HL Deb 04 December 2001 vol 629 cc707-22

3.5 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.


Clause 89 [Fingerprinting of terrorist suspects]:

Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 152A:

Page 47, line 30, after first "of" insert "terrorist"

The noble Lord said: It is wonderful to have such power to empty seats. This group of amendments raises a very important point about which we have made criticisms throughout the Bill's passage so far—that is, the wide scope and nature of what is supposed to be emergency legislation for dealing with terrorist and security matters.

Some amendments in the group are brought forward with the names of noble Lords of my party on top, some with the names of noble Lords of the Liberal Democrats on top, and some stand in single-member party names. There is no collusion in terms of our approach to this issue; we have a common concern about matters.

It has to be admitted that we have a problem. In promoting themselves and in funding their operations, terrorist organisations almost certainly commit all kinds of crime. But not all kinds of crime are necessarily terrorist related. So there is a dilemma. Nevertheless, we feel strongly that the Bill should be restricted, if it can be, to the emergency nature of the legislation which we are rushing through—that is, to dealing with terrorist matters.

To give an illustration, the first part of Clause 89 deals with the fingerprinting of terrorist suspects. But, as one goes further through the clause, one finds "or for purposes related", which means that the powers can be used much more widely for normal criminal activity. As I have observed, crime is always with us. It does not seem proper that the normal criminal aspects of the life of our communities should be dealt with through these emergency procedures.

All the amendments in this large group are devoted to the same purpose. I do not intend to bore the Committee by going through them one by one because the wording is similar every case. None the less, they raise a small but important point. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart

My noble friends and I have put our names to Amendments Nos. 153 to 155, 156 and 159, either as the lead names or together with the Conservative Front Bench. We entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith said. The argument that these powers should be restricted to dealing with terrorist problems has been made many times. It has been supported by speakers on all sides, both at Second Reading and in Committee. I do not think there is any need for me to take it further.

Lord Alexander of Weedon

I apologise for the fact that this is my first opportunity to take part in the Committee stage. I declare an interest as chairman of Justice, the all-party law reform group, which has extensively briefed many Members of the Committee on the Bill. I had no part in the preparation of the briefing. Justice accepted that the purposes of the Bill were such as potentially to justify derogation from the Human Rights Act if, and only if, the Bill was proportionate and was focused sharply on the terrorism committed on 11th September. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, stated, many of the Bill's provisions go wider than that.

Members of the Committee heard yesterday that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I have the privilege to be chairman, protested most strongly about Clauses 110 and 111 having nothing to do with the emergency arising on 11th September. On that basis, I content myself with saying that each time we fail to narrow the purposes of the Bill, we lessen the prospect that our derogation from the Human Rights Act will be held to be justified. Each time we fail to narrow the purposes of the Bill, we dent civil liberties. I support the amendment.

Lord Clinton-Davis

I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. The Minister has to convince me—and, I hope, others like me—that the derogation he seeks is justified. Like the noble Lord, I am worried about the breaches of freedom signified by this approach.

In both Houses, I have long been a supporter of civil liberties. The Minister has to approach people like me as having an open mind. But at the moment the view broached by the noble Lord is not a fanciful one. We are deeply worried by the Government's approach. The focus on terrorism ought to be applied in this case—and it is not.

3.15 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

Three of the amendments in this group stand in my name. I apologise to the Committee for not being able to be present yesterday. A series of rather attractive operatic events in Budapest coincided with the international meeting of the Green parties of Europe.

My Amendment No. 155A is a de minimis amendment. It seeks to ensure that this legislation does not apply to matters which are extremely small and which should not be included in this area. I am sure that they are covered by the major amendments in the group which have been spoken to.

My Amendment No. 158ZA deals with a more specialised point. There are plenty of instances on record where the police have requested that people take off face coverings and have not given them time to do so before arresting them. The amendment is intended to meet that point and to make sure that it is not a crime to be slightly slow in obeying a request that a person may not have understood in the heat of the moment. That can apply at protests on ecological (or green) grounds rather more than in instances relating to the kind of terrorism with which the Bill mainly deals.

Amendment No. 158ZB attempts to remove the penalty of imprisonment, as opposed to a fine, for such minor offences. I speak on behalf of my party when I say that we strongly support all the major amendments in the group. I hope that the Government will see reason.

Lord Marsh

I should be grateful if the Minister would address a fundamental point. All the amendments have one thing in common which has informed the remarks that we have heard so far. The trend is to interpret the word "emergency" as synonymous with "temporary".

The point is fundamental because many people do not believe that what happened on 11th September left behind it a "temporary" situation to be dealt with over a limited period of time. Many people believe that it changed the whole approach to the fight against terrorism. There has been a recognition that terrorism now has resources—both financial and in terms of following and commitment—on a scale previously unknown. If that is the case—and it is certainly my position—we have to examine the question of civil liberties and rights, and of their erosion, in a different way. We must take on board the fact that we live in a different society, that the threats are much greater and that some thousands of people have been killed—that is not an emotive point. It is recognised that the resources, skills and finance available to carry out such offences are greater than we have ever known, as is the commitment to carry them out. Secondly, those who perpetrate the crimes have made it very clear that they have the ability and the commitment to repeat them, not only in this country or in the United States but in other parts of the world.

I should like to know the Government's view. If this is a passing phase and we shall grow out of it, then of course we can afford to continue with the liberal regime that we have had, totally unchanged. If we do not regard it as a temporary phase, then we must make some changes. I do not argue for one side or the other. There will be different views; I should like to hear the Minister's.

Lord Clinton-Davis

Why cannot there be primary legislation later to deal with the noble Lord's point?

Lord Marsh

That is not my point. I am raising a more fundamental point, which can be dealt with—or not—in primary legislation. Depending on the view that we take of the importance of the present situation, it may be felt that primary legislation should follow later.

Lord Elton

The noble Lord is speaking well outside the scope of the amendments and of the Bill. This is emergency legislation that is being discussed in haste. I ask the noble Lord to wait before responding. just as I waited for him to finish before I made my comments.

Lord Marsh

I was just moving to make myself more comfortable.

Lord Elton

I hope that he will be comfortable when we have finished.

The Bill is being taken through Parliament in a rush. When one is in a rush, one is prepared to accept limitations of liberty because there is an emergency, which will last for a short time. After that, we will have an opportunity to deal with the circumstances that may prevail for a long time. That is when the noble Lord should make his speech, not now.

Lord Marsh

I have tried to make it clear that I was talking about the definition and perception of the word "emergency", which has, quite properly, been used frequently in relation to the amendments.

Lord Rooker

We have reached Part 10, which deals with police powers. Far be it from me to criticise, but I have not heard any case made for the amendments, so I am having some difficulty in responding to them. The general thrust seems to be that we should not extend police powers in the way proposed in Part 10. I say that we are extending police powers, because by and large the powers in this part are not new, but are extensions of existing powers. That is an important point.

Following the first part of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, I hope that it is accepted from the public evidence available that the events of September 11th had clearly been in planning for years, not just for days, weeks or months. We do not vet know what was planned years ago for next year. That is the problem. That is why we are taking precautionary measures as quickly as we can and extending powers. I do not accept the extravagant language that has been used outside your Lordships' House that this is the end of liberal democracy. Our liberal democracy is strengthening its powers to secure and maintain itself as a liberal democracy. I will argue that in any forum. If we did not take some precautions, we would be failing in our duty as a government and as a Parliament.

The amendments on the central issue of the extension of police powers are all neatly grouped together. I shall not go down the highways and byways of all the nuances of the changes. There are several clauses involved and the amendments cover some of the issues. It is important to put on the record the reasons for the content of the clauses. I shall briefly address most, if not all, of the amendments and answer any questions that there may be.

The first three amendments in the group—Amendments Nos. 152A, B and C—relate to Clause 89, which amends the Terrorism Act 2000 to allow the police in Scotland to examine fingerprints and DNA samples taken under the powers of that Act when investigating crime generally. At the moment, those records can be searched only if the police are investigating suspected terrorist offences. There is therefore a risk that they will miss connections between terrorist suspects and what I would call ordinary, common or garden criminal offences that may be committed as an adjunct to terrorist activity. For example, a van may be stolen for use as a bomb, but recovered without any evidence of its intended terrorist use. Believe it or not, it would not currently be possible in Scotland to check any prints or samples against those of all previous terrorist suspects, even though that might reveal the true purpose of the theft.

That change was introduced for England and Wales in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Unlike in England and Wales, in Scotland only prints and samples taken under anti-terrorism provisions can be retained if the suspect is not subsequently convicted. Prints and samples taken under other powers must be destroyed. The amendments would constrain the police to using those prints and samples only for terrorist investigations, as is currently the case. They would therefore undermine the purpose of the provision and we shall resist them.

Clauses 90 and 91 give the police necessary additional powers to search and examine persons in detention who will not say who they are or about whose identity there are reasonable doubts. I hope that it is accepted that the investigation of crime and the prevention of further crime can be impeded if it is not possible to make reliable identification. The police also need a specific power to seek identifying marks that would tend to identify a detained person as being involved in the commission of an offence.

Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 would limit those powers to circumstances in which the person was detained in connection with a terrorist investigation. I hope that the flaw in that approach is obvious to the Committee. If the new powers are to be fully effective in supporting the fight against terrorism, we have to take account of the fact that an involvement in or connection with terrorism may become apparent only once the identity of the person is established. To the extent that the powers are relevant in determining or verifying a detained person's identity, they have the potential to reveal important links with terrorism that were not previously suspected.

We want to stop terrorists or their supporters being able to slip easily through the police net. We are adopting a precautionary approach with a modest extension of existing police powers. I accept that in some exceptional circumstances such examinations could prove intrusive. The power to examine someone for an identifying mark to prove their identity could be intrusive. We shall issue guidance to the police about how they should approach situations in which identity cannot be established.

The first option is to search through personal belongings and effects for clues. That is the normal approach. If that was not helpful, the next step would be to take fingerprints and photographs. Only if those logical steps drew a blank should the police consider the possibility of a body search for possible identifying marks. Properly used and supported by appropriate guidance, these expanded powers could be very useful in seeking to identify people in connection with investigations.

This may not come as a surprise to some of your Lordships—although it certainly came as a surprise tome, because in 27 years as a constituency Member of Parliament, I had never come across the factbut without the new powers in Clauses 92 and 93, the police will continue to be unable to photograph a detained person who is unwilling to co-operate and who successfully obstructs the process in some way. We are talking about mug shots taken in a police station. I had thought that the police had the legal right to make sure that they could take a photograph, but that is not necessarily the case.

Taking a photograph can be a critical aid to identification or to detection or prevention. For example, it may be desirable to circulate a photograph of a suspected terrorist to areas where relevant offences are being investigated. More directly, the photograph could be compared against existing records. Such records could be at a location remote from the police station in question. It would be self-defeating to limit the powers to circumstances in which a person was detained in connection with a terrorist investigation. Crime is used to fund terrorism. There may be a crime and criminal activity, but the criminal concerned does not know that he is part of some terrorist funding operation. He may just be a job smith criminal. It is important to the authorities to be able to continue to investigate in those circumstances to see whether there are links. It may be apparent only when we have the identity of the person by taking photographs to see whether terrorist links are thrown up.

These new powers will help to ensure that such criminals do not pass through custody unrecognised. They will allow for the use of reasonable force to remove items or substances worn on or over the head or face of the person to be photographed. Such removals will need to be handled with the utmost care, which is self-evident. There needs to be sensitivity to individuals—after all, we are dealing with fellow human beings—and sensitivity to cultural or religious issues. We shall give the police full guidance on that area of activity.

The basic power to take a photograph of a detained person is not a radical intrusion on the rights and freedoms of citizens of this country. It can make a substantial contribution to helping to ensure that terrorists and their supporters are caught and that such activity is prevented.

Amendment No. 155A would restrict the use of photographs and would prohibit their use in cases involving breaches of the peace, obstruction of the highway and minor criminal offences under Sections 4 or 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, referring to the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, seeks to limit the use and disclosure of photographs that were taken by a person involved in such activity who was subsequently arrested. The amendment is unnecessary, as it is not the Government's intention that the police or anyone else should circulate photographs of people who are arrested for offences against all and sundry. The taking of a photograph is somewhat less intrusive than the taking of fingerprints, and Clause 92 proposes limitations on the use and disclosure of photographs in exactly the same way as fingerprints.

I assure Members of the Committee that the issues surrounding the use and disclosure, and indeed the retention of photographs, is a matter that the Home Office is considering very carefully, together with the relevant ACPO working groups. We shall issue new guidance on all the new provisions in due course, and there will be specific guidance on the treatment of photographs.

Clauses 94 and 95 provide extended powers to allow a police inspector to give authorisation to officers to require the removal and seizure of face coverings that are worn for the purpose of concealing identity. The authorisation applies only to a particular locality and could last for 24 hours, with an extension of a further 24 hours. Before giving the authorisation the inspector must reasonably believe that the activities may take place in a specified locality within his police area and that such activities are likely to involve the commission of offences.

The power to remove face coverings in a designated area already exists; this is not a brand new power. We are amending the test from reasonable belief that serious violence may take place to reasonable belief that activities that are likely to involve the commission of offences may take place. The tactic of wearing face coverings during outbreaks of public disorder has become increasingly widespread. Demonstrators involved in intimidatory or violent protest often wear masks or balaclavas that hide most of the face. These can serve a double purpose. They can both disguise the identity and heighten the intimidation of the people that the activity is directed against.

I can give an example from my previous ministerial experience in the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and. Food. Scientists who were advising the ministry on animal health matters were sometimes visited at home by a mob of up to 20 people wearing balaclavas. Homes were attacked and officers of the ministry who were going about their business were attacked by people wearing masks and balaclavas in a thoroughly intimidatory fashion. Wearing such masks was designed to conceal the identity of the person and to heighten the intimidation. I suspect, although I have no evidence, that in some cases it may lead people to commit acts that they would not normally commit because they think that they cannot be identified.

Amendment No. 157 would extend the provision to cover the removal of substances such as face paint. We have considered the issue carefully. Face paint can be difficult to remove. I do not have personal experience, but I know a few people whose children have had their faces painted. Washing facilities are unlikely to be available during a demonstration. We concluded, therefore, that it would be unreasonable to require a demonstrator to remove face paint or to arrest him if he failed to do so. However, we consider it reasonable that a person who is detained at a police station should be required to remove face paint, or for the police to remove it so that the person can be photographed. Clause 93 specifically includes provision for the removal of face paint.

Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 would limit the powers of Clauses 94 and 95 to when it was reasonably believed that the activities involved the commission of terrorist offences. If these powers were limited by the amendments, the police would no longer find them useful for dealing with public order issues when face coverings were worn while crimes were committed. It would be more difficult for the police to obtain intelligence that crimes for terrorist purposes were likely to be committed.

As I said, sometimes the only links between the crime and the terrorism, or the alleged terrorism, are found only during the investigation itself. We are resisting the amendments because the police cannot effectively combat terrorism unless they have some inkling of the identity—sometimes the multiple identities—of the people they are looking for and dealing with. Why should an alleged terrorist have the option of concealing who he is by refusing a reasonable police request to take straightforward action to establish his true identity? What is the problem with that? Providing such powers only when there is already a known link would be an inadequate and half-hearted approach.

On Amendment No. 158ZA, it must be recognised that the police have a difficult job in policing demonstrations. It is a long time since I marched in a demonstration in the late 1960s in Grosvenor Square, but I know how difficult it was for everybody. I did not commit any offences, I should say. It was a peaceful protest all round. However, swift action is needed if it is believed that offences may be committed. We believe that it should be left to the judgment of the police officer on the ground to decide if and when to arrest someone for not removing the face covering that is concealing his identity.

I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, but I believe that we should leave the matter to the good judgment of police officers. If people are aggrieved, there are complaint procedures that they can follow if they feel that they have not had enough time to remove their mask or balaclava.

Amendment No. 158ZB would mean that magistrates no longer had the option of a custodial sentence for a person who failed to remove an item when required to do so by a constable. Under Clause 94, a person who fails to remove an item when required

to do so by a constable is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which is £1,000.

Amendments Nos. 158A and 159A amend the penalty for the offence from a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale, which is £500. We believe that the sentences as drafted reflect the seriousness of the crime. They follow the sentences in Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. We consider there is no case to change the penalties for the offence.

For extra clarity it is worth pointing out to the Committee—this will assist the other place which did not necessarily have enough time to debate all of the changes—that there is nothing fundamentally new in this group of clauses. They are extensions. The powers are already in place. We believe that they are a modest, precautionary and, indeed, proportionate approach to the situation in which we find ourselves now of extending the investigatory powers of the police. I realise that there has been a debate about who should make the decision to require the removal of items which may conceal someone's identity. However, one has to bear in mind that the constable, inspector or whoever is carrying out the task must take a reasonable view that the face being covered is being covered in such a way in order wholly or mainly to conceal the identity of the person involved. That may not necessarily be the reason for someone covering his or her face. I refer to cultural and religious reasons for doing so.

I turn to the Immigration Service. Many people enter this country and present themselves at airports with covered faces. However, there is never any problem as regards obtaining a cross-match with a photograph in a passport. The Immigration Service handles the matter carefully and is sensitive to the cultural needs and gender of the people concerned. The matter is not handled in a way that humiliates the people concerned. I can find no evidence of any complaints. Therefore, in my view that matter is a complete red herring in relation to discussion of these issues either inside or outside Parliament.

Existing powers to designate areas where the action we are discussing can be taken have not often been used. A designated area was declared during the May Day demonstrations in central London. Designated areas have also been declared in both Cambridgeshire and Staffordshire to tackle animal rights demonstrators. Such provisions can be incredibly intimidatory for the people concerned. The police will not routinely walk up and down the streets of this country demanding that people remove face coverings, be those red noses, masks, cultural or religious coverings. That does not constitute the power that we are discussing. I genuinely believe that the nature of what is proposed in this extension of police powers meets the current situation following the events of September 11th. It is reasonable that the provision should apply for some time. That is why we do not wish to put a time limit on it.

I end as I began. The events of September 11th were planned many years ago. No one has ever claimed that any part of the Bill, or the whole of it, would of itself have prevented the disaster of September llth. No one has ever made that claim and we do not seek to make it. The Bill is not sufficiently intrusive to enable us to make such a bold claim. The powers that I am discussing constitute modest extensions and are covered by the normal rules governing the police. The guidance issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will be revised and updated to take account of all the activities that I have mentioned. All the necessary existing checks and balances on the use of police powers will be maintained and operated as regards the powers that I am discussing.

I honestly believe that no one—I refer particularly to those who comment on the affairs of Parliament—has made anything like a reasonably decent case as regards criticising the powers in the Bill. They have made a case as regards powers that are not in the Bill in order to get a headline and a thousand word fee. However, we in this Chamber and the other place are responsible for the words in the Bill, not those that journalists think are in the Bill. We should bear that in mind as we continue to debate the Bill. I hope, therefore, that Members of the Committee will not seek to press their amendments.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

I ask—

Lord Elton

I ask—

Lord Campbell of Alloway

I am obliged to my noble friend. I hope that I may ask the noble Lord a simple question of principle concerning the Government's approach to the Bill, to primary legislation which it will involve and to the powers in the Bill to create subordinate legislation. I happen to agree unreservedly with the speech of my noble friend Lord Alexander. I happen to agree unreservedly—although I did not take part in the debate—with the views of the Chamber as expressed on Clause 110 yesterday. However, is the approach this—or, if it is not, should it not be?—that what is provided in the Bill in primary legislation and the powers to create subordinate legislation should be strictly related to the global threat of terrorism as it is perceived and should be proportionate to it? Is that the approach of the Government because, if it is not, I respectfully suggest that it should be and it must be?

3.45 p.m.

Lord Rooker

I believe that it is. The noble Lord has just touched on much wider aspects of the Bill. I have said many times in Committee that we accept that the Bill is being fast-tracked through Parliament. No one denies that. It is self-evident from the lack of time between stages that it is being fast-tracked. There is not much time between stages to permit mature consideration of noble Lords' contributions which have all been extremely useful and helpful to Ministers. Clearly, this Chamber has had more time for discussion than the other place. However, we have repeatedly said that one cannot put in the Bill issues relating only to terrorism for reasons I hope I have explained.

However, I say to the noble Lord that we have indicated that both Chambers ought to have the opportunity to revisit the whole Act of Parliament and to review its operational effect after a reasonable period, as I said at the beginning of last Thursday's debate. I floated the possibility that Members of the Privy Council from both Chambers could take an oversight of the whole Act—notwithstanding the statutory review of the detention powers by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—with access to security provisions and everything else, report back to the Home Secretary and publish a report to be debated in both Chambers.

Last night the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, made a suggestion which constituted almost a compromise for those who demanded sunset clauses throughout or a block sunset. We are seriously considering the possibility of "marrying up" the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the demand of those who want a block sunset; that is, a provision in the Bill to the effect that if within, say, two years—we said 15 months for the first review of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—the Home Secretary had not published a review of the Act a block sunset would apply. That is an additional reason to set up such a review involving Members of this Chamber. This Chamber would have the right to debate the report which could contain recommendations on the detail of the Act as it would review the operation of the Act. It may state that some parts of the Act are working well but others need strengthening. The report may state that, in the light of experience, some provisions are too far-reaching. That offer is on the table. I genuinely believe that that type of approach would meet the substance of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. Many aspects of this primary legislation can create secondary legislation. In a way, the JHA aspect is slightly separate from the nature of the debate that we had last night. But there are other areas where secondary legislation will be created.

It is important that this House and the other place feel comfortable with the operation of the legislative process. If there is not a degree of comfort with it, it will be a festering sore in your Lordships' House and, indeed, in the other place. Frankly, that will interrupt the flow of our business and the consideration of many other issues. That will be to no one's benefit. It will not be to the Government's benefit, the Opposition's benefit or to the benefit of any party.

Therefore, in relation to looking at how the Act works, there is a possibility of compromise consistent with the Government's central objective. That objective is to get the Bill on to the statute book before the Christmas Recess. I make no bones about the fact that our central objective is to deal with this legislation and the necessary orders following the JHA before Christmas.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I do so out of deep ignorance, I am afraid. If there were to be included in the Bill sunset clauses and the opportunity to review—I assume that that implies the opportunity to change and to go back upon some decisions in the light of the review in two years' time—what would be the status of that in terms of our obligations in Europe? Would we be able to decide not to pursue a line of action which we had agreed but which, on review, we found for some reason was not acceptable to us? Would it be possible for us to do that and to enforce those changes in the light of our obligations to Europe and the relationship of our law to European law?

Lord Rooker

It is a cop-out for me to say that that is a thoroughly hypothetical question because I understand the noble Baroness's intention in asking it. However, we would have to await the outcome of such a review. If a review took place along the rough lines that I have indicated, it would contain recommendations relating to the Act of Parliament—that is, its sections and subsections—depending on whether they had operated in a good. bad, indifferent or neutral manner. Of course. in any event, aspects of our international obligations must be taken into account; for example, in relation to the derogation from the human rights legislation. Therefore, there is no question that a mix-up with international obligations is involved. Parliament is sovereign. That is the only answer that I can give to the noble Baroness. It is a statement of fact that Parliament is sovereign. That is a pretty good answer.

Lord Elton

That was true, but, alas, it no longer is because there are certain things that we are hound to do by treaty when they are put upon us by a consensus of opinion in Europe. My noble friend asked whether that consensus would leave us free to treat this Bill as we wished in the event of a review such as he described.

I do not want to prolong this debate because many noble Lords want to hear the Statement. However, having listened to the noble Lord, I am reminded that we always refer to this as the "Anti-terrorism Bill". But it is not; it is the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, and the Long Title makes it clear that it is designed to do a great many things other than fight terrorism. That is what makes us uneasy. We believed that we were being summoned to deal with a particular crisis in a particular way and that, when we had dealt with that, we would settle down and deal with questions such as whether photographs should be kept. I draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 90(9) on page 48 of the Bill. The provision set out there is reflected in later clauses. It states: A photograph taken under this section … may be used by, or disclosed to, any person for any purpose related to the prevention"— not of terrorism but the— … detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution". The noble Lord is being frank about this matter. He says that crime is a seamless robe, that a terrorist may make a living from selling drugs on the street and that, unless one is aware that every criminal is a potential terrorist or a potential paymaster of a terrorist, one will get nowhere. Those issues take us wider than the purpose for which we believed we were brought to this House. Therefore, the idea of a review, which I found very attractive early on, begins to seem less attractive. I believe that we shall have to look at the whole matter again fairly soon.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

Perhaps I may take the Minister back to his account of the various amendments that have been moved. Some parts of the Bill which we are discussing will have to be implemented by the Scottish Executive and some will not. The Minister mentioned specifically one concerning fingerprinting which will apply to Scotland. Can I take it that the Labour/Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive and the Liberal Democrat Justice Minister are happy with what the Government propose?

Lord Rooker

From the information that we have received from Scotland, the noble Baroness may take it that they are content for us to legislate in this way. From memory, I believe that there is one area where the common law in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales. I cannot remember what it is, but the common law in Scotland suffices for what needs to be done; it does not need to be done in a statutory form.

Lord Marlesford

I found what the Minister said in relation to the amendments before us convincing. He convinced me that, although the provisions which we are discussing the possibility of amending are ancillary, they are also necessary for the combat of terrorism. Later, he started to talk about a compromise in relation to reviewing the Act. If, by that, he meant that we should pass the entire Bill on the basis that there would be a subsequent review, I am afraid that I would not be able to accept that. I believe that parts of the Bill—these amendments do not relate to them—require much more discussion than we shall be able to have over the next few days and I do not consider them to be central to the purpose of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that in due course the Government will be prepared to bring forward those provisions for proper scrutiny and consideration.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford

I want to make some brief remarks on Clauses 89 to 95. Like the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, generally speaking I am convinced by what the Minister said about the necessity of the powers contained in these clauses. However, I am deeply concerned about the way in which they are implemented. In particular, disguise is a very powerful weapon in the armoury of a terrorist. It must be necessary for people to be obliged to remove disguises, but it must be done with the utmost sensitivity, courtesy and consideration. It is not possible to legislate for those things, but it is possible to make one or two provisions, such as, for example, that set out in Amendment No. 157A, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will press. Such provisions will be absolutely vital if that procedure is to be acceptable.

In general, I entirely agree with what was said in the Chamber yesterday by noble Lords who criticised Clauses 110 and 111. Indeed, we must stand firm in opposing them. But I hope that the Committee will accept that, in arguing for the broad powers here, the Minister is right in so far as the identity of a terrorist may become evident only after an investigation has begun. I want to commend the points made by the Minister in that respect.

Earl Attlee

Following on from the points raised by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, is the Minister convinced that he has gone far enough? Is it not possible that he will come back at a later stage for another dose of salami powers?

Lord Rooker

We do not have any plans for an Antiterrorism, Crime and Security (Amendment) Bill at the moment. I said yesterday that we make no secret of the factit is what people would have expected—that we trawled Whitehall to find gaps and loopholes in our legislation where we could be vulnerable. We have taken a precautionary approach to closing those gaps and loopholes.

We clearly have plans to bring forward a Bill on extradition but that is not related. It is the result of the review of extradition legislation published 18 months ago. We have said that we will also use that as the vehicle for European arrest warrant details and that we will bring forward another Bill on asylum and immigration in about March. That will follow a White Paper—not related and going much wider—on citizenship and managed migration. It is true that the three Bills were not planned in the gracious Speech as Home Office legislation this Session—but we do not plan any more.

I cannot answer the right reverend Prelate in more detail than I have. I believe that he accepts that the powers are necessary, for which I am grateful. I assure Members of the Committee that we shall rigorously ensure that the powers are operated in conformity with PACE legislation and that the code of practice is unambiguous about how the powers should be used.

4 p.m.

Lord Dixon-Smith

The Minister has given many detailed replies, for which we are all most grateful. Whether or not we agree with everything he says, he has done everything he can to help us forward. I refer in particular to the Minister's welcome offer of a process of review. Our difficulty is that there is no government amendment or anything on paper that would enable us to make a judgment of the value of the noble Lord's assurance. I do not impugn the Minister's integrity—it is simply a matter of reality. If the noble Lord can use the day off from the Bill that we are to enjoy tomorrow to find time to persuade his staff to put something on paper that can be added, to create a reality out of hypothesis, we might be arguing from a different situation.

At the beginning of this debate nearly an hour ago, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, observed that the emergency which gave rise to the Bill was not temporary. To the extent that the noble Lord was talking about the consequences of September 11th, he is correct. I am glad that the emergency that took the noble Lord out of the Committee has allowed him to return in time to hear me sum up.

The emergency is here, in this Chamber. We have had five consecutive sitting days on the Bill. We shall have one day's break, then sit three more days. The emergency is in the procedures that we are going through—which we have agreed and go through happily—to get the legislation on the statute book. We are as intent on doing that as are the Government—even if we will fight parts of the Bill as strongly as we can. Some aspects of the Bill do not relate to the reasons for bringing it before us and are not justified by the sort of procedures that we are putting ourselves through to achieve the Government's aim.

I accept that we are dealing with a change in circumstance. When the Bill is passed, it will be permanent—subject only to any sunset clauses that Parliament may choose to impose or to any review procedure that the Minister may bring forward. I want to make it clear that we are not dealing with simple, straightforward confusion between a temporary situation and a permanent one. We have had a good debate and the noble Lord has given some thorough answers, for which I am most grateful. At this stage—particularly since many Members are beginning to gather to deal with another matterit would be discreet if I were to conclude now. We may need to return to these issues on another occasion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 152E and 152C not moved.]

Clause 89 agreed to.

Clause 90 [Searches,examinations and fingerprinting: England and Wales]:

[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]

Clause 90 agreed to.

Clause 91 [Searches,examinations and fingerprinting: Northern Ireland]:

[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]

Clause 91 agreed to.

Clause 92 [Photographing of suspects etc.: England and Wales]:

[Amendments Nos. 155 and 155A not moved.]

Clause 92 agreed to.

Clause 93 [Photographing of suspects etc.: Northern Ireland]:

[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]

Clause 93 agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.