Committee (5th Day) (Continued)

Part of Policing and Crime Bill – in the House of Lords at 10:15 pm on 20 October 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Lord Brett Lord Brett Government Whip, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, Government Whip, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office) (Identity) (also Lord in Waiting) 10:15, 20 October 2009

My Lords, I share noble Lords' view that these are important issues. The point of agreement between the opposition Front Bench and ourselves is that these powers should be both appropriate and proportionately used, and must be used only for anti-terrorism purposes. The National Policing Improvement Agency published revised guidelines in November 2008.

I am clear that I cannot do justice to the debate, because the noble Baroness has not been able to enunciate many of the arguments that she would have put and I have a considerable brief. That brief confirms what the noble Baroness said—that the Home Office does not make the existence of an authorisation in a particular area a matter of public knowledge while it is running. As with all these things, it is a matter of balance. The need for greater public transparency would have to be balanced against how great the continued threat was perceived to be. Jonathan Evans, the director-general of the Security Service, said recently that:

"Al-Qaeda and other international terrorist networks remain a very serious threat", and that there is enough intelligence to show,

"an intent to mount an attack", which could "happen at any stage". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, in the House of Lords judgment in R (Gillan) in March 2006 stated:

"The Act and the Code do not require the fact or the details of any authorisation to be publicised".

It is that question of balance. The best that I can do in relation to the detailed argument is to write to the noble Baroness, not because I have doubts about the arguments to be put but because I would not be able to do justice to them this evening.

Amendment 159E raised the question of journalists. It is not the Government's intention that counterterrorism powers be used to stop people taking photographs or to impair journalists in their going about their normal business. I can amplify that too in writing, and I have no doubt that it will be debated at another stage.