The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 12:15 am on 28 June 2000.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office 12:15, 28 June 2000

I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 216 and 217. Amendments Nos. 213 and 217 are government amendments and Amendment No. 216, which we intend to resist, stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cope.

Amendments Nos. 213 and 217 between them are necessary to take account of the slightly different terminology used in the Diplomatic Service to describe a person of equivalent seniority to a member of the senior Civil Service. The Foreign Secretary may sign interception warrants, and it is necessary that the Bill treat his officials in the same way as it treats those of any other Secretary of State.

Amendment No. 216 would remove from the Secretary of State the power to amend the definition of "senior official" contained in Clause 72(1). The sole purpose of that power is to cater for the eventuality that a change to the structure or grading of the Civil Service might render the Bill's definition of a "senior official" obsolete--obviously we cannot allow such a thing to happen. Were such a change to be made in a non-statutory way, there would be no means of updating the definition short of primary legislation, which we do not believe would be appropriate.

I should add that this subsection does not permit the definition of a senior official to be devalued, because it obliges the Secretary of State to ensure that his amendment preserves, so far as practicable, the effect of the existing definition. Hence it would be incumbent upon him to choose that level or designation which best mirrored the current seniority of members of the senior Civil Service. I beg to move.