Howard attacks bugging 'shambles'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Government suffered a double defeat last night over proposals to allow police to "bug and burgle" homes and offices without prior authorisation.
Ministers must now decide whether to try to reverse the changes, which would force chief constables to seek permission from a circuit judge before carrying out surveillance operations.
If they fail, they face the prospect of being unable to push their measures through before the election.
If that happened, the police would be able to continue as they do at present, with only a oversight from security commissioners. Under these rules, they bug or watch around 1,300 vehicles, business premises or private homes each year.
The defeats came after Labour, which had originally supported the Government's proposals, changed its stance in the face of strong opposition from the legal profession.
Peers voted by 209 to 145 for a Labour amendment demanding prior authorisation and then by 158 to 137 for a Liberal Democrat measure allowing decisions to be taken by judges. Ministers had argued that the police would have to notify a security commissioner of operations but would not have to do so in advance.
Twenty-nine Conservative peers and 10 past and present law lords supporting the opposition, including the Lord Chief Justice Lord Bingham of Cornhill. Among those who spoke against the government were the former prime minister, Lord Callaghan, and a former Tory home secretary, Lord Carr of Hadley.
The Home Secretary, Michael Howard, said the measure could not remain as it stood because of contradictions in the Labour and Liberal Democrat measures. He dismissed the defeat as a "shambles" and criticised Labour for "turning turtle" at the first sign of pressure from the judiciary.
He said: "We will need to consider how we can best achieve the objective I have consistently set myself, which is to enable the police to tackle crime effectively and with proper safeguards."
Last night both Labour and the Liberal Democrats were celebrating their victory. Lord McIntosh of Haringey, Labour's home affairs spokesman in the Lords, said the measures would still allowed police enough flexibility to act quickly when necessary.
"This will provide an important safeguard in all those cases where people might reasonably expect private conversations to remain private," he said.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for the Liberal Democrats, said the government must now make the necessary changes to its bill.
Meanwhile the Police Superintendents' Association said the development would make its members' jobs more difficult.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments