| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was reluctant to interrupt the noble Earl in full flow, but we are operating under the rules of the Report stage. Interventions should be restricted to questions on matters of fact.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, to be honest, I shall not be able to convince the noble Earl either. However, I think that he destroyed his own case when he said that the investigators would trawl for the fun of it. We are not in that business. The authorities are not in that business. It is demeaning to use that kind of term because it does not strike at the heart of the seriousness of these matters.
The Bill is a very precise piece of legislation. We are keeping as tight a control over the authorities as is possible. Noble Lords must understand that most of the information that can be exchanged under the terms of the clause is already disclosable in other circumstances. All the Bill seeks to do is to harmonise the circumstances under which disclosure can be made. It is not the case that the information cannot be disclosed. It can be disclosed, but in the Bill we seek to harmonise the situation.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, from memory I had thought that the question of the Diseases of Fish Act had been dealt with, but clearly not. That looked to the barriers to investigations in terms of legislation. We seek to ensure that the statutory barriers to disclosure do not prevent the authorities from the proper exercise of their functions.
It is not the case that all the gateways will be used, but we have looked at the statutory barriers to disclosure which, it should be pointed out, are not in place once criminal investigation proceedings are under way. We seek to marry the two. No new powers have been introduced in terms of disclosure; rather it is a question of harmonisation. Having listened to the debates in both Houses and having considered the concerns expressed, I do not think that it is either window dressing or soft soap to put on to the face of the Bill, so that it is in place in primary legislation—an Act of Parliament—that the disclosure must be proportionate. That is an important point.
It is no good to say that it would be taken for granted because it is in place under other legislation. Many elements that noble Lords have argued against could attract the counter argument that in any event the safeguards are already in place. Here I refer specifically to other parts of the Bill such as the retention of data. I have referred repeatedly to data protection legislation and human rights legislation. However, noble Lords have responded by saying, XOh, that doesn't matter. We still want our amendment". I am dismissed when I put those arguments.
Here we are putting a form of words on to the face of the Bill to concrete the intention, made up-front for all to see, but it is dismissed as soft soap. I do not accept that.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I may say that you are being provocative.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I beg the pardon of the House. Twice the noble Lord has said that this is a harmonisation measure. However, is it not the case that the clause is entitled, XExtension of existing disclosure powers"? There is no reference to harmonisation.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is the case that many of the Acts listed under Schedule 4—we could have a further debate on the schedule if noble Lords so desired,
although I suspect that that might be out of order—already allow for disclosure at the investigation stage. The point is that we are discussing the stage prior to investigation. To that end I cite the Utilities Act 2000, the Chemical Weapons Act 1996 and the Water Resources Act 1991.The Bill seeks to harmonise the circumstances under which disclosures can be made. For that reason, I rest my case and ask noble Lords to accept the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the Minister probably did not intend to do so, but he gave the game away by referring to the current restrictions on the powers of the Inland Revenue to disclose information. The noble Lord commented, Xand rightly so", to the fact that disclosure is restricted at the present time. Having made that concession, he proceeded to argue that the doors of the Inland Revenue should be thrown wide, that tax offices throughout the country and the Cumbernauld centre should be opened so that anyone will be able to walk in. When the Minister said, XI have been advised that these amendments make the Bill worse", noble Lords may have thought that he was referring to the gentleman in the Box. But yesterday, Mr Blunkett said:
- XOur law enforcement agencies, the services that provide support to them and our security services have given us a clear understanding that if the Lords amendments are approved by the two Houses, they will simply not be able to do their job".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/01; col. 896.]
- XThe security services made it absolutely clear to me. . .that they would bring no cases forward if we used the normal court system and attempted to use public interest immunity".
Who is running this country? It looks as though the security services are advising the Minister, not the Home Office officials behind him.
My noble friend Lord Lester was right when he pointed out that, under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, it will be for the public authorities to make a judgment as to what is proportionate. Is disclosure to be made wantonly or ill advisedly, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said? How on earth are they to judge? When he introduced his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that public authorities are not experts in terrorism. As they are not experts in terrorism, why, without any guidance from Parliament, is this burden of determining what is proportionate to what is asked of them being thrust upon them?
We regret on these Benches that the Conservative Front Bench has taken the meagre size 14 fly which has been whisked past their nose, but we are swimming on. I beg to seek the opinion of the House.
4.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 157.
Division No. 1
Addington, L.
Avebury, L.
Barker, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Bridges, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Cobbold, L.
Dahrendorf, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dundee, E.
Ezra, L.
Falkland, V.
Geraint, L.
Goodhart, L.
Greaves, L.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]
Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Hooson, L.
Hussey of North Bradley, L.
Jacobs, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Lucas, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Methuen, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Mishcon, L.
Monson, L.
Newby, L.
Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.
Northover, B.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Onslow, E.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Plumb, L.
Razzall, L.
Reay, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rees-Mogg, L.
Rennard, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Roper, L. [Teller]
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Sharman, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Taverne, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walmsley, B.
Watson of Richmond, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Willoughby de Broke, L.
Acton, L.
Ahmed, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Alli, L.
Amos, B.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Attenborough, L.
Bach, L.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Berkeley, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Bhatia, L.
Billingham, B.
Blackstone, B.
Blackwell, L.
Bledisloe, V.
Borrie, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.
Brennan, L.
Brett, L.
Brightman, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.
Burlison, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L. [Teller]
Castle of Blackburn, B.
Chalfont, L.
Chandos, V.
Chorley, L.
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Colville of Culross, V.
Condon, L.
Cooke of Islandreagh, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Crawley, B.
Currie of Marylebone, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.
David, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Desai, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Emerton, B.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Evans of Watford, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Gilbert, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Greengross, B.
Grenfell, L.
Grocott, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.
Hattersley, L.
Hayman, B.
Healey, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jones, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Levy, L.
Lipsey, L.
Listowel, E.
Lockwood, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.
McFarlane of Llandaff, B.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mallalieu, B.
Marsh, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Milner of Leeds, L.
Mitchell, L.
Morgan, L.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Nicol, B.
Patel, L.
Paul, L.
Pendry, L.
Peston, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Puttnam, L.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Renwick of Clifton, L.
Richard, L.
Rooker, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Sheldon, L.
Simon, V.
Slim, V.
Stallard, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Strange, B.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Tenby, V.
Tomlinson, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Varley, L.
Wakefield, Bp.
Walker of Doncaster, L.
Weatherill, L.
Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)
Williamson of Horton, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Wright of Richmond, L.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.22 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): The Question is that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed but do agree Amendment No. 5B in lieu thereof.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page