§ Jane KennedyI beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 19, line 4, after "Tribunal", insert—
'( ) any proceedings on an appeal or review for which provision is made by an order under section 58(7);'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 50, 84 to 86, 51 to 53, 42 and 43.
§ Jane KennedyThese amendments all deal with the jurisdiction of the tribunal, but amendments Nos. 83 to 86 relate to the tribunal's jurisdiction in Scotland. The amendments would extend the tribunal's human rights jurisdiction to include any directed or intrusive 591 surveillance, and any conduct or use of a covert human intelligence source, where any of these activities take place in Scotland.
However, I must advise the House of something about which we became aware this morning. At one point, there had been the possibility that a separate Scottish tribunal would be established, but the Scottish Executive has considered the matter and decided to join the tribunal arrangements for the rest of the United Kingdom. The amendments should ensure that a proper avenue of redress is available wherever in the UK any investigatory powers are used.
We have discovered that, to be effective, the amendments require one further amendment, which I believe to be of a minor and technical nature, to clause 56. It has not been possible to table the necessary amendment for today's debate, as the notice was too short, but we intend to table the last in this set of amendments when the Bill is considered in another place. That will ensure that the tribunal's jurisdiction is extended to Scotland, in accordance with the policy agreed here and in Edinburgh.
§ Mr. HealdThe amendments are not contentious. The Parliamentary Secretary has outlined the technical problem that has been encountered, but the Opposition do not consider that that should delay matters. We hope that the appropriate amendment can be made in the other place.
§ Mr. Simon HughesI, too, shall deal with the Scottish point. I am in no position to disagree with the Scottish Executive: if it has agreed the matter, it must be right.
I have not had an opportunity to be briefed on the development set out by the Parliamentary Secretary, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is the Deputy First Minister in Scotland, with responsibility for this matter there. We have worked with him on those areas of legislation that are devolved to Scotland, on those on which Scotland has allowed the Westminster legislation to be used, and on those about which there is agreement that legislation should apply across the UK. For students of devolution, this Bill has all three options available, and it provides an interesting case study.
However, I have one question for the Parliamentary Secretary. Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 provide for interim rules governing the tribunal, but I am not clear why we need interim rules. There may be a good reason. It struck me that another group of amendments, to be debated later, contain an interim provision. There should be no need for interim rules; it should be possible to have draft rules and then move straight to the formal ones. Amendment No. 43 provides for a 40-day period. I am open to persuasion, but I would be grateful to know why interim rules are being proposed.
I think that amendment No. 52 is the Government's response to some of the concerns expressed in Committee by my hon. Friends, for which we are grateful. We support amendments Nos. 49 and 50.
§ 9 pm
§ Jane KennedyThe hon. Gentleman is right about amendment No. 52. Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 relate to the tribunal rules for which clause 60 provides. We had a lengthy discussion in Committee about the order-making powers in the Bill. It is important that the tribunal established by the Bill is able to hear any complaints as soon as the surveillance provisions come into force. For the tribunal to function, rules must be made governing its procedure. They will require parliamentary approval under the affirmative resolution procedure.
The amendments allow such rules to be made by the Secretary of State in the absence of Parliament between the Bill receiving Royal Assent and Parliament reconvening after the summer recess. That is their sole purpose. It is necessary to ensure that the tribunal is functioning when the surveillance provisions come into force before 2 October, when the Human Rights Act 1998 is implemented. Only the initial order and rules could be made without Parliament's approval. They would in any case need to be approved by Parliament, as made clear by the amendments, within 40 days of being signed.
§ Mr. HughesThat is entirely logical, but I cannot quite work out the maths. If we break, as we normally do, at the end of July and come back, as we normally do, in October, that means a gap of more than 40 days, even given the date of 2 October, when the Human Rights Act is implemented. Should not the amendments provide for a period longer than 40 days? I am not trying to make the Minister's case for her—I am happy to have a bridging period, but we must get it right.
§ Jane KennedyThe hon. Gentleman is right. However, I would not want to presume when the House will rise or reconvene. The hon. Gentleman's point is valid; I will check to make sure that the 40-day period is adequate, but the intention is quite clear in the amendments.
Amendment agreed to