HC Deb 10 May 2001 vol 368 cc302-4

Lords amendment: No. 25, Leave out Part 2.

Mr. Charles Clarke

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 38, 40 and 41.

Mr. Clarke

Amendments Nos. 25 and 41 will have the effect of removing part 2, on information disclosure for the purposes of criminal proceedings, from the Bill. Amendment No. 36 is a drafting amendment consequential on the removal of the words in amendment No. 37, which is consequential on the removal of part 2 from the Bill. Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 are also consequential.

This is the first group of amendments to be considered today with which the Government disagree, but we accept them under force majeure of the balance of the parties in the other place.

Mr. Heald

I am somewhat surprised by the Minister's remarks, because Lord Bassam said that he was happy to be associated with the amendments. He also complimented Lord Cope on the cogent way in which he had expressed the Opposition's view on the Bill. Lord Bassam also admitted that the Government's proposals required better and more detailed evaluation. He certainly seemed to say that he did not disagree with the amendments.

2.45 pm
Mr. Clarke

My noble Friend Lord Bassam was trying to pay tribute to the way in which Front Benchers had tried to work together to reach solutions in everybody's interest. However, on the substance of policy, we do not agree with two groups of amendments before us today—the current group and the other on clause 126, which deals with police conduct. We will accept the amendments because of our desire to get the whole Bill through.

Mr. Heald

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The amendments were jointly tabled by the Government and the official Opposition in the other place. Is it in order for the Minister to resile from them?

Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale)

The Minister can do anything.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. That is entirely a matter for the Minister in charge of the Bill.

Mr. Clarke

I am trying to express the Government's position as clearly as I can. Part 2 would have implemented Government policy to improve the ability of public authorities to disclose information for the purposes of criminal investigations or proceedings. That is an important part of the Government's overall strategy in the fight against crime and it is why I am disappointed that those clauses are being removed.

Given the short time available to complete the parliamentary stages of the Bill, we have decided to give further scrutiny to that part of the legislation. If the Government are re-elected, we will consider the best way to proceed with those useful reforms and how to use other legislative vehicles to do so.

Mr. Hawkins

I am afraid that we have just seen a most extraordinary approach to the amendments by the Minister, who seeks to reject everything that Lord Bassam said in jointly tabling the amendments with the official Opposition in the other place. It simply is not good enough for a Minister in the Lords to table amendments jointly with the Opposition and then for this Minister to say that the Government do not really agree with them. The House will also have noted the attitude of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who said a moment ago that the Minister could do anything. That has been the approach of the Government for the past four years and it is why they will be turfed out of office on 7 June. They have demonstrated contempt for the principles of democracy and the Minister cannot get away with saying that the Government are accepting the amendments only under force majeure in the other place—

Mr. Clarke

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hawkins

No, because the Minister is trying to resile from what Lord Bassam said in jointly tabling the amendments and accepting the Government's defeat on amendment No. 35. I have made the point repeatedly that we have had inadequate time to debate the Government's concessions and, with only two minutes left this afternoon, it is indisputable that the Government have had to abandon the whole of part 2 as a result of these jointly tabled amendments.

Mr. Clarke

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hawkins

No, I will not give way because time is short. The reason why that is happening is that Lord Bassam said as recently as yesterday in the other place:

"we have jointly tabled the amendment seeking to remove Part 2 of the Bill."

Mr. Clarke

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hawkins

No. I have told the Minister that I will not give way because the Government have given us so little time. Lord Bassam continued—

Mr. Clarke

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to ask the hon. Gentleman to quote the whole statement made by my noble Friend in the other place?

Madam Deputy Speaker

That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Hawkins

The Minister was premature in his intervention, because I proposed to continue the quotation. Lord Bassam said:

"This will provide a period of time in which, no doubt, we can improve the quality of the legislation, if that is what is required, and perhaps undertake further consultations."—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 9 May 2001: Vol. 624, c. 2173.]
Mr. Clarke

That is not the whole sentence.

Mr. Hawkins

That is the whole sentence. The Minister cannot get away from the fact that the amendments were tabled jointly—

It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Lords amendment No. 25 agreed to [Special Entry].

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 43 agreed to.