code is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that that will meet some of the points made in Committee concerning data retention. The amendment is not on the Marshalled List at the moment but it will be forthcoming. I hope that it can be produced at Third Reading, but if not, it will have to be dealt with in the other place. I hope that that will meet some of the issues because the code of practice cannot become reality, as we agreed, unless, first, industry agrees with government and, secondly, the Information Commissioner agrees with it. It is voluntary and there has to be consensus.

In order to concrete that in, we shall make it subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That may go some way to meeting the point made about the service providers and their comfort blanket in relation to what will be required of them under a voluntary code of practice in retaining data which they believe may upset their customers. I can only telegraph that amendment today because it is not on the Marshalled List. We hope to list it on Tuesday.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page