---

Lord Elton: My Lords, I am perhaps a little more easily persuaded by the Government than noble Lords who sit to my right. That is partly because we still anticipate that the Bill will have a short life and that it will be on the statute book for an experimental period; and partly because, seeing my noble friend Lord St John of Fawsley in the Chamber reminds me that in the Church of England marriage service those entering into the state of matrimony are advised not to do so wantonly or ill advisedly. A similar caution appears to be pointed at the public authorities in question.

I have only one question to ask the Minister and if he will answer it satisfactorily, he will greatly increase my comfort in what he proposes. It is a question I asked when the Bill was previously in this Chamber. What connection can there be between terrorism and information given under Section 9 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1983?

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I absolve the Front Bench of the Official Opposition from what I am about to say. I feel that this House is behaving like the Grand Old Duke of York. It was but a week ago that we went into the Lobbies in great and convincing numbers to introduce into the Bill the provision which is now to be struck out of it. We did so for extremely good reasons. First, because this Bill will extend the right of state surveillance of citizens' confidential information in an unprecedented way; secondly, because we felt it went beyond the purview and intention of the Bill, which is to deal with emergency terrorism and risks to national security; thirdly, because we considered that the issues involved run

13 Dec 2001 : Column 1427

very deep in our tradition of civil liberty and that it was unsafe and unwise to give such vastly extended powers to non-terrorist situations, as the Bill provides.

I agree with other noble Lords that this is a real sop to Cerberus. Perhaps I may remind the House that the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord McIntosh, said on no fewer than six occasions during debates on the Bill that it was quite unnecessary to have reference to proportionality on the face of the Bill because it was absolutely inherent in the Bill; it was inherent in the European Convention on Human Rights; and it was inherent in the Human Rights Act. They said that such reference was wholly unnecessary. Yet today, apparently the Official Opposition are content with the single change to the Bill as originally drafted; namely, to bring on to the face of it that which was inherent in any event.

I want quickly to refer to the extent to which I believe the Government spokesmen have never understood either their Bill or the amendment we passed a week ago. Only on Monday this week, David Blunkett stated in an article in The Times that the amendment we passed a week ago would prevent the police and security services investigating terrorist networks if,

Xthey are forbidden to look at anything that cannot immediately be proven to be linked to terrorist activity".

As your Lordships well know, the amendment we passed was of the mildest kind. Far from requiring immediate proof of linkage with terrorism, our amendment provides that the information can be requested or disclosed only if there is a suspicion that it may indirectly relate to a risk to national security. That is a vastly different proposition.

I ask the House why the Home Secretary would so misrepresent an amendment passed by the House. XWhy?", I ask. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in responding to the speech I made in proposing the amendment last Thursday, referred to information that was related to a terrorist threat. Again, our amendment does not limit disclosure to information related to a terrorist threat; it is information which may relate indirectly to the risk of a terrorist threat.

It is not good enough for this House to sit down under a Bill which goes way beyond its scope and exposes, I believe, well established civil rights to such a risk. We have had a lot of soft soap about public authorities acting responsibly and not engaging in bulk disclosure. Clause 17 of the Bill goes way beyond the public authorities which we normally associate with that phrase, which is why we tried to restrict the measure to the police and intelligence services. It goes way beyond that. As my noble friend Lord Thomas said, it goes to foreign public bodies which may operate in countries which may have standards vastly different from those to which we adhere in this country.

I shall not repeat all that was said but a week ago, but I believe that we should continue to resist the proposal and uphold the amendment which we passed last Thursday.

13 Dec 2001 : Column 1428

4 p.m.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall be brief. First, I turn to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about the Inland Revenue. It may come as a surprise to the noble Earl to learn just how restricted the Revenue is—and rightly so. The current statutory position is that the Inland Revenue is able to pass on of its own volition information only where it relates to murder or treason. I can tell the House that there have been cases where a heroin dealer has declared heroin dealing to be the source of his income. The Inland Revenue is not able to pass on that information. Consider that position: from where does heroin originate? The vast majority of the drug comes from Afghanistan and a link could be made. That is the fact of the matter at the present time. I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in a moment, if he insists.

We are unnecessarily fettering ourselves in dealing with the management of information which ordinary people may think is already passed on. Members of the public believe that one part of government would obviously pass on information concerning the tax affairs of a drug dealer to another part of government if the dealer chose to put that information on his tax return. But the fact is that we do not. That is the way that the rules operate at the present time.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. Surely he has been advised that the amendment that was passed last Thursday would allow the Inland Revenue to release exactly such information, along with a great deal more.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have been advised to the contrary. The amendments passed last Thursday make the Bill worse than it was when it came to this House from the other place.

Perhaps I may address a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, with regard to the final words of the amendment. Those words are,

Xthe making of the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it".

What is sought to be achieved here certainly relates to investigations and criminal proceedings. It also means that there would be no disclosure of information on the off-chance. In other words, the wording offers a protection on the face of the Bill. I know that in court the lawyers might argue about exactly what is meant by the wording, but it means that there will be less opportunity and less possibility of information being disclosed on the off-chance. The information must have a purpose and that purpose is to be measured in a proportionate way as regards the inquiries being made.

I do not think that the wording constitutes soft soap or window dressing.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, if the wording is not window dressing, can I ask the Minister whether the purpose is to be terrorist-related or is it to be wider?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, that takes us back to first principles: we do not know. That is the whole point.

13 Dec 2001 : Column 1429

When investigations are taking place, no linkages may have been made. That is the point where, I believe, there can be no meeting of minds between myself and the Liberal Democrat Peers. I cannot argue on their level simply because there is a lack of acceptance—from beliefs genuinely held; I accept that—of the fact that we cannot initially argue that there may be the possibility of a terrorist offence having been committed.

When stopping a vehicle or investigating a twitcher close to a military base, terrorism is a million miles away from the minds of those who make the initial investigation of what might be simply a breach of the peace or a misdemeanour. It is not possible to make the link; that is, to draft the Bill in such a way that such a possibility can be defined. I accept that there is nothing that I can say to Liberal Democrat Peers that will convince them of the case. To that extent, I admit that I have a failure on my hands.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Let us return to the case of the twitcher. The twitcher is stopped while looking at an Indian ring-necked parakeet perched on the tail of an aeroplane. He has been stopped for a speeding offence. But something leads the policeman to believe that there is more involved than looking at the Indian ring-necked parakeet sitting on the tail of the Tiger Moth, or whatever. The policeman comes to the conclusion that a terrorist investigation should be carried out. Under those circumstances, the amendment passed on the previous occasion was valid.

However, if the policeman stops a twitcher on the basis, XI just want to look at this chap's record on the off-chance that he has been involved in drug smuggling", but has no grounds for harbouring such a suspicion, then it is to that circumstance that we object. We object to the ability to trawl just for fun. If the policeman thinks that an act of terrorism is taking place, then fair enough. His actions are absolutely right and no one would argue with that. However, noble Lords are arguing over the possibility of a trawl.

It is on that point that my mind is slightly attached to those on the Liberal Democrat Benches—but only temporarily, I hasten to add—and divorced from that of the noble Lord opposite.

---