| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab): My right hon. Friend knows how keen I was during my time in the Home Office to see better co-ordination between what have sometimes, frankly, been conflicting organisations with different lines of accountability. I welcome his statement and the White Paper.
One problem that has bedevilled the fight against organised crime has been the organisation of intelligence information. Sometimes intelligence information links the community police officer with national information showing that someone is behind organised crime. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what progress has been made on implementation of the national intelligence model in police forces across the country to ensure that the information gathered by police officers at all different levels can be brought together effectively in support of the new agency?
Mr. Blunkett: My right hon. Friend draws attention to a critical aspect of the problem the ability to use the national intelligence model for volume crime at local level and to feed the patterns that it describes into the new regional intelligence cells, which special branch will now operate, and into the new organisation when it is up and running. We need the ability to share that intelligence not only more quickly but more effectively than before. I believe that it will really make a difference.
Mr. Mark Oaten (Winchester) (LD): I thank the Home Secretary for advance notice of his statement, but, frankly, most of the detail has been running on the media since 8 o'clock this morning.
Liberal Democrats understand that organised crime and terrorism are complex issues that require complex solutions. That is why we recognise that, in this un-ideal world, we have to accept some un-ideal solutions. We support most of what the Home Secretary has said in the White Paper.
We support the idea of intercept communications, but why is the Home Secretary dragging his heels? Is he in favour or against, and when will the review be completed? Will he ensure that arrangements for accountability in the new agency, similar to those that operate for NCIS and the National Crime Squad, will be in place when it is established? Can he confirm that he will have no greater operational control of the new agency than he currently has?
Why has the Home Secretary rejected the idea of a national border force? On page 30 of the White Paper, he proposes to set up intelligence targets as part of performance review. What does he mean by that? In the documents, he continues to advance the idea of identity cards. Can he confirm that despite serious Cabinet objections he employs 33 members of staff to work full time on that project?
Mr. Blunkett: We are taking our time on intercept because—as is well known—there have been disagreements about its usage, how far it should go and which security and intelligence agencies or police forces might be involved in revealing their sources and methodology. That is why we have been modelling those aspects of organised crime and intelligence gathering that would be most appropriate for intercept use. I have made it clear that I have been won over to the belief that
there is room for intercept evidence to be used judiciously. That will bring us in line with other countries, although those countries that use it do so in their investigatory, magisterial system, as opposed to the adversarial system used in English law.On the issue of intelligence, I am mindful that the whole thrust of the new policy is to lift the level of performance. The new agency will provide that investigatory and intelligence thrust. We must also ensure that it works alongside others who have an interest in border control and management. It is clear, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spelled out in revisions to the Inland Revenue and its amalgamation with the other aspects of excise, that it is important not to disrupt the collection of revenues. I would get shot if the Revenue lost money as a result of changes that I made. I am still discussing the spending review, even if some of my colleagues, such as those in health and education, have already settled, so I have a particular interest.
The hon. Gentleman asked about identity cards. I made a statement to the House on the progress we were making and on the imminent publication of a draft Bill. In order to produce a draft Bill and to undertake the gateway process for the Office of Government Commerce, staff are needed. One day, in the distant future, the hon. Gentleman may have the opportunity to learn about that, and I shall wish him well on my deathbed.
Hugh Bayley (City of York) (Lab): What powers and resources will the officers working for the new agency have to collect evidence and investigate crime committed abroad? In relation to serious international financial crimes, especially those of bribery and corruption, which were legislated against in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, how will the new agency co-operate with the Serious Fraud Office, and which agency will be in the lead in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes?
Mr. Blunkett: In cases of serious fraud, it will be the Serious Fraud Office. I have already said that we will publish a separate paper on the SFO, because that fits well with dealing more broadly with issues of corruption. We want to get that right. Having had a consultation on corruption, the Attorney-General and I want to integrate the two.
I have already indicated that the powers of the SFO will be made available to the new agency. They will have to work hand in glove, but because the SFO operates differently and because we shall hold consultations in the months ahead about the section in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that caused so much controversy, I want to ensure that we get things right.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): Given the strength of the Newton committee's recommendation about the use of intercept, is the Home Secretary satisfied that there is a way of creating a distinct and separately authorised system for the use of intercept evidence that does not compromise the work of the intelligence agencies?
On a separate point, can he clarify whether the serious organised crime agency will have the same responsibilities in Scotland as in England and Wales, or has he yet to reach an understanding with the Scottish Executive on that matter?
Mr. Blunkett: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the first point; it is possible to achieve that.
As the right hon. Gentleman has a border constituency, he will be familiar with the legal system in Scotland, which is different from that in England and Wales. Obviously, the existing powers for Customs and the National Criminal Intelligence Service will need to continue to operate UK-wide, but the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Administration will, of necessity, involve us in detailed discussions on the new agency and its remit. We received a very warm welcome from the First Minister and the Secretary of State in relation to getting that right, and I look forward to the discussions continuing.
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): May I urge my right hon. Friend not to dismiss the idea of a highly mobile, uniformed force for border policing to complement the agency that he has announced today? That function is still extremely important, as is illustrated by the Thames estuary where there is a multiplicity of agencies—Kent, Essex, the Met, the City police, the Port of London Authority, Customs and Excise and immigration control—but no coherent policy for scrutiny of small, fast, new-technology boats and craft, which can move swiftly to promote organised crime, people smuggling or terrorism in that very vulnerable area. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take that point back to his officials.
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend has correctly been assiduous on this subject, but I might ask him to consider that his glass is three quarters full.
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's affirmation.
Further progress can be made. Neither the changes in better co-ordination that we have announced nor the new agency will entirely resolve the issue that my hon. Friend raised. We still have room for manoeuvre, not least on the issue that he identified new ways of developing smuggling. In fact, they are not so new; they replicate what went on in the 18th century, and although my beard is grey I am prepared to employ a black beard to tackle the problems in the future.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): Will the Home Secretary confirm to the House and to those who may be viewing that there will still be safeguards to ensure that wiretaps are carried out responsibly? Perhaps it might happen only with the authority of local magistrates. What is his view of the vexed situation in America, whereby illegal wiretaps are accepted in court if they genuinely demonstrate the guilt of the person being tried? That is a difficult question. We do not want to encourage illegal wiretaps, but on the other hand we want a guilty person to be found guilty. Does the Home Secretary have a view on that?
Mr. Blunkett: I certainly have a view on the latter point. I do not want to use one of last week's clichés and
say, “I am not going down that road”, but I do not think that there is room in our country for the use of illegal methods. We should be stamping them out. None of us wants to be tapped illegally and I do not intend to advocate it.On the hon. Gentleman's first point, yes, we need rigid safeguards. When we are dealing with that level of criminality, the Home Secretary must personally approve the agency's right to go ahead with an intercept in the first place, and although that has grown substantially, such approval is still the case and will remain so for as long as I am Home Secretary.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |