HL Deb 18 November 2004 vol 666 cc1653-8

50 Page 21, line 40, at end insert— (2A) The provisions of Part 2 of this Act shall come into force in accordance with provision made by a Minister of the Crown by order. (2B) An order under subsection (2A) shall cease to have effect on the expiry of the period of three years beginning on the day it is made unless both Houses of Parliament resolve that it shall further continue in force for a period not exceeding three years. (2C) An order made under subsection (2A) and renewed in accordance with subsection (2B) may, on expiry, be renewed following resolution of both Houses of Parliament for further periods not exceeding three years.

50A The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the fiollowing Reason—

Because it is not desirable to limit the duration of Part 2.

The Lords do not insist on their Amendment 50, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 50A, but do propose the following Amendment 50B in lieu thereof—

50B Page 21, line 40, at end insert— (2A) The provisions of Part 2 of this Act shall come into force in accordance with provision made by a Minister of the Crown by order. (2B) An order under subsection (2A) shall cease to have effect on the expiry of the period of one year beginning on the day that an order is made under the provisions of section 20 unless both Houses of Parliament resolve that it shall further continue in force.

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—

50C Because it is not desirable to limit the duration of Part 2.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 49B and 50B to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 49C and 50C.

Following concerns voiced both in your Lordships' House and in another place, we have looked again at the issue of sunsetting and reporting on the use of Part 2. The Government remain convinced that sunsetting the Act itself is not appropriate. The need to be able to respond to the most serious emergencies will not disappear after a given period, and revocation of this legislation would simply necessitate the putting in place of something very similar to replace it.

As was made clear at Commons consideration of Lords amendments, any use of the powers under Part 2 will be subject to detailed and rigorous parliamentary scrutiny, and will be limited by the restrictions and safeguards set out in the Bill. Any regulations made under the Bill will be subject to sunsetting after a maximum of 30 days. As I said earlier today, this is probably one of the most aggressive sunsetting clauses to be found anywhere on the statute book.

We remain convinced that the sunsetting of regulations and the need for them to receive the assent of Parliament is the right way to ensure that the powers cannot be misused and that effective scrutiny takes place. Indeed, we have amended the Bill so that the regulations contain provisions to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny can take place, where that is affected by the emergency in question, or by response efforts.

There is also no doubt, given the scale of the emergencies that we are discussing, that the Government's handling of the emergency will be subject to the most intense scrutiny, both inside and outside Parliament after the event. I need to refer only to the inquiries and reports published after the foot and mouth outbreak—a situation where emergency powers were not necessary—to highlight the fact that post-event scrutiny and review are, and will, remain defining features of the most serious of emergencies.

However, in light of the concerns expressed, the Government are minded to give a firmer assurance to both Houses regarding how we ensure that the Act will operate correctly. So, in the event of the use of emergency powers, the Government will put in place formal arrangements to review how the Act and its mechanisms, including the safeguards, had worked in practice. To that end, within one year of the end of the point at which the emergency regulations fall, a senior Privy Counsellor appointed by the Government will review the operation of the Act in that instance. That process would be repeated for each and every emergency during which the Act was used.

That review will be published and available to Parliament—and there will be a debate on the review. The findings will also provide a useful tool for the Government, who, as with any emergency, will be looking to learn lessons and to improve processes, wherever they become necessary. The Government will be conscious of the need to justify their decision to use the powers and their handling of the emergency in the cold light of day, before they use the powers and throughout the exercise of those powers.

I believe that that is a more flexible and less mechanistic approach than a sunsetting debate a year after the use of the powers, which could be disproportionate and unnecessary, if the exercise of those powers was uncontroversial and effective. If we agree to this proposal, we will have settled upon a dual-track approach. In the first instance, actions under the Act will have been subject to the existing 30–day sunset provision. In the second instance, there will be a slower review of the operation of the Act itself. We hope that this will give the House the reassurance that it seeks and will demonstrate the Government's commitment to effective review and scrutiny of the use of emergency powers legislation, not only when it is used, but in the longer term, to consider the appropriateness of such legislation in the light of the experience of its use and the passage of time.

I have been impressed by the sensible and consensual nature of the debates on this important legislation, both in this House and another place. I pay tribute to all who have contributed to our important debates and the telling contributions that they have made, which have led to a number of important and significant amendments. The Bill has benefited from a number of those helpful amendments, made in the light of concerns expressed during debate. I hope that noble Lords will view this proposal in the same light. For those reasons I commend it to the House.

Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 49B and 50B to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 49C and 50C.— (Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Baroness Buscombe

My Lords. I know that there are many occasions when all noble Lords wonder why they keep turning up to your Lordships' House and fighting on for whatever they believe in. This is one of those occasions when I believe that all that has been worth while.

While we would have been more delighted if the amendment that we proposed earlier today had been accepted in another place, we are enormously grateful that the Government have responded in such a positive manner. We are sorry that their commitment will not be on the face of the Bill, but we accept the Minister's firm assurances that, in the event of the use of the emergency powers, formal arrangements will he put in place, so that within one year of those emergency regulations falling there will be a review of the workings of those powers and that the review will be published and debated in both Houses of Parliament.

It is important that the government of the day are able to justify the use of those powers and their extent. We now have effective review and scrutiny, and that is what noble Lords across the House have been urging the Government to bring forward. So I am hugely grateful to the Minister for the statement that he has just made.

I join the Minister in paying tribute to all noble Lords who have been tenacious throughout the passage of the Bill. I feel that noble Lords on all sides of the House have made a real difference. It has not been easy, and the Bill certainly got off to a fairly odd start with a late debate one evening in the summer. I think we all felt that the Bill was not being given enough attention by the Government, but we are grateful that they have listened. A number of important concessions have been made and a number of important debates led to those concessions. I close by saying a particular word of thanks to my noble friends behind me who have helped me during the passage of the Bill.

Lord McNally

My Lords, we, too, welcome these concessions. The longer I am in the House, the more puzzled I become as to why governments insist on the Dance of the Seven Veils or the politics of the souk—I am not sure which it is. I am puzzled as to why we have to wait until 20 to seven on the very last day of the Session for what everyone agrees is a perfectly sensible suggestion, but there we are.

The solution is a hybrid—I hope that that does not get the Clerks worried. My noble friend Lord Avebury reminded us of the precedent of the review of the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act by my noble friend Lord Carlile, and it was the continual probing by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and her attempt to get the wording right that led us to this point. So I think that congratulations should be offered all round.

I pay special tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who has carried a tremendous burden. I must say that the performance of what I would describe as the Conservative "awkward squad" throughout the passage of the Bill has been truly impressive. It makes me think that they are getting rather good at opposition.

For some of us with even longer experience, this step is most welcome. I think that the Bill has been improved, and it is the kind of Bill that needs the awkward squad on all sides of the House because we are dealing with great powers.

Although I do not want to interfere in any way with another place, I watched the debate in the Commons and believe that one matter needs to be given consideration—perhaps Ministers can pass this on to their colleagues. Part of the problem that we ran into was caused by the draconian guillotine at Report stage in another place. That left a huge burden of scrutiny on this House, and that is not healthy. It makes us feel very good in that we do all the work, but it is not healthy that the democratically elected House does not consider Bills with the thoroughness required. However, I think we can say that we have done so.

This is a most welcome amendment, as was the earlier concession inspired by my noble friend Lord Lester concerning human rights matters being written on to the face of the Bill. It is a better Bill but it needs to be watched, and I think that we can now do that.

Lord Elton

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, forgets that one advantage of having hereditary Peers around is that they have had plenty of experience of opposition. I have had twelve and a half years myself.

This undertaking is a gift horse and I think that it has a pretty good mouth. I shall look into it for a moment, if I may. Had the Commons agreed to our amendment, the whole of Part 2 of the Bill would have been examined. As I understood what the noble Lord explained as the Government's undertaking, a review will take place of only the powers that are used within 12 months, but one failing may be that the powers will not be used. It seems to me that the Government's use of the whole of Part 2 should be under review, and I hope that the noble Lord can reassure us that that will be the case.

Like my noble friend, I warmly greet the appearance of a listening government on the Front Bench opposite. Together with my noble friend on the Front Bench, I thank my noble friends for their support. This has been a good example of inter-party co-operation and team support.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, yes, but in a way we are getting more than we asked for as we are to have a proper review on which to base our debate, rather than just governmental assertions, which we would have had under our amendment. That is a great advance. It reflects the way in which the Front-Bench team have handled the Bill. When we have asked for something, and they think we should have it, they have given us a little extra on top. I am enormously grateful for that.

I am very impressed by the way the matter has been handled, both by officials and by Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has put in a stellar performance, which has been commented on by many other Members of the House who have stayed to listen to the debates, and it has been a pleasure to be part of the process.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I am flattered. Footballers use a term, but I shall not use it this evening. I am very grateful for those warm words. I believe that the House can feel good about itself on this occasion. We have done a good job. There has been effective scrutiny. I am particularly grateful for the courtesy that noble Lords have extended, not only to me, but also to my noble friend Lady Scotland, who has also undertaken a tremendous amount of work on the Bill. That spirit of co-operation has carried forward a very difficult piece of legislation that none of us feels absolutely happy about because we never want to see the circumstances in which it would he used.

I am grateful for the support. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right: this way of looking at the legislation—it will cover the whole of Part 2—is perhaps more beneficial in its extent than the effect of the amendment that., in good cause, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, moved earlier. We have come to a happy conclusion on a difficult piece of legislation, but a piece of legislation that was in urgent need of modernisation and which in many senses we hope we shall never have to use to the fullest extent.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure. In moving the Motion, I can drop a hint that the process of prorogation may be two hours away. Of course, everyone is very welcome.

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

[The Sitting was suspended from 6.47 to 9.30 p.m.]