---

Mr. Allason: Amendment No. 1 highlights an interesting loophole in the current cover given to intelligence officers and police officers. Interference with

14 Feb 1996 : Column 1063

property is, of course, an extremely serious matter, because it is one of our principles that an Englishman's home is his castle. It is fair to say that interference with property is a right that was exercised with dubious legality before the Security Services Act 1989. Certainly,it happened on very few occasions.

I remember being told by a Security Service officer how he was involved in the search of John Vassall's flat in Dolphin square shortly before an arrest was made.It involved getting clearance from the permanent under-secretary, and the Director-General of the Security Service was biting his fingernails down to the quick, hoping that his personnel were in and out of the flat as quickly as possible without coming into contact with any members of the public.

That particular vignette illustrates how seriously the Security Service took its role on that occasion. It was a right that it exercised apparently under the royal prerogative--a very unsatisfactory state of affairs--but it did so rarely. Nowadays, of course, interference with property is a euphemism for planting bugs. That does not involve a warrant under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, or any other telephone warrant. Although only half of any telephone conversation is heard in this instance, it is an extremely useful tool for surveillance and is widely used. However, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, it becomes a very grey area when the police are involved.

Hitherto, the chief constable has been talked into issuing an interference order and has given the appropriate sanction. None of that has ever been challenged in law, but it is right that the procedure should be examined in more detail. Certainly, Security Service personnel were deeply unhappy prior to the 1989 Act. When asked what they would say if they were arrested and taken to a police station on a charge of burgling a house, they took the view that telling the charge sergeant that they had the protection of the royal prerogative would not get them very far.

The matter must be examined, especially given the new kinds of interception that are so common. Indeed, only a short time ago, a private telephone conversation was intercepted and no police action was taken even though it was clearly a most appalling invasion of privacy--albeit concerning a member of the royal family.

The matter cries out for legislation. The House owes the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed a debt of gratitude for highlighting such an important issue.The police are not happy about the state of affairs; technology has overtaken legislation.

While on the point of whether powers granted to the Security Service exceed those granted to the police, I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for a second time whether he can clarify Home Office guidelines on the use of informants. On Second Reading, I said that there are very strict rules on the use of informants and that special branch has been governed by them since a inquiry was conducted in the late 1970s. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, on joint police and Security Service operations, the Security Service will be subject to precisely the same Home Office guidelines as the police?

14 Feb 1996 : Column 1064

7 pm

Mr. Cohen: The amendment refers to the day the Act comes into force. I do not think that it should come into force until all those who should properly be consulted have been consulted. Has the Data Protection Registrar been consulted? Computing reported as recently as 18 January that the registrar's office had not been consulted and the article said that the magazine

"would press for the security services to be subject to the same data protection rules as the police."

If the Data Protection Registrar has been consulted, what was the response?

Mr. Howard: The amendment relates to the arrangements for authorising intrusive surveillance operations by the police. At present, those operations must be personally authorised by the chief officer of police in accordance with Home Office guidelines. There is no evidence that the system is being abused, and I believe that it has served us well. The Government accept, however, that it needs to be brought up to date. On Second Reading, I was happy to say that a statutory system would be preferable. That was a recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee, and I do not dispute it.

To that end, we are discussing the options with the Association of Chief Police Officers and other interested parties. It is not straightforward; many complex issues must be resolved before we are in a position to present robust and workable proposals that do not inhibit the operation and effectiveness of the police. I can assure the House that the matter is being given urgent attention.We will bring forward proposals at the earliest opportunity, but we want to get it right.

The amendment does nothing to prevent chief officers from continuing to authorise such operations under the present administrative arrangements. It would merely prevent the Security Service from applying for property warrants in respect of its new serious crime function.

The amendment strikes me as being a very strange solution to a problem, which may affect police operations, since it seeks to deny the Security Service the right to a power equivalent to that possessed by the police when that power has a firm statutory basis, when it requires the personal authorisation of the Secretary of State, and when the exericise of it is scrutinised by an independent commissioner.

Mr. Beith: I hope that the Home Secretary will recognise that the narrow nature of the amendment is a direct result of the title of the Bill. If he had titled the Bill so that amendments on the police use of surveillance powers could have been tabled, the amendment would have covered the matter much more effectively.

Mr. Howard: That may be, but the fact remains that to say that we should not allow the Security Service to operate in a different way under the supervision of the holder of my office in the way I have just described is an extraordinary approach to a problem which the right hon. Gentleman has identified, which I acknowledge exists, and which affects the operations conducted by the police.

Throughout debates on the Bill, we have had cause to return to the key principles that will govern the involvement of the Security Service in work against serious crime. There has been a welcome consensus

14 Feb 1996 : Column 1065

among hon. Members that those key principles represent a very sensible basis on which to proceed. I should like to return to one of those principles. The Security Service should be able to draw on its full range of skills, capabilities and expertise. The amendment is directly counter to that agreed principle, because it would deny the Security Service the ability to use all its skills and capabilities.

Property warrants are used to authorise very intrusive actions, and clearly there must be rigorous controls on their use. We have those controls in place and they have worked very effectively in other functions of the Security Service. I do not accept any insinuation that the Security Service and the police will conspire to take advantage of the temporary differences between their respective safeguards. I would not expect chief constables to authorise intrusive surveillance operations for which a ministerial warrant could be obtained; nor would I expect the Security Service to flout the safeguards that surround its work.

We will bring forward proposals on new arrangements for the police as soon as we are ready to do so. To suggest that in the meantime we should all be deprived of the full extent of the contribution of the Security Service to the fight against serious organised crime seems gratuitously damaging and entirely unnecessary.

My right hon. Friend the Minister will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) in response to the point that he raised, setting out the different guidelines that the Security Service has for its agents and those under which the police operate. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), my understanding is that consultations have taken place with the Data Protection Registrar.

It is perhaps characteristic of the Liberal Democrat party to advance half-baked solutions to a range of problems. The amendment is only quarter-baked, and I invite the House to reject it.

Mr. Straw: This important issue was raised on Second Reading, and I welcome the assurance that the Secretary of State gave that it will be examined in detail. Although I make no criticism of the way in which the matters have been dealt with up to now, the Secretary of State will be aware, and it is widely understood, that some chief constables are anxious about the new circumstances.

The amendment does not seem to be the most felicitously worded amendment that has ever been before the House. I welcome what the Secretary of State has said, so I certainly do not put on record our support for the amendment.

Mr. Beith: If anything was gratuitous, it was the Home Secretary's attempt to launch a political attack on an issue that the Intelligence and Security Committee felt should be resolved in the Bill: warranting powers for the Security Service that the police do not have. The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that the Bill was drafted in such a way as to preclude inclusion of, or a debate on, an amendment that would have conferred that proper balance of powers. The only way in which we could secure a debate on the Floor of the House on that important principle, which was made clear in the Intelligence and Security Committee's report, was to table an amendment that was in order. One of the Home Secretary's

14 Feb 1996 : Column 1066

colleagues, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), pointed out that it was desirable that the House should have such a debate. The debate has focused attention on an issue that remains a problem.

I am glad that the Home Secretary acknowledged that the problem exists, indicated that he was looking for a way to resolve it in discussion with ACPO, does not wish the Security Service to be precluded from using its powers, which, as I have conceded, are the subject of useful safeguards, and recognises that the amendment does not stop chief officers continuing to act in the way they are now doing, whether or not that is legal.

It would have been open to the Home Secretary all along to resolve the problem before dealing with the rest of the Bill. If the Home Secretary's or the Prime Minister's speech at party conference had included such resounding words as, "We will give the police the powers that they need to crack down on organised crime," there would still have been the same almost automatic cheer from the delegates at the conference, and a piece of legislation designed to serve that purpose would have appeared in the legislative timetable. It would have been a simple matter for the Home Secretary to adjust his speech accordingly. I am sure that he could have secured the agreement of the Leader of the House. We are dealing with a serious problem which senior police officers also regard as serious. In that respect, the Home Secretary has let down the police.

---