| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his full reply and to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate.
The Minister has helpfully clarified the element of the proposals relating to the transitional period for registration on to the chiropodist and podiatrist register. Much of the concern expressed by the BChA relates to the practicality of the arrangements for non-state registered members to qualify for registration within the statutory time frame. I understand that there is effectively a three-year plus window in which registration can occur. That will no doubt be sufficient for some.
The concern is perhaps broader than that. Non-state registered practitioners want to know that sensible rules will be applied to enable those among them who can readily demonstrate proficiency to be admitted to the register without undue fuss, and certainly without having to undergo a mandatory three-year degree course. If common sense is not applied to the situation many chiropodists will simply call it a day. I cannot emphasise enough how damaging that would be. Eight thousand practitioners is not only the majority of practising chiropodists but a large number of individuals.
It is reassuring to hear from the Minister that the HPC is doing its utmost to establish sensible arrangements with regard to registration. But some bridge-building needs to take place. I am encouraged by the Minister's stated view that that is happening.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I want to reassure him that the Department of Health will work hard to continue facilitating sensible arrangements and agreement between the two sectors that the HPC can take forward. We all want a sensible outcome. We do not want to preclude people who have a contribution to make from practising in future. Equally, we must uphold the public interest. The department will work hard to ensure that the process is conducted sensibly and fairly.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those reassurances. I am hopeful that his confidence that the HPC will want to work in partnership with the individual professions will be fulfilled in practice. I hope that the HPC will be inclusive in its general approach to chiropodists. I am also grateful for the Minister's assurances about professional advisory committees. I welcome what he was able to tell us about their proposed composition and functions. That clarification is certainly helpful.
This debate has been useful. Several important points have been put on record. The Minister has given important reassurances. In the light of those, I am persuaded that it would not be right to press my amendment to a Division. However, while it is not appropriate to divide the House, I hope that the concerns registered in this debate will be followed through with vigour. I am sure that the goodwill that exists throughout the chiropody profession can be harnessed to ensure not only a meeting of minds but a building of confidence that will unite the profession in a real and tangible sense. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Carter: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that the other place works in a mysterious and, I am afraid, rather stately way to conduct its business. With that in mind, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 11.30 p.m. That will allow for up to 30 minutes for the tabling of amendments after the Bill has returned from the other place.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 10.27 to 11.30 p.m.]
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason and amendment be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons reason and amendment be considered forthwith.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
38CAfter Clause 101, insert the following new Clause—
XSCOPE OF POWERS CONFERRED BY THIS PART
Any powers conferred by this Part, except in so far as they confer powers replacing police powers which existed immediately before the coming into force of this Part, shall only be enforceable in relation to any suspicion, or investigation, or acts, of terrorism or any matters of national security."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
38DBecause it is not appropriate to limit the powers conferred by this Part of the Bill in the manner proposed by the amendment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 38C to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 38D.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 38C to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 38D.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
66After Clause 124, insert the following new clause—
XEXPIRY
(1) This Act, apart from Part 12, shall (subject to subsections (2) to (5)) cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the Act receives Royal Assent.
(2) The Secretary of State may, subject to subsections (3) to (5), by order provide—
(a) that a provision of the Act which is in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall continue in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months;
(b) that a provision of this Act shall cease to have effect;
(c) that a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months.
(3) Parts 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) Parts 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(5) Part 4 of this Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(6) Any order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) must be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
The Commons insist on their disagreement to this Amendment, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof—
66FPage 72, line 17, insert the following new Clause—
XEFFECT OF REPORT
(1) A report under section (Review of Act)(4) may specify any provision of this Act as a provision to which this section applies.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), any provision specified under subsection (1) ceases to have effect at the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the report is laid before Parliament under section (Review of Act)(5).
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if before the end of that period a motion has been made in each House of Parliament considering the report."
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to their Amendment No. 66F in lieu thereof.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree to their Amendment No. 66F in lieu thereof.—(Lord Rooker.)
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to argue that we should retain the original amendment which was agreed by the House at the earlier stages of discussion between ourselves and another place. Given the lateness of the hour, I shall put the reasons briefly.
First and foremost, the period is surprisingly long for a piece of sunset legislation compared with earlier terrorism legislation. The original terrorism legislation in 1974, which followed the outrages in Birmingham, Guildford and elsewhere which many people will recall as a result of the operations of the then IRA, made provision for a six-month period followed by a six-month extension, the entire Act to expire within at most one year of the passage of the Act.
In the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, provision was made for one year and an extension of one year by order, after which the Act ceased to operate. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 similarly made provision for a 12-month expiry and a maximum extension of a period of 12 months. In 1996, the then Northern Ireland prevention of terrorism legislation made similar provision. In the Terrorism Act 2000 provision was made for the Act to expire after one year in the case of Part 7 unless it was extended by a statutory order. It also required an annual report.
The concern of those on these Benches with regard to the expiry period is that that originally proposed in the Bill of five years seemed to us exceptionally long for legislation so little debated and discussed as this. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that of the 135 clauses of the Bill, precisely 86 were debated at all in another place. Not a single line of those other clauses was debated in the so-called Xelected" Chamber. May I also point out that some of the major clauses in the Bill such as Clause 17, Clause 19 and others, were never adequately debated in another place. In this
We do not object to that. We recognise that this is emergency legislation, as we also recognise the scale of the emergency. However, we believe that the original period of five years is exceptionally long to revisit with the full scrutiny of Parliament provisions which will have such a substantial effect on the civil liberties, privacy and freedom of our fellow citizens.
We now have an amendment, to which I believe that the Government have acceded, which suggests that in place of the original proposal to create an automatic expiry of the Bill within a period of one year, we have provision for a Privy Council committee which will review the operations of the Act after two years and will then produce a report, after which the relevant parts of the Bill would expire within six months unless the report produces a reason why they should not so expire.
Let me say simply, by quoting the words of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that,
The reason that such a committee is not much of a substitute—let us be direct about it—is, first, that Privy Counsellors come from a rather narrow sector of the community and can have little familiarity with the ways in which the Act will be likely to operate on a number of our fellow citizens, not to speak of those from other and far less fortunate parts of the world. Secondly, Privy Counsellors, by the nature of their position, will be appointed to the review body by whom?—by the Secretary of State. I do not regard that as the clear establishment of the independent judgment of the Privy Counsellors.
Finally, like many other noble Lords, I attended the debates held in another place. There I heard the honourable Member for Hampstead and Highgate complain about the intervention of an unelected House in this legislation. I have to say that what is required for the purposes of scrutiny and review is not only to be elected, but also to have an independent judgment and the commitment of one's own convictions. It is up to another place to find its voice, to express itself and to insist on its own standards of
Having made those points, let me conclude by saying that there is no reason of any final kind why Privy Counsellors should not be subject to the agreement of the two Chambers of Parliament in taking up this highly responsible role. It is clear that they should report to the two Chambers of Parliament. I hope that they will feel themselves to be accountable to the two Chambers of Parliament and not only to the Minister who appoints them.
I thank Ministers for the way in which they have dealt with some of the attempts that we have made to modify and change this legislation. I add to that our gratitude to the Official Opposition for the way in which they have conducted their own approach and review of the Bill.
Final victory over terrorists will lie in making emergency legislation of this kind a permanent feature of our democracy, with all the limitations on the civil liberties of citizens that that implies. It is therefore incumbent upon this House to behave not only with great responsibility but to the highest standards of what it is to be—a scrutinising chamber. I am very proud of noble Lords for the way in which they have conducted their part in this Bill. Ultimately, it is now a better and safer Bill, a Bill which will serve well the citizens of this country in an extremely grave and difficult situation. Striking a balance between liberty and security is one of the most difficult tasks any legislative chamber is ever called upon to fulfil. I beg to move. Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66F in lieu thereof, leave out the words after Xdisagreed" and insert X, do disagree with Amendment No. 66F and agree Amendment No. 66G in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Williams of Crosby.)
Baroness Williams of Crosby rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 66 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 66F in lieu thereof, leave out
the words after Xdisagreed" and insert X, do disagree with Amendment No. 66F and agree the following amendment in lieu thereof—
66GAfter Clause 124, insert the following new Clause—
XDURATION
(1) This Act shall (subject to subsections (2) to (3)) cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) The Secretary of State may, subject to subsection (3), by order provide—
(a) that a provision of the Act which is in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall continue in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months,—
(b) that a provision of this Act shall cease to have effect;
(c) that a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months.
(3) This Act shall, by virtue of this subsection, cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed."
(4) Any order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) must be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.""
Xin a democracy whose provisions and whose legislation is often regarded as a model for the rest of the democratic world, one should be very careful indeed about allowing this kind of legislation to run for as long a period as is the case on the face of the Bill".
I shall add to that the comment that noble Lords know what happened with emergency legislation passed in many countries that once upon a time were colonies, which then made that provisional legislation permanent—I could cite Malaysia and many African countries. Those noble Lords will understand the great danger if such provisional legislation does become permanent and thus paves the way from democracy to autocracy. On these Benches we do not suggest that that is the case, but perhaps I may say that a committee of the Privy Council, distinguished though no doubt Privy Counsellors are—and I know because I am one of them—is not much of a substitute for proper sunset legislation.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page