Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I particularly want to support Amendments Nos. 103H and 103J. My noble friend Lord Hodgson referred to the information gateway, and I agree with him that this is one of those wonderful new things that is creeping insidiously into our daily lives. Too much information is being exchanged too easily. For that matter, too many regulatory bodies and, indeed, far too many Acts of Parliament provide powers of entry. The dangerous consequence of all this is that in the muddle and complexity of it, holding the Government to account becomes far more difficult, so transgressions that affect business, the consumer and the regulator alike can occur.
Lord Bach: We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for his initiative in tabling these amendments at a time when his Private Members Bill has successfully completed its Second Reading in this House and is awaiting its consideration in Committee. He was kind enough to say that my reply to him some time ago was the only satisfactory response he has had. I think that it owed more to my department then than it did to me personally, and I have to refute what he says about my knowing more about this subject than any other Minister. It is a nice thought, but I do not think that I am in that position.
I believe that on the 23rd of this month the noble Lord met with my noble friend Lord West of Spithead, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, to discuss the Governments programme of work on the issues dealt with in his Bill on powers of entry, and that that relates to the substance of the amendments before the Committee today. I am able to confirm and put on the record that the Home Office is engaged in conducting a full review of all powers of entry for the police and for non-police agencies. As the noble Lord mentioned, this was announced by the Prime Minister in a speech made on 29 October last year.
The review is looking at three distinct elements: first, an examination of all the existing powers, how they are operated and by whom, and what are the associated safeguards and protections; and secondly, an assessment of the continuing need for the powers, and whether the powers provided in individual statutes remain not just necessary, but proportionate too.
The final stage will consider what individual powers should remain on the statute book and, importantly, provide an options paper for public consultation on the future legislative requirements for consolidating all powers of entry; and how we can raise public understanding; and awareness and avenues of redress. I think that the noble Lord and the Committee will agree that that is a fairly comprehensive review.
I know that the noble Lord has indicated his willingness to share his knowledge of these matters in this area; we are very grateful to him for that. I confirm that this is absolutely a non-party issue and one where it is important to get it right. His positive approach is much appreciated. I hope that he will acknowledge that the programme of work that I have outlined pretty briefly tonight is planned to result in a public consultation paper in the autumn. The programme of work itself is significantly beyond the proposals in his amendment, well drafted though it obviously is. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment today. He has made his point extremely clearly to the Committee today and on the record in Hansard; I know that he made it very effectively to my noble friend Lord West when he met him the other day. There is obviously still much work to be done here by the Home Office. If he is going to tell me that that work must not be allowed to continue endlessly without action, I agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, talked about the information gateway. It is my fault, but that took me slightly by surprise. Let me say what I can on that issue. The exchange of information, as he and the noble Baroness will know, is governed by the Data Protection Act. Arrangements for the exchange and use of information are set out in statute and working protocols agreed by the Information Commissioner. In the context of the Bill, those arrangements apply to the LBRO as to other areas of government.
Returning to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, I realise that my answer to him is not as full as it might be, but I hope that he will take away with him the knowledge that his amendments have some support in the Committee and that the Government are conscious of the need to put all this, eventually, after public consultation, on the future legislative bandwagon. In other words, I repeat: we will provide an option paper for public consultation on the future legislative requirements for consolidating all powers of entry. I cannot say when that will be, but his amendments today are another step on bringing that to the attention of both the public and Parliament, and I am grateful to him for that.
Lord Selsdon: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for that reply: it is generous and kind and shows that progress has been made. I would
28 Jan 2008 : Column GC274
Lord Bach: If the noble Lord will forgive me, I think that he made a slip of the tongue. I hope that it was not long ago as 1905.
Lord Selsdon: It says 05 on my brief; I am so sorry about that. I think that the oldest Act on my list is from 1874. I just wanted to get this on the record, because it shows how difficult it is for government. The Answer stated:
A record of all powers of entry is not maintained centrally. In July 1983 the Prime Minister agreed that the Home Office, together with the then Scottish Home and Health Department and Northern Ireland Office should take responsibility for scrutinising proposals to create or re-enact powers of entry their home jurisdiction. Any new proposed power of entry is required to be submitted to the respective home department for consideration. Appendix A to the Guide to Legislative Procedure published by the Cabinet Office in June 2001 sets out the criteria for scrutiny of powers of entry. That guidance applies to both public and private legislation for which departments are responsible, including subordinate legislation. In England and Wales, those exercising a power of entry must have regard to Code of Practice B issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in addition to any requirements set out in the primary legislation granting the power.[Official Report; 23/11/05; col. WA 219.]
The Minister said that everything will be done by November. Would it not be a good idea to have legislation in the Queens Speech? As nowadays that is normally written in July, we will have two or three months to get things together. I confirm, as I have said to the noble Lord, Lord West, that I and everyone with whom I am associated will help in any way. Much of this information originated from the Committee of London Clearing Banks, when every clearing bank had approximately 3,000 branches in the United Kingdom. We all consulted together at a time when only 30 per cent of people had bank accounts.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made about peoples fear over the transfer of their information to third parties is very real. While the suggestion that the Government are looking at the matter is right and proper, we should separate out the powers of the police, the security services and the Revenue and Customs and concentrate all the other powers. Every day people are entering other peoples houses without the necessary authorisation, as the noble Lord will know from press articles. It is a serious issue and I would be grateful if speedy action could be taken.
I shall withdraw all the amendments I have mentioned. I cannot remember which ones they are; they go all the way through the Marshalled List.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 103B to 103K not moved.]
Lord Bach: I suggest that we adjourn the proceedings of this Committee until Wednesday next at 3.45 pm.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Ullswater): The Committee stands adjourned until Wednesday.
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |