| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. It may have been a simple matter to adjust my speech, but it would have been far from simple to adjust the legislation. The police, contrary to the impression given by the right hon. Gentleman, understand that. We are in discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers. The police understand and recognise the importance of taking care over this matter, not rushing it, and getting it right. That is why they entirely understand the position that we have reached in relation to the timing of the legislation. Therefore, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw any suggestion that the police are thirsting for the inclusion of powers in this legislation. On the contrary, they understand the need to take care and get it right.
Mr. Beith: We should get all the legislation right, including this Bill. In Committee, I quoted a chief constable who expressed his strong reservations about powers being given to the Security Service in the context of organised crime that were not being given to the police. That is on the record of the Committee's proceedings and the Home Secretary can read it.
As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said during the passage of the Bill, in some respects the process has been taken in the wrong order. That is why we are in our present position. That underlines the urgency of dealing with the need for appropriate police powers in this area. No amendment to the Bill could achieve that, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw this one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Michael:
I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 24, at end add--
The amendment seeks to provide a proper legislative framework for the National Criminal Intelligence Service. It follows my earlier suggestion that a chief constable should be designated by the Home Secretary to be the guardian at the gate; to be the individual who agrees the arrangements under which the assistance of the Security Service can be given to the police in the fight against organised crime. The Home Secretary has promised to designate the chief constable who heads the NCIS as that individual and we support that.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary promised to put the NCIS on a proper statutory basis. We welcome that announcement, too. The amendment simply seeks a time scale for it to be brought to fruition. It would be sensible for the Home Secretary to set as a target the next Parliament, if not this one.
If the Government bring forward proposals expeditiously to put the NCIS on a statutory basis, they will have the Opposition's co-operation in the same atmosphere of maturity and sensible discussion as has characterised debate on this Bill. Both sides of the House should be able to co-operate with such an arrangement, so there is no reason for a long delay.
Mr. Maclean:
I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment, but it would be unwise to pursue it. Throughout the Bill's passage, we have stressed that the involvement of the Security Service is part of a wider co-ordinated package of measures for tackling organised crime. I confirm that putting the NCIS on a clearer statutory footing is a fundamental part of the wider package. The Government have made a clear commitment to act on this, in parallel with the creation of a national crime squad to supplement the work being done by the existing regional crime squads.
I can assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that the Government want to legislate on those matters as soon as possible. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, we hope to be in a position to introduce such legislation in the next Session, but these are complex matters, and many important questions are still to be resolved. We are currently engaged in discussions with ACPO and others on these points. It is important that the timing of that legislation should be determined by an agreement on the way forward and not by an artificially imposed deadline.
The amendment also seeks to reinforce the fact that the person to be designated by the Home Secretary for the purpose of agreeing co-ordination arrangements will be the Director-General of the NCIS. That is also something on which the Government have given a clear commitment. In Committee, I said that it is our firm intention to designate the director-general, emphasising the pivotal co-ordinating role that the NCIS is to play. I am happy to restate that commitment for the benefit of the House.
The amendment seeks to give statutory form to two clear commitments from the Government. Naturally, therefore, I would not demur from the underlying principles, but I would suggest that the amendment is unnecessary and would not enhance the Bill.
Mr. Beith:
The Minister, perhaps for the purposes of shorthand, left a little unclear the situation with regard to Scotland. The Scottish Criminal Intelligence Office will continue to have a crucial role in Scotland and the NCIS will have to act as the funnel--if I may use the Minister's expression--through which co-ordination takes place, but all that needs to be part of the statutory basis on which the NCIS is set up.
The NCIS has no formal role in Northern Ireland at present, so it rests on some sort of liaison arrangement between its head and the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, unless some new arrangement is devised in statute. It is upon that somewhat shaky framework that some of the linkages in the Bill have to rest. The Minister must be aware of the concern.
Having said that, it would be churlish of me not to thank the Minister for the helpful way in which he has responded to many amendments and for the way in which he has managed to exclude partisan considerations in a way that the Home Secretary was not able to do.
Mr. Michael:
The right hon. Gentleman manages to confuse rather than clarify the important issue that we have been trying to debate in the Chamber tonight.
I am pleased that the Minister has expressed the hope and intention of legislating next year, and I hope that he will keep to that. If, as has been our experience in the past few weeks, the Minister continues to listen to the Opposition as well as to ACPO, he will be able to achieve legislation in the coming Session without difficulty.In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Order for Third Reading read.
Mr. Howard:
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Consideration of the Bill has been marked by overwhelming support for the principles that lie behind it. Almost without exception, everyone has recognised that it is sensible to bring the particular skills and expertise that the Security Service possesses into the battle against organised crime in support of the law enforcement agencies.
The House needs no reminding of the menace that organised crime presents, and it is essential that we deploy all the resources that are available to combat it. I am grateful for the positive attitude that has been demonstrated on the Opposition and for their constructive support for the Bill.
When I opened the Second Reading debate, I set out the principles by which the involvement of the Security Service against serious and organised crime would be governed. No one has disputed those principles, but some concern was expressed that the original form of the Bill did not make them as explicit as it might. Accordingly,
the Government brought forward two important amendments in Committee--both of which enjoyed all-party support, for which I am grateful.
The first of the amendments, to clause 1(1), makes it explicit that the work of the Security Service in preventing and detecting serious crime will be carried out in support of the activities of the law enforcement agencies. There was never any doubt in our minds that primacy had to remain with the law enforcement agencies, because they have the leading role in the fight against serious crime. That has been made clear in the Bill.
The second amendment relates to the provision dealing with co-ordination arrangements. The Bill has now been amended to make it clear that the co-ordination arrangements will need to be agreed between the Director-General of the Security Service and a designated person who holds, or who has held, the office of chief officer of police. I intended to designate the Director-General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service for this purpose.
We hope to introduce legislation shortly to put the NCIS on a more clearly defined statutory footing and to enable us to enshrine in statute that the designated person should be the Director-General of the NCIS. In making this amendment, we are giving effect to one of the key principles that underlie the Bill--that the contribution of the Security Service will be co-ordinated through the NCIS and existing structures and that it will not operate independently.
This is a better Bill as a result of the amendments that were made to it in Committee. The primacy of the law enforcement agencies is now firmly enshrined in it. Beyond that, the provision relating to co-ordination arrangements, while not hampering the operational effectiveness of the Security Service, means that the director-general will not be able to settle on arrangements that do not meet the requirements of the agencies that the Security Service will support. We believe that we have substantially met the concerns that were expressed at an earlier stage by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
The Bill has enjoyed all-party support, and I hope that that will continue as it makes its way through another place. I look forward to being able to bring it into force as soon as practicable. Once enacted, the Bill will be an important tool in the fight against organised crime, which is a menace to society. It is vital that we bring all the available resources to bear against it.
The skills and experience of the Security Service have an important role to play when it comes to taking on drug traffickers, racketeers and money launderers. We must never forget that such criminals, though they may be far removed from their victims, cause human misery and suffering on a vast scale. They may be callous about the effects of their crimes but, when we see the effects in our constituencies, there can be no doubt that we must attach the highest priority to combating this evil menace.
'(3) Section 1 of the Act shall be repealed twenty four months after the Act has come into force in accordance with subsection (2) above unless the body known at the time of this Act receiving Royal 7.18 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |