Serious Crime Bill [HL]

As ever, I am grateful to the Minister for her further elucidation. She will not be surprised that we are still adrift from each other to some extent. I will read and consider carefully what she said. Amendment No. 115 was very broad and tried to remove the Secretary of State’s power to amend; it was a probing amendment. I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke and supported the various aspects of the issues raised by my amendments. With regard to Amendment No. 115, the Minister said that there is potential value in leaving open an extension of the Secretary of State’s power, but one has to consider for whom there is value. Just because extending the power may be of value to the Secretary of State does not necessarily mean that it is justified or proportionate. It has to be valuable to the public and proportionate in the way that it is carried out. Otherwise, one could simply say that it might be valuable to the public to ensure that every person has his DNA registered at birth. That could be of value, but is not something that we do now or something that the Government have yet proposed—but I am not holding my breath because it may happen soon. These are the debates that one has to have before the Secretary of State has open-ended powers to extend his authority by way of order. Amendment No. 116 limits the definition of serious crime to that in Schedule 1. I listened to what the Minister said, and she has a forceful argument. I do not expect that Amendment No. 116 will see the light of day again. Amendment No. 117 refers to the list of bodies. I did not get a guarantee from the Minister that the national identity register could not be brought into play. She approached her assurances from a different angle—from what is currently in other legislation, rather than in this legislation. I will look carefullyat whether there might be a more appropriate amendment that I could table for Report specifically to exclude the wrongful use of the national identity register. We come to the issue that raised the most interest—new Section 32G(2)—which was particularly addressed by my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lady Carnegy of Lour. It sounds mild and technical, but it lists those areas that may, in particular, be added to the remit of the power of the Secretary of State to extend the purposes. One talks around this in technical language, but it really means that the Government are pre-empting our future ability to act in considering statutory instruments. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell questioned what ““in particular”” adds, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour tested out how receptive the Minister might be to a continuous succession of opposition in this House to the Government’s statutory instruments. However, my concern is different. New Section 32G(2) states: "““The purposes which may be added include in particular””." Why not do it now? If the Government say that the purposes in new paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) may be added in future, why do they not come clean now and try to justify that? Why are they leaving it to the future? If this House were to accept new subsection (2) worded exactly as it is by Third Reading and the Government later brought forward a statutory instrument that included new paragraphs (a) (b) and (c), could not they turn round to this House and say, ““Well, it was in the primary legislation. You saw it then. Why are you complaining about it now?””. Would we not prevent ourselves later objecting to a statutory instrument that included new paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) if we let this part of the Bill go unamended? I ask the question at this stage because it is an unusual circumstance in which we find ourselves, and one I will have to consider very carefully. Why should we not be up front and do this now? If not, why leave the provision there so that, in effect, the Government are asking us to sign up to new paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and prevent opposition later? Substantial issues remain that need to be addressed. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that before Report she will, as is her custom, give noble Lords the opportunity to meet her to discuss matters of issue. I shall be grateful to take up that invitation. I notice that she wishes to speak.