| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order to hear what the Secretary of State has to say.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It appears that the document that has been referred to, which has been placed in the Library,is being passed along the second Bench on the Government side of the House. That seems most inappropriate.
Madam Speaker: I am not aware of what is passing along the second Bench on the Government side of the House. I am interested in what the Secretary of State is saying, as the House should be.
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be in order, the Secretary of State having said that he would be content for Members to obtain copies of the paper, for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether he has distributed the document to the press or any other sections of the media?
Madam Speaker: It is for the Secretary of State to give what information he wants to the House.
Mr. Lang: I have not given the document to anybody. It has been placed in the Library. It should have been placed there at the beginning of my speech.
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I accept entirely the point made by the Secretary of State, but you indicated in your ruling that it is for the Minister to determine whether the document should be the subject of an embargo. A document has been placed in the Library which should be available to Members. The Minister has said that he has not put an embargo on it, but someone has. Will you, Madam Speaker, as protector of the House, ascertain exactly who is responsible for the embargo?
Madam Speaker: I am curious as to what embargo has been placed on it and who has done that. The Secretary of State says that he has not placed an embargo on that paper, and I accept that.
Mr. Lang: I am addressing the question of Customs and Excise. The report addresses possible changes to the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to clarify the various powers and definitions. In addition to these and other specific legal provisions, Sir Richard recommends a number of other changes to internal Customs and Excise procedures. As he recommends, there will be a review of
the relationship between the Customs solicitor's office and the Customs investigation division. Sir Richard's recommendations relating to customs legislation and internal procedures are largely accepted by the Government; and we have asked for them to be implemented subject only to further consideration of some detailed technical legal matters. We will report back to the House on the changes that are being made once the implementation plans are finalised. I hope that that, too, will be welcome to the House.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Lang: No, I must make some progress.
The report also considered the position of Customs and Excise as an independent prosecuting authority, a rolethat has remained unchanged for very many years.It recommends the introduction of a formalised system of supervision by the Attorney-General of export control prosecutions. At the same time, Sir Richard affirms the important constitutional principle that a prosecuting authority should be independent and free from political direction. He considers the analogy with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions, both of which are subject to the superintendence of the Attorney-General, whereas the Customs and Excise prosecuting authority is not.Sir Richard notes that, acting in that capacity,the Attorney-General exercises a quasi-judicial role.His actions and decisions are not, for example, subject to Cabinet collective responsibility.
Although the analogy that Sir Richard draws with the CPS and the Serious Fraud Office is not exact, the Government accept that there are benefits in his recommendation: that in future the role of the Attorney-General should include the exercise of increased supervision of Customs and Excise prosecutions in relation to export control matters.
Mr. David Ashby (North-West Leicestershire):
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in this instance, Customs and Excise looked as though it was out of control--and probably was--because it is not responsible to anyone?Is not it time that we got rid of it and amalgamated it with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service so that it would be subject to proper controls?
Mr. Lang:
That is not what Sir Richard recommends, but perhaps my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to advance his view during further consideration of the matter.
The Government are urgently developing proposals on the precise nature and scope of the increased supervision, and my right hon. and learned Friend will be reporting further on that to the House as soon as possible.
In relation to the use of intelligence by Government Departments, Sir Richard makes it clear that he does not feel qualified to make recommendations on how the various systems and procedures might be improved.He acknowledges that a number of improvements have been made and sets out a number of areas in which he considers that problems existed.
Since 1992, major reviews have taken place in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and Customs and Excise. As a result, modern information technology systems have been introduced and new internal distribution arrangements have been adopted. In addition, the requirements of users are now more fully reflected in the intelligence-gathering process.
Sir Richard also makes a procedural recommendation, which he has not published for security reasons, concerning intelligence personnel, which will be discussed with the chairman of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. The Government also propose to inform the Intelligence and Security Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), of other improvements that have been made. I have no doubt that that Committee, which was specially set up to deal with such matters, will want to be satisfied, and in due course to reassure the House, that an adequate response has been made toSir Richard's observations.
Mr. Foulkes:
I am grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for giving way. I congratulate him on accepting a number of Sir Richard Scott's detailed recommendations, but if Sir Richard has reached the correct conclusion on all these matters, can he explain to the House why the Government believe that, on the specific allegations relating to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Attorney-General, Sir Richard reached the wrong conclusions? Is that not a curious comparison?
Mr. Lang:
It would be very curious if the Government did not exercise their judgment on all the recommendations and criticisms in Sir Richard Scott's report, and that is what we have done.
Let me now turn to prosecution procedures and public interest immunity. On the question of prosecution procedures, Sir Richard notes that the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill is before Parliament, and that his proposals in that regard will have to be considered in the light of whatever legislation is eventually enacted.In relation to public interest immunity, Sir Richard has made a range of detailed proposals. In respect of his report, the Government are clear that the legal advice given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was correct at the time of the Matrix Churchill and other trials. His view is supported by a range of decisions in the higher courts; in addition, eminent lawyers--including a current Law Lord and a Master of the Rolls--have made clear their agreement with it. But Sir Richard's concluding chapter also focuses on suggestions for the future of this judge-made and evolving legal procedure.
Mr. Michael Stephen (Shoreham):
Has there not been a wicked deception of the British people? [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. Come along.
Mr. Stephen:
Has there not been a wicked deception of the British people by the press and the broadcasting media, who for the past three years have referred to public interest immunity certificates as "gagging orders"? They are no such thing. The effect of a public interest immunity certificate is to bring documents out of the archives of the
Mr. Lang:
My hon. Friend is right. The first point that I want to make on the subject is that the law has moved on significantly as a result of the House of Lords decision in 1994 in ex parte Wiley. That has already introduced into current practice a number of the points made bySir Richard. As a consequence of that decision, Ministers can now disclose PII documents without the prior approval of the court when they consider it to be in the overall public interest.
Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |