Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Let me start by saying some pleasant things to the Minister. I thank him for the amendments that the Government have tabled in respect of the level of officer in Customs and Excise authorising intrusive surveillance. We are grateful for the Minister's response to the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). We welcome the amendments and will gladly support them. On our amendments, there is that classic difference of approach between Government and Opposition which, I am afraid, will continue to separate us. The Minister may be right that the Bill, which deals with many other matters, was not the easiest place for us to focus on what we perceive to be the serious deficiencies of RIPA. I also accept that amending the legislation in order to achieve all the points that I raised in the course of debate is difficult without a complete overhaul of the architecture of the Act, but it is still worth attempting. I differ from the Minister in the belief that if the amendment were passed, it would alter the way in which the Act can be interpreted and which public authorities could remain on the list of those who could obtain the information. With that in mind, and with the background fact that the legislation is causing public disquiet, on which there has been a considerable amount of comment, even though I am the first to accept that its origins mayhave been reasonable when it was first considered, it is the duty of the Opposition at least to seek the opinion of the House as to how many Members share that disquiet. I shall therefore put the new clause to the vote. I am grateful to the Minister for showing a willingness to listen to some of the problems that have been caused by this area of legislation. We are undoubtedly living in a period of our history where the power and rights of the state to intrude into citizens' lives have increased beyond all recognition, compared to the position 10, 15, 20 or 30 years ago. We are in serious danger of accepting as a norm what our forefathers would have regarded as an outrage. Although there are security considerations that we must balance, on the back of security we are in danger of creating a highly regulated state which is rather poor at bringing about behavioural changes in relation to the observance of the law. That is one of the big topics that we must face in the House, and I suspect it is one to which we will return over and over again. It would be helpful if we could reach a degree of consensus in all parts of the House as to how to strike the balance, but I am pretty well convinced in my own mind that at present the balance is far too skewed towards the intrusive powers of the state and far away from the rights of the individual. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:— The House proceeded to a Division—