Coronavirus Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard - continued) & 2nd reading (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, to defeat a disease, strong and unpleasant medicine may be required. This Bill is that kind of medicine. Its likely side-effects are alarming, as we have heard today from all sides of the House. However, we must swallow it—and we must try to do so not like a child, with our eyes tight shut, but, as befits parliamentarians, with our eyes wide open.

The medicine is sweetened by two features which we would normally take for granted but which it is reassuring to see in abnormal times: the absence of any attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, and the declaration of compatibility with convention rights that appears as a badge of honour on the front page of the Bill. Given the number of rights engaged, that is a tribute both to the pragmatic flexibility of the ECHR and to the Government for not seeking to derogate from that rather sensible reminder of our basic freedoms, as a few other contracting states have recently done.

Clauses 22 and 23 concern the judicial approval of warrants. Warranted investigatory powers are of course vital to our national security and the fight against crime. But the function of judicial commissioners is not simply to facilitate surveillance; it is to keep it within lawful bounds. To take one example—topical, though hypothetical in this country, so far as I know—they might have to decide the extent to which the location data from our mobile phones may be used for contact tracing, or for the monitoring and enforcement of the movement prohibitions that may be introduced under Schedule 22 to the Bill. These are not straightforward issues, which is why we entrust them only to judges of High Court rank and above.

These clauses strengthen, rather than undermine, the system of judicial approval by allowing for the rapid appointment of assistant or temporary commissioners and extending the time necessary for approving urgent warrants. The reasons are not far to seek: the overwhelming majority of judicial commissioners are over 70 and male, and the highly classified nature of their work requires the use of a secure physical location. The key safeguard, noted by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in opening, is that the Secretary of State can make the necessary regulations only if the Investigatory Powers Commissioner—a senior judicial figure—notifies her that this is necessary. That is good enough for me.

Before leaving these clauses, however, I would ask the Minister two questions. First—he can answer in writing, if he prefers—could a temporary commissioner serve under successive regulations for a total period of longer than 12 months, if required? That is a question on the meaning of Clause 22(3). Since it can take a while for judicial commissioners to get fully up to speed in this arcane area—I speak as someone who has done some of their training—I hope that the answer yes.

Secondly, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee pointed out in its report of yesterday, Clause 22(4) allows the Secretary of State to provide for existing statutes in this area to apply with

“specified omissions or other modifications”.

Why is that Henry VIII power necessary? Could the Minister give examples of the kind of omission or modification that the Government have in mind? Why are these powers subject only to the negative procedure, given that, as the committee explains in its report, a statutory instrument can be made just as expeditiously under the “made affirmative” procedure, under which they would lapse without parliamentary approval?

Finally, on parliamentary review, I welcome the new provision in Clause 98 for a six-month review by the Commons, though, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, I would have welcomed it more warmly if the Motion had been amendable. In either case, the effectiveness of review will be linked to the content of the two-monthly reports to be produced under Clause 97. I was encouraged to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, say in opening this debate that the Government would “update Parliament regularly on how these powers have been used across the UK”. However, as presently provided for, the two-monthly reports need contain nothing more than an account of which provisions have been activated, and a statement that the Secretary of State “is satisfied” with that state of affairs; one hopes he will be satisfied, because this clause requires it.

There is a broader point here. My experience of reviewing exceptional powers against terrorism has been that effective review requires basic information to be provided by government. One needs to know not just whether a provision is in force but, as the Minister said, what use has been made of it, what unexpected problems have been encountered in its use, what steps have been needed to enforce compliance, and how effective they are judged to have been. We are all acutely mindful of the need not to overburden the Civil Service with major new reporting obligations. But the Government will, as a matter of course, conduct their own assessment of these exceptional powers, based on experience of their use and an assessment of their effectiveness. I would suggest that they can only benefit—as would we—by the opportunity to communicate their reasoned case in this way to Parliament and to the public.

I tabled a modest amendment on this point this afternoon—not in a critical spirit, but in the hope that the Minister might look on it favourably. It would be, I hope we might all agree, a useful way of generating the trust on which public acceptance of the measures in this Bill will ultimately depend.

Coronavirus Bill

Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Bill introduces across a whole range of public policy areas significant powers, some of them quite draconian. The noble Lord just said that the proposal in respect of abortion was unacceptable because it would have made a fundamental change. The truth is that we are making fundamental changes across the board. The proposed changes on mental health are, in my view, at least as fundamental as that on abortion proposed by the noble Baroness. Although the Minister might have reasons for not wanting to make that change, he cannot pray in aid that it was a fundamental change. This is happening across the whole of what we are doing and, frankly, that was not his best moment.

Because the changes being made in the Bill are so powerful, we believe that they need to be in place for as short a period as possible and that they need regular and effective review and renewal. Therefore, the amendments in my name raise two related issues. The first is how often that review should happen. Obviously, we welcome the fact that the Government have moved from a position where there was to be no review for two years to one where there will be a review after six months. However, we believe that the period should be shorter. The Civil Contingencies Act has a renewal date of 30 days. Some of the measures in the Bill could probably have been exercised under that Act and they would have been subject to that 30 days. We are not going as far as that, but the end of September is simply too late for Parliament to have its first chance formally to decide whether this very wide-ranging legislation should continue.

As to the form, we have several concerns. As the Bill stands, there is no role whatever for your Lordships’ House in respect of the legislation’s continuation and renewal. That is certainly unprecedented and completely unacceptable. The normal way of dealing with legislation that is time-limited and needs renewal is via the statutory instrument route, which obviously applies to both Houses equally. That was the case with the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the Terrorism Act 2006. The House of Lords and the House of Commons had exactly the same powers and they worked perfectly well. Your Lordships’ House is an extremely responsible body.

An exception to the principle of the two Houses having the same powers in respect of legislation was the EU withdrawal Bill—subsequently the EU withdrawal Act. It was agreed that, although there would be a meaningful vote in the House of Commons, there would be a meaningless vote in the House of Lords. That was on the basis of the circumstances being exceptional, as we were following the democratic mandate of a referendum. I opposed it at the time on the basis that it set a doleful precedent, but that view did not prevail.

Now, a second set of exceptional circumstances is being brought before your Lordships’ House in a very short period. I believe that the more often we see exceptional circumstances occurring, the less acceptable it is, if your Lordships’ House is to perform the function that it has done until now in respect of the renewal of legislation. We therefore propose that the former precedent of renewing a Bill by statutory instrument should be followed in this case.

However, in Amendment 12 we also suggest an alternative method of achieving the same involvement of your Lordships’ House by proposing that it mirrors what is proposed in the Commons. Personally, I would prefer us to go back to the traditional SI route but, in a spirit of generosity, if the Government would prefer to do it the other way, we are, reluctantly, prepared to accept that.

The other amendments in this group have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. They have our full support, and no doubt they will be spoken to more eloquently than I could, so I will not attempt that.

I would like to ask the Minister about a practical point, which I hope he will be able to accept. At Second Reading yesterday, my noble friend Lady Barker suggested that the Government should produce a grid to explain which clauses of the Bill have been implemented, and exactly how. That is a very good idea and I hope the Government can accept it, but could they go slightly further by having, as part of that grid, a list of all the other provisions introduced to deal with the coronavirus, but not necessarily under this Bill? I cite, for example, the power to close restaurants and all other places where people congregate, which was introduced under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. That would be helpful not only for specialists, as it were, like us, but for those who want to find and then look at the legislative basis for decisions. For others, who just want to see where a particular provision that might affect them comes from, if the Government have a single source saying, “Here’s the whole raft of provisions that have been made and this is exactly where you can find them”, that would be extremely helpful for public information. Obviously, I hope the Government will agree to our more substantive amendments but, at the very least, I hope they can do this. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

.My Lords, I support Amendments 11 and 12, which I think means that I support the idea of six-monthly reviews with debates in both the Commons and in the Lords. However, I rise to speak in particular to Amendment 10, tabled in my name. Regardless of how often the reviews take place or precisely who conducts them, surely one needs a degree of information from the Government. Clause 97 provides for that, but in an absolutely minimalist form. As I read it, all that is required is that the Government should explain which provisions have been switched on or switched off in the previous two-month period and that they should certify that they are content with the switching on and the switching off.

I have two points to make. The first concerns effective review in Parliament. As I said yesterday, my experience of reviewing exceptional counterterrorism powers suggests that one really needs at least some basic information from government on how the powers are being applied and how effective they are judged to be. There is also a point for the Government in this. Reports of this kind will provide them with an excellent opportunity to communicate to Parliament and to the wider public what they have done, why they have done what they have done, whether they believe that the measures are having some effect on the disease and, if so, why. I was encouraged to hear the Minister say yesterday in introducing the Bill that the Government would update Parliament regularly on how these powers have been used across the UK, but I suggest that that does not go far enough. In the Bill as written, things are not provided which go even that far.

My Amendment 10 is very modest, and deliberately so. I have sought not to invite the riposte that I am requiring some new power to collate or put forward statistics or that I would overburden an already burdened Civil Service. The Government will of course make their own assessments of whether these powers should be switched on or off and how effective they are. All I ask is that that assessment should be shared with Parliament in an appropriate way. It is a document that the Government will control, so it is very much up to them to decide in what form that communication should be made. If the amendment cannot be accepted, I ask the Minister at the very least to give an undertaking today that these reports will provide information about how the powers have been used across the United Kingdom, what measures may have been necessary to ensure compliance, and whether and why the various powers have been judged effective.

I have saved perhaps my best point until the end. Yesterday, the Minister raised by proxy the comments of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, who sits beside me in spirit, if not physically. He contacted me this morning and has authorised me to say that if he had disregarded his own advice not to attend today, he would have supported my amendment. If I have not persuaded the Minister, I hope that the spirit of my noble and learned friend will have done so.

[Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)]

I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in great detail. In the debate yesterday, we spoke about the seriousness of the situation that the country faces. We are all deeply conscious of it; despite that, we must not be lulled into simply abiding by the pressure of the moment and not consistently thinking our way through the detail of what we are now putting into law. In his statement to the nation the other night, the Prime Minister referred to three weeks. Whether that stands or not is to be debated, but to go from three weeks to six months, as the Bill now provides, is a very long gap. It would be wise to agree to this amendment for three months, which on their return allows this House and the other place to consider the nature of what has been applied, whether it is appropriate and whether it should be retained or removed. That would be a sensible time to allow for national consideration; let us hope we have gone through it by then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, my amendment is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is also in favour. It is pretty self-explanatory and should not cause the Government any problems in accepting it. Indeed, the Minister, in replying just now, talked about getting advice from scientists on what was necessary.

The Minister has made a declaration that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but the amendment would provide further reassurance. According to the long title, the Bill is to:

“Make provision in connection with coronavirus; and for connected purposes.”


That is quite wide. There are references to a test of necessity—or, variously, necessity and proportionality—in some provisions in the Bill but not in others. There is no consistency, for instance, even between Schedules 21 and 22.

Our Constitution Committee, which I thank for its report, says at paragraph 16 that

“there may be a need to resolve difficult legal questions concerning the proportionality and necessity of restrictions and directions, and of their compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998”,

and by “resolve” it means in the courts. It would obviously be preferable to front-load those tests by requiring the Government to observe them in exercising all their powers under the Bill, which is what this umbrella amendment would provide, rather than load up the courts.

In parallel with these tests, the Delegated Powers Committee report, which I thank the committee for, drew attention to the absence in some clauses of a reference to the coronavirus crisis as justification. That mainly concerns postponement of elections, but not exclusively. I am therefore doing precisely what the committee suggests in paragraph 9 of its report—I have given the Minister notice of these requests: I

“seek an explanation from the Minister about why these powers are not, on the face of each individual clause, explicitly linked to coronavirus”,

and

“look to the Minister to provide an ironclad assurance that the powers contained in the Bill will be exercisable in relation to the coronavirus outbreak only and in no other circumstances.”

Lastly, will the Minister clarify the situation with regulations? The ones issued last Saturday under the Public Health Act, on premises, are not abolished by the Bill, but the February ones, on persons, are. In a reply during Second Reading yesterday, the Minister said that the powers to enforce the Prime Minister’s instructions regarding essential travel and gatherings

“will be introduced by regulations under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.”—[Official Report, 24/3/20; col. 1733.]

But I have learned from tweets by journalists that those will be introduced tomorrow, when we are not here. As I asked at Second Reading yesterday, how will these regulations mesh with the Bill and with regulations to be made under it? I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, I signed Amendment 13 and I offer two sentences on it. The amendment will have no legal effect because, admirably, nothing in the Bill seeks to oust or modify provisions of the Human Rights Act or the Equality Act. But if the Minister can confirm that there is no intention of departing from those important statutes, that would be a powerful signal to the sceptics and conspiracy theorists, both here and abroad, who might otherwise wrongly suggest that in enacting this unfortunately necessary legislation, we are abandoning some of the fundamental legal and moral principles that bind us together.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, rightly said, we on these Benches support these provisions. I thoroughly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, just said and it would be of enormous importance if the Minister gave the assurances that the noble Lord seeks.