Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Additional Functions and Amendment) Order 2006

I identify with most of what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said, although I am perhaps a little more tolerant of the difficulty of dealing with this jungle of law between RIPA, the various pieces of legislation since and the secondary legislation. I am absolutely sure that the civil servants involved do their very best to cope with all this. One of the glories and problems of our system of legislating is that we insist upon dot and comma legislation which leads into the sort of difficulties we contend with today. I apologise to the noble Baroness for not having given her adequate notice of a few of my questions. I passed a note to her literally as she walked into the Room. I might have been less careless of her needs had I taken the six pieces of legislation referred to in these orders when I left the House last Thursday night. It might be appropriate, because we will not get other opportunities, if I were to say a little about how we have to deal with these two orders today and, indeed, other orders. My first point is that the statutory instrument dealing with additional functions supersedes one published on 22 May. I do not think that we were ever told how the new print varies from the old print. It would have been helpful to know that because the devil is always in the detail, particularly in relation to what I would call surveillance law. I do not know whether the noble Baroness can answer my second point, but I would be grateful if she could take it away and discuss it in the appropriate forum. To lumber opposition Peers with two statutory instruments which, between them, refer to six other pieces of legislation and not to provide us with the relevant excerpts of that legislation makes for—I hate to say ““the average Peer”” because no Peer is average, but I think that the noble Baroness accepts my point—an unfair homework task to put on the shoulders even of lawyer Peers like myself who have been involved with this surveillance legislation from RIPA to the present. My next point regards the effectiveness of our scrutiny function, which I believe is impeded by the manner in which these two instruments are being dealt with and, indeed, all others. So far as I am aware, we never get a copy of how the relevant law will look if a statutory instrument is passed. The noble Baroness will be well aware that it has been common practice in the legal profession for 50 years, when sending back a document amended, to make clear on the face of it what has been deleted and what is to be inserted. Again, with legislation as technical and complex as this necessarily is, it seems to be unfair and to make life needlessly difficult not to have those two virtues included in the paperwork, which those of us involved in these matters can take away and therefore deal with much more readily, and I believe effectively. We all have a universal wish to make our scrutiny function as effective as possible. Having made those general remarks, I would like to raise one or two specific points. First, as I understand it, in Article 8(2)(a) of the additional functions order, the name of the Defra Investigation Branch has been changed to Defra Investigation Services. Secondly, there is another change in nomenclature with regard to the senior counter fraud officer in the Counter Fraud and Compliance Unit of the Rural Payments Agency. Apparently that is now called the deputy chief inspector in the Marine Fisheries Agency. Are we into a system of legislating secondarily, where every change in title of agents and units has to come back to this place to be dealt with in secondary legislation? Am I right in assuming that what was called the senior counter fraud officer in the Counter Fraud and Compliance Unit of the Rural Payments Agency is now the deputy chief inspector in the Marine Fisheries Agency? That seems intrinsically improbable. I would therefore be grateful to know why the new powers are being transferred to the Marine Fisheries Agency. Is it that the Rural Payments Agency no longer needs those powers, or never needed them? Perhaps it would have been helpful to give a little explanation behind these changes in the Explanatory Note. Although the note points out what is happening, it does not say why, and it is the why that concerns most of us most, if I can put it that way. In the additional functions statutory instrument I see that the Royal Mail is one of the group of public authorities that is to be given different powers under Article 7. Can the Minister tell me today—or of course later—whether the Royal Mail Group plc is still a public authority? I thought it had been privatised, but perhaps I am running ahead of myself. If I am, I believe it is intended to be privatised. When it is, does that mean it will cease to be a public authority? The Minister looks as though she is on top of this one already, so I shall wait to hear what she says. The same schedule in Article 7 of the additional functions order shows that, in the cases of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, an investigations adviser is a sufficient person to set in train the carrying out of surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. In the other cases given in Article 7 there are very senior people: the Gambling Commission has its director of intelligence, the Department for Transport its inspector in the air accident division, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority its head of enforcement, and so on. An investigations adviser looks an extremely lowly beast. I would be glad to know how that description relates to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and whether that is an appropriate senior title that ensures the intent of the legislation—that none of these powerful orders can be commenced without senior authority. My final point relates to the second order, on directed surveillance and covert human intelligence. In paragraph 2(5) of the schedule, four authorities are to be omitted without explanation, including the Egg Marketing Inspectorate. What is the cause of that? Were they originally put in unnecessarily, or what? It is the ““what”” that concerns us all regarding these extremely important areas of law. With that, I am happy to hold my peace.