|
David Cairns: That passage of the hon. Gentleman's speech is extraordinary. He is talking about criminals seeing the provisions as a loophole. Presumably they would also have to envisage the loophole being operable in a national emergency, because the clause applies only in a national emergency, so to take advantage of it, the clever criminals will have to work out the loophole and that there will be a national emergency at the time that they are going to commit their crime. Is not that a bit ridiculous?
Mr. Mitchell: That emphasises my point. The Home Secretary will be able to determine whether it is appropriate for pursuit to take place. The loophole is very real, for the reasons mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. A clever criminal will realise that if he or she goes across the Scotland-England border, there is a bar to SOCA. I hope that that will add to his enthusiasm for my amendment.
David Cairns: But the bar is only lifted in the event of a national emergency. If the amendment said that the Secretary of State shall have discretion under whatever circumstances and whatever power under any other Act to waive the bar, that would be fine, but the hon. Gentleman is tying it into a national emergency, so the clever criminals have to work out that they have to commit their criminal activity and make their way across the border to Scotland while there is a national emergency. Is not that a bit narrow?
Mr. Mitchell: I shall seriously consider tabling a further amendment on Report to satisfy the hon. Gentleman. He is suggesting a lower bar for the amendment and saying that my bar is too high and should be lower. Perhaps on Report we can try to enlist his support by tabling an amendment that strikes out ''national emergency'' and inserts ''in any case where hot pursuit would be helpful in pursuing a particular incident.''
SOCA should have in its statutory remit the independence to operate as necessary within the United Kingdom. Communications and discussions with the SDEA should be part of SOCA's everyday working to ensure that intelligence and information is used efficiently by all forces. SOCA should not need to seek permission every time it needs to carry out operations across the border.
David Cairns: I cannot support the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I understand his desire to amend subsections (1) and (2), but for the life of me I cannot understand why the amendment applies to subsection (3), which clearly says that the report should be made as soon as is practicable. I would have thought that a national emergency taking place that
Column Number: 100
would impinge on whether that was practical, so subsection (3) does not need to be amended.
Taking the amendment at face value and the fact that the hon. Gentleman is envisaging circumstances of national emergency, I have to say that having participated in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Civil Contingencies Bill, I know that there are a lot of complex, detailed arrangements that have been worked out with the Scottish Executive and Whitehall about how, in a national emergency, all sorts of things will take place, not just in the criminal arena. However, the hon. Gentleman casually tables an amendment that would drive a coach and horses through all that.
If we accept the latter part of his argument, in which he accepted that he has painted himself into a ridiculously small corner by using the words ''in a national emergency'', and consider the lower bar to which he refers, perhaps when riders had to be dispatched to the Scottish courts, changing horses every hundred miles or so—
Vera Baird: We have telephones now.
David Cairns: Precisely. If things were what they used to be, the hon. Gentleman might have a point. However, the Lord Advocate is an extraordinarily intelligent human being who knows how to work a phone and, I am reliably informed, e-mail too. If there were some question of hot pursuit, how quickly would the people have to move to be quicker than a phone call or e-mail?
The amendment is another attempt by the Conservatives, who have never accepted devolution, who opposed the creation of the Scottish Parliament, who campaigned for a no vote and seek at every turn to diminish the powers that the Scottish people voted for in a referendum, after which this Parliament handed over in the Scotland Act 1998—[Interruption.]
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must draw his comments to a close, because we will not have a debate on Scottish devolution.
Caroline Flint: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien, although I was enjoying my hon. Friend's contribution.
The amendment misses the point of the clause. The clause does not create a new obligation, but simply asserts that SOCA will operate within the existing Scottish criminal justice system. It is important for successful prosecutions that SOCA operates effectively within that system, while providing operations in Scotland. In a national emergency, the Scottish criminal justice system would still apply in Scotland. During the discussion of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, detailed examination was given to how we would respond to an emergency, whether it happened in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The amendments would not take us forward.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield seems very concerned about how operations might be affected by what we believe is the right and proper engagement with the appropriate figures in Scotland. He raised the issue of hot pursuit, but mutually agreed arrangements are already in place through which Scottish and English forces can collaborate to detain someone
Column Number: 101
suspected of committing an offence. Such arrangements apply to the National Crime Squad and the SDEA as well as to territorial forces. Also already in place are agreed arrangements between the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland on the prosecution of suspects. The Bill proposes nothing new. The arrangements already in place will extend to cover SOCA. I hope that that allays the hon. Gentleman's fears that SOCA would not be able to deal with crime in a meaningful and quick way.
Mr. Mitchell: The amendment did not start out as a probing amendment, although I think that it has become one. The Committee will understand that its aim is to ensure that there are no bureaucratic or artificial delays to the ability of SOCA to perform its duties beyond the border between England and Scotland. I am considerably relieved by the Minister's remarks and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Mutual assistance between SOCA
and law enforcement agencies:
voluntary arrangements
Amendment made: No. 14, in clause 24, page 13, line 43, at end insert—
(9A) If the assistance mentioned in subsection (8) or (9) is provided for or (as the case may be) by—
(a) a police force in Scotland,
(b) the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, or
(c) the Scottish Administration, the Secretary of State must, before making a determination under the subsection in question, consult the Scottish Ministers.'.—[Caroline Flint]
Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Mutual assistance between SOCA
and law enforcement agencies:
directed arrangements
Amendments made: No. 15, in clause 25, page 14, line 30, leave out 'the United Kingdom' and insert
'England and Wales or Northern Ireland'.
No. 16, in clause 25, page 14, line 31, after 'force', insert
'other than the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency'.
No. 17, in clause 25, page 14, line 32, at end insert
'other than the Scottish Administration'.
No. 18, in clause 25, page 15, leave out lines 1 to 3.—[Caroline Flint]
Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 102
Clause 27
Regulations as to equipment
Mr. Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in clause 27, page 16, line 25, leave out from 'must' to 'such' in line 27 and insert—
'(a) consult SOCA and have regard to any representations it may make to him, and
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 164, in clause 148, page 113, line 18, at end insert—
'(za) any regulations under section 27;'.
Mr. Mitchell: The amendment represents the fifth of the six small points that we want to raise today. It is a probing amendment, designed to limit the Home Secretary's control over SOCA's functions and the way in which it chooses to allocate its budget for equipment. Clause 27 is a further example of the constraints placed on SOCA by the Bill and the Secretary of State's operational control of SOCA. It also represents a significant augmentation of the Secretary of State's powers.
The amendment is consistent with a theme voiced by Opposition Members today. We wish to amend the clause to ensure not only that SOCA will be consulted by the Secretary of State, but that the Secretary of State will have regard to that consultation. We believe that decisions made under the clause should, in certain circumstances, also be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament.
The clause would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the equipment used by SOCA. Regulations prescribing the design and performance of equipment provided or used for the purposes of SOCA could also be made. The current position is outlined in sections 6 and 7 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which give the Secretary of State regulation-making powers in respect of equipment for police use. That is extended to the NCS and NCIS. It allows the Secretary of State to require all police forces in England and Wales to use or keep available for use only equipment that is specified and to apply conditions to the use of equipment. The Secretary of State can also prohibit forces from using specified equipment.
6 pm
However, the key difference between those provisions and clause 27 is that the 2002 Act required the Secretary of State to consult ACPO and the APA before making any regulations. Section 6 of that Act adds the further caveat that the Secretary of State shall not make any regulations under subsection (1)(a) unless he considers it necessary to do so for the purpose of promoting the general efficiency and effectiveness of the police forces maintained for police areas in England and Wales. That section can also be regulated by Parliament, as section 6(2B) of the 2002 Act states:
''A statutory instrument containing any regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''
Column Number: 103
This probing amendment seeks to include a similar provision by amending clause 27 to ensure that the director general of SOCA has operational independence to use the available resources in whatever way is necessary to ensure the operational effectiveness of SOCA. The implications of the clause are major, particularly given the lack of parliamentary debate allowed. There are no checks on the powers of the Secretary of State to issue regulations about equipment. The ramifications of that could fundamentally alter the relationship between the law enforcement agencies and the people whom they seek to protect.
Let us imagine that the Secretary of State has had discussions with a number of organisations and individuals and has decided that, in the circumstances, it would be sensible for some or all SOCA officers to be armed. Using this clause, he could issue a regulation stating that SOCA officers must use a certain type of weapon in certain circumstances. As SOCA officers are dealing with serious organised crime, that could mean most of the time. As SOCA will be not a police force but an organisation similar in its structure to the civil service, SOCA officers will not necessarily have had the full training and experience to use such weapons safely. The issue is highlighted by the fact that the Bill allows the director general to delegate police powers to SOCA officers without SOCA officers having had any training.
I do not want to engage in a debate about whether SOCA officers and police officers should be armed. It might well be that in certain circumstances they should be armed. The point is that any measure of that nature should be debated in Parliament; it should not be allowed in through the back door.
In summary, this amendment seeks to probe the Minister as to why what has applied to other arrangements in similar circumstances does not apply to this Bill.
| 
