| Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Notification of Authorisations etc.) Order 2000
|
|
Mr. Heald: I shall have one final go at the issue that I raised. The Minister said that the tribunal has the power to give summaries of evidence taken in the absence of the complainant. However, I cannot find such a power in the proposals, although I have looked through them carefully. If such a power exists, it must be in either the rules or the Act. The Act merely gives the Secretary of State power to make rules that would allow that, and he is not doing that. Is the Minister sure that the power to give summaries of evidence is provided? That is the only protection available for complainants, who will be unable to attend hearings at which people about whom they complain give their accounts. Complainants have no way of finding out what was said unless a summary is available. I fully understand that a summary would need to be edited so that it did not contain genuinely top secret or prejudicial information, but if no summary is available to give the complainant some idea of what the other person says, it cannot be a proper hearing. The proper interplay and discussion to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) referred and that are crucial to a hearing would not take place.
5.5 pmMr. Charles Clarke: I shall deal with hon. Members' points individually. I am sympathetic in response to the apology of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) for the absence of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett); this morning, I spent five-and-three-quarter hours on a train journey from Norwich that normally takes an hour and 35 minutes, so I well understand his reasons for not being here. The rules do not make provisions for special advocates. We understand the point, which was raised by the Earl of Northesk in the other place at the end of last week. We believe that the claimant will be able to put his case as fully as necessary without the aid of such procedural devices, so they should not be required. In dealing with the points made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), I shall reiterate what I said a moment ago. The purpose of the new tribunal is to replace the Interception Tribunal, the Intelligence Services Tribunal, the Security Service Tribunal and the complaints functions of the commissioners as established under the Police Act 1997. It has further jurisdiction than those, and is effectively a one-stop shop for those complaining about the use of investigatory powers. The important qualification is that the other tribunals still exist for complaints before 2 October, when the Human Rights Act came into effect. If I were a partisan politician, I would say that the Labour Government are sweeping aside quangos that we inherited from the Tories, but I do not want to behave in that way. Mr. Tyrie rose—
Mr. Clarke: I will give way in a second, but I want to give credit to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). In fairness to him, he made his point in hearings from the outset. I checked not because I was unfamiliar with the subject, on which we have had a full debate, but because I respect the hon. Member for Chichester so much. When he made the point, I thought that I might have got something terribly wrong, so I turned nervously to my officials simply to double-check. However, the matter is simply part of the general tidying-up of government that characterises so much of what we do. Mr. Tyrie: If I were a Minister, I would certainly not say anything important in Committee without checking it with officials first. I have now found the last schedule to the RIP Act, which makes some repeals that presumably remove the relevant pieces of legislation from the statute book. Does that also mean that the commissioners have gone completely, and that it is therefore considered that they did not have a useful function? Before the Minister answers, I should deal with a slightly partisan point. The Conservatives inherited a world from the Labour party in which there was no scrutiny, no possibility of the wider public looking at such issues, and no set of structures by which people could complain—except through their Members of Parliament—about the chance of their having their telephones tapped and property entered without permission. The Conservatives opened up the area and created the Intelligence Services Commission to give a measure of parliamentary scrutiny that had been lacking. I am not a partisan sort of chap and I believe that, if the tidying-up that the Minister has described works as it should do, it will represent a further step forward. Mr. Clarke: I will not go down the path further, except to say that the purpose of the RIP Act is to ensure that everyone has his or her full rights intact. With the exception of surveillance commissioners, who continue under the Police Act 1997, the commissioner process is set up afresh under the RIP Act. That is in no sense a criticism of the existing commissioners. On the contrary, they have done an outstanding job of work. One commissioner dealt with two tribunals. The measures are simply a rationalisation of the process that we think is in the general public interest, rather than something critical of anyone, including the previous Government. We think that the measures are a step forward. We are creating a one-stop shop that will tackle the problems effectively. I acknowledge that the authorisation process is complex at the different levels that we are talking about. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) drew attention to some provisions of primary legislation that fully listed different aspects of it. It is clear who can authorise what in what circumstances. If the hon. Member for Chichester thinks that matters are not clear enough and wants to consider them more fully, perhaps he will write to me. I shall be happy to set matters out as clearly as I can. The right hon. Member for Fylde legitimately raised the question of how to ensure that everyone operates on a similar basis and is up to speed. It is important to suggest that many people involved are already taking action highly professionally, and in a manner that shows a substantial interplay of experience in these matters. One of the arguments for a unified tribunal system is the spread of common practice. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, in relation to notification orders and steps to train practitioners of the type that he mentioned, police and Customs and Excise will work closely with the national crime squad precisely to achieve the common standards to which he refers. An important aspect of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act is that it brings into the regime other areas of government in which surveillance has occurred, although that does not, of course, apply directly to the matters under discussion. We will engage in a substantial effort across the range of public life to ensure that that is properly done. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will remember from his time at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that even there work of the type under discussion was occurring. We want to ensure that all such work is dealt with effectively and I believe that we are trying to do so coherently. There may be some misunderstanding about notice of renewal and guidance. The right hon. Member for Fylde referred to a 40-day period, but that is the time scale in which the secondary legislation must take effect. We had a long discussion about time scales in Committee on the Bill, but the conclusion was that setting what would ultimately be an arbitrary time scale would cause more problems than it would solve. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman's confusion relates to his question about section 35 of the Act. He asked whether section 35(6) was incompatible with section 35(2)(c), but the provisions deal with separate matters. Subsections (5), (6) and (7) of section 35 relate only to the parliamentary process for the secondary legislation and their purpose is to describe the process by which section 35(2)(c) is put into force. Mr. Jack: Will the Minister answer a question that I might have asked on the basis of a misunderstanding, but which I nevertheless felt to be important? He said that the agreement for surveillance might be in train for an almost unspecified time. When does renewal occur? Does the agreement drop at a particular stage, meaning that renewal must start, or do the arrangements work on a coterminous basis? Mr. Clarke: As I said, we had a substantial debate on the matter in Committee and decided against subjecting the process to a specific time scale. Instead, a process of continual review will occur. That is how such matters will proceed. I am advised now that section 43 of the Act sets out that procedure, creates time limits and shows where such limits do not apply. I think that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire missed the key point about rule 8(2) in S.I. No. 2665. Paragraph (2) states:
(a) state the name, address and date of birth of the complainant; (b) state the person or authority whose conduct, to the best of the complainant's knowledge or belief, is the subject of the complaint.
The qualification contained in paragraph (2)(b) entirely deals with the hon. Gentleman's point. If the complainant has no idea which person or authority is responsible, he cannot identify them to the best of his knowledge or belief. However, it is very important for the workings of the tribunal that the complainant should inform it directly of his view if he does have an idea of who is responsible. The wording makes it clear that if the individual does not know which person or authority is responsible, he has no obligation to state those facts—the matter is to be stated only
The final point raised by the right hon. Member for Fylde returns us to the issue raised by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. I repeat my reassurances. Rule 9(1) clearly states:
The tribunal therefore has the power to determine its own procedure. As I said before, the tribunal may decide to make summaries available, but it will be for the tribunal to judge whether to do so in the light of the competing interests that we have discussed, subject only to the requirements of rule 6. I repeat that I cannot add much to my earlier response to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, but I have sought to provide further clarification in drawing attention to rule 9(1). I commend the two statutory instruments to the Committee. The Chairman: I remind the Committee that, although we are considering the measures together, we must vote separately on them. Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
|
| |
| Prepared 30 October 2000 | |
