| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
This Bill has been debated at some length, both in this House and the other place, which has culminated in us debating on Report a measure that will provide
important tools in the fight against serious crime. I now commend the Bill to the House for its Third Reading.
First and foremost, I wish to thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), for doing all the work on the Bill. I am grateful for that. I also wish to thank Members on both sides of the House for the constructive way in which they have approached the vast majority of the Bill, as we have seen in our deliberations today. I also wish to thank the civil service team that worked diligently and professionally on the Bill, with great spirit and sharp focus.
Serious crime represents one of the greatest threats to the security of this country and we all know we must work together to combat those who are determined to make their fortune from crimes such as trafficking in drugs, smuggling people or laundering money. We agree on all those issues, but we may disagree on the best way to achieve our ends. That is only right and proper, and the process of detailed scrutiny has given us a Bill that not only will achieve a great deal, but is in far better shape at the end of the parliamentary process than it was at the beginning.
Among other things the Bill provides law enforcement with an effective new tool to prevent the harm caused by serious crime before it happens: the serious crime prevention order, which is carefully targeted at inhibiting criminal activity, but which is put in place by the courts only where it is reasonable and proportionate to do so. The measure delivers a strengthening of the provisions that allow us to seize the assets of serious criminals, which will help us to deliver the target of doubling confiscation of criminal assets to £250 million per year by 2010, including merging the Assets Recovery Agency into the Serious Organised Crime Agency to give further improvements in efficiency.
The Bill improves the way in which we are able to use data, across the public and private sectors, to prevent and detect fraud. It addresses the gap in the criminal law identified by the Law Commission concerning incitement. It makes the surveillance powers on which we have just deliberated available to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and enables them to be used for investigations into serious crime in relation to ex-Customs and Excise matters; they will also be available in relation to investigations into serious crime concerning ex-Inland Revenue matters.
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): The Minister mentioned incitement. The Bill gets rid of the common law offence of incitement and replaces it with new provisions. There is growing concern across the country, and on both sides of the House, about incitement in lyrics, especially of rap songs, which are particularly offensive to minority groups. Is the Minister’s intention, through the Bill, that there should be prosecutions to bring the offensive nature of many rap lyrics under control?
Mr. McNulty:
The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. If the activities to which he referred were undertaken in pursuit of serious crime, the answer is yes. I do not demur from the notion that we need to look at other aspects of the broader issue of
incitement. The incitement aspects of the Bill merely reflect the Law Commission’s findings. The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely fair point and it is worthy of debate and discussion—but not now.
On Report, we dwelt on the HMRC aspects of surveillance powers, especially intrusive surveillance powers—not least at the behest of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire). However, his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) raised broader issues relating to surveillance powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and to communications data. I have no doubt we shall return to those issues; that debate is still to be had. The hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong in his characterisation of the debate, but no doubt we shall hold it at some point.
As the Under-Secretary promised, there was a useful discussion on Report on the stop-and-search proposals that originated in the Lords. The Government’s proposals put us in a far more reasonable place. The new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch was flawed in some ways, but the House has done the country a service in supporting the Government’s proposals, while the Government have done the House a service by listening to voices from the Opposition and others. The stop-and-search provisions now offer a position of greater clarity and are better than they were before. I thank the House for that, especially for not dividing on an issue that, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, could be one on which colleagues were tempted to showboat and to play to the gallery for tabloid headlines. I am grateful that did not happen, and the stop-and-search powers are in a better place than before the Bill began its progress.
In that spirit, I welcome the scrutiny given to the Bill. As a result, and through continued consultation with stakeholders, we have tabled amendments that meet some of the concerns expressed in the House and in another place—not all of them, I freely concede; otherwise, why would we need an Opposition? The amendments improve the way in which the Bill will deliver its objective of tackling serious crime in an effective but balanced way—an endeavour where we are all united against those who commit serious crime, which we all want to drive down.
This serious matter has been dealt with in Committee and in our debates today in a way that is to the credit of the House, and I commend the Bill to the House.
9.9 pm
James Brokenshire:
I thank my hon. Friends who served on the Committee and applied the scrutiny and the approach to which the Minister has alluded in seeking to highlight points in the Bill and to raise the concerns that rightly exist in relation to the operation of its provisions. I want to put on record my thanks to the Home Office officials for providing assistance, guidance and information and for responding to the questions that I asked them. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary for his courtesy in dealing with the points raised with him, even though we were unable to reach an agreement or
find a resolution in relation to the points that have been highlighted.
The essence of the debates on the Bill has been whether it will prevent serious crime from occurring. The key part has been the introduction of the serious crime prevention order—in essence, a new hybrid of an ASBO and a control order. However, as I have said today, given the experience of the way in which the Government have used civil remedies, we still have considerable questions about what difference the new order will make in practice. As we know, control orders have not been a full success, with a third of those subject to the apparently stringent conditions of the orders having absconded. ASBOs have been breached in record numbers, with the National Audit Office reporting that 55 per cent. are breached and some areas reporting breach rates as high as 70 per cent.
Although the public may welcome measures, such as ASBOs, as an indication that something is being done, when examined more closely, that perception turns negative in respect of whether they stop antisocial behaviour, as they were supposed to do. The same questions apply to the serious crime prevention order.
As Chief Superintendent Neil Wain, a borough commander on the Greater Manchester police force, notes in his recent book, “The ASBO: Wrong Turning, Dead End”, not only are ASBOs regularly breached, but they do not appear to control the behaviour of those subject to them. In addition, many of those on ASBOs were persistent criminals, and rather than controlling behaviour, the orders appeared to be more like post-conviction bail conditions, where the objective was breach and imprisonment. Again, that underlines some of the points that have been made this evening and the question whether serious crime prevention orders will be applied in such a way that amounts to a punishment, whatever assurances the Minister may have given most genuinely to the House this evening. That is why we believe strongly that there should be close scrutiny and examination of the practical use to which such orders may be put. But even if that were taken on board and we accept all the provisions on the wording of serious crime prevention orders, there is always the question of how they will be monitored. They will be only as good as the monitoring and enforcement that lies behind them.
The appalling case of Garry Chester-Nash clearly highlights the possible weaknesses of the Government’s arguments if they are not prepared to follow through rigorously any order that is granted under part 1. Chester-Nash had a string of 30 convictions, including for several offences involving knives. He was identified as such a significant risk to the public that he was made subject to one of the most stringent ASBOs imposed, which banned him from all licensed premises in England, from carrying any weapon and from seeking employment that would bring him into contact with women. He was also subject to one of the highest levels of supervision by a multi-agency public protection arrangement. Yet, on his release from prison, when he failed to return to the bail hostel in east London, as he should have done, he travelled to Cornwall instead and stabbed to death 59-year-old Jean Bowditch in a bungled burglary on the bungalow that she was
supposed to be cleaning. At his trial last year, he was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommended minimum sentence of 30 years.
Such appalling cases continue to make me sceptical of the impact of serious crime prevention orders. Whatever may be written into the Bill, whatever the stated intentions and whatever the terms of the orders that may be granted, serious crime will not be prevented without rigorous supervision, monitoring and enforcement. If offenders are that much of a risk, the Government should not contemplate the use of such orders but use the full force of the criminal law and ensure that dangerous prisoners serve the full term of their sentence, rather than being let out early, subject to a serious crime prevention order or other order, however stringent its terms are supposed to be.
In combating and preventing acts of serious violence and terrorism, we remain committed to the introduction of intercept evidence—a measure that is used successfully in other countries, and we believe that it should be applied here. In the Lords, the noble Lord Lloyd introduced an amendment that would have put such a measure into law, but the provision was removed by the Government, without them giving any assurance on that important subject at the Privy Council review.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary said:
“The Government are absolutely committed to a review of the use of intercept. We are also committed to using intercept as evidence if we can find a workable model and the necessary safeguards can be put in place. That is the Government’s position. It is clear, and there is no rowing back from it.” ——[Official Report, Serious Crime Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2007; c.82.]
There has been no rowing forward either, as far as we can see, and the Government made no reference to the issue tonight. No indication has been given of the likely timing of the outcome on the review’s findings, which we will obviously note with interest. That is an area in which we believe we could make a real difference in preventing crime and terrorism.
We have made some progress in other areas. We welcome the Government’s concessions on a number of points raised by Opposition Members—the addition of firearms offences as serious crimes under the terms of the Bill; confirmation of the seniority of officials in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs who are able to use specific surveillance powers under the Bill; and the introduction of a code of practice to govern the data-sharing provisions for public authorities in part 3 of the Bill, together with the clarification that powers are to be used only for fraud prevention.
On that last point, I remain of the view that it would have been more appropriate to give the Information Commissioner a specific right of audit and inspection in the Bill, but I acknowledge that a workable arrangement has been achieved through the code, and I am prepared to accept that. However, there is a bigger debate to be had about the function, powers and authority of the Information Commissioner in the context of his increasingly important role of making sure that data are supplied correctly, and that the interests of the private individual are protected. The House will need to return to that subject in the near future. We also welcome the reform of the law relating
to inchoate offences in part 2 of the Bill. The reforms implement the recommendations of the Law Commission in a sensible, appropriate way.
The Bill finally puts to rest the ill-fated Assets Recovery Agency, which was tasked with recovering assets from criminals using new powers of civil recovery, as well as powers of criminal confiscation and taxation. However, as the Public Accounts Committee recently reported, by December 2006 the agency had recovered assets of only £23 million; that is against an expenditure of £65 million. The Committee noted that
“The Agency was set up, however, with insufficient preparatory work. There was no business case setting out the expectations for the Agency, resulting in unachievable delivery aims.”
Both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee made recommendations, arising from the structural and operational failures of the Assets Recovery Agency, which led to the proposed transfer of its operations to the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the National Policing Improvement Agency under the Bill. It is essential that the recommendations be implemented by the successor organisations, and that the weaknesses are not merely transferred to the new bodies. It is important that assurances on the disclosure of information and on the performance of the assets recovery functions continue to be published in a format that allows comparison with the previous activities of the Assets Recovery Agency. We will be monitoring closely to ensure that a change in the structure leads to a step-change in performance.
The Bill was a lost opportunity to ensure that stop and search powers were granted to police sergeants, as we today argued that they should be. That would offer the public greater protection from violent crime, and underline the importance of decisions made within communities affected by gun and knife crime. However, we accept that the amendments proposed by the Government on stop and search have some merit, although we question the extent of their impact. We will watch with interest to see whether stop and search turns out to be another area in which the Government subsequently decide to adopt Conservative thinking and make an important change to prevent crimes of serious violence.
Despite our reservations about the serious crime prevention order, and the reservations of the Law Society, Liberty and others about whether the measure will be an effective, or indeed appropriate, remedy for reducing the harm caused by serious crime, we share the Government’s desire to bear down on serious organised crime, and we will not oppose the Bill’s Third Reading tonight. However, we will monitor closely whether the powers are applied in a way that is not intended by the House, to discover whether the Bill will simply join the long list of previous pieces of Home Office legislation introduced by the Government, promising much but delivering virtually nothing.
9.20 pm
Mr. Jeremy Browne:
I am grateful for a final opportunity to speak on the Bill. As is customary, I shall begin by thanking the many people involved in its inception. In the other place, where the Bill kicked off, my noble Friends Lords Dholakia, Goodhart, Burnett
and Livsey all made substantial contributions to its progress. There were many Committee sittings, and the Conservatives even changed their spokesman. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who got the ball rolling, and to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) who spoke wisely and at length this evening. I thank the Under-Secretary not only for the way in which he has approached the substance of the Bill but for his general courtesy and willingness to engage with Opposition Members, as well as his readiness to make officials available to add clarity to our conversations. He has made a genuine effort, and other Ministers could learn from his etiquette and decency.
The Bill has some merits. Like many Bills emanating from the Department, it is not an unequivocally good or bad Bill. There are things on which we agreed in Committee, and things on which we agreed this evening—most importantly, on stop-and-search powers. They are not the whole solution, as the Minister rightly said, but they are an important weapon against violent crime, as long as they are used with intelligence and discretion by the police. We regret that Lord Lloyd’s amendment on intercept evidence was struck out by the Government without any willingness on their part to replace it with an amendment more to their liking. The crux of the Bill, on which we voted half an hour ago—regrettably, we lost that vote—is part 1, and I shall briefly detain the House by summing up its seven inherent flaws.
First, the sanctions in the Bill are unrestricted in their scope. There are some restrictions, but they are not exhaustive. We must remember that we are talking about serious sanctions—virtually everything short of imprisoning the individual concerned—such as restrictions on internal travel in the United Kingdom, on the buildings they can visit, and on the places where they can work, so their day-to-day business may be severely curtailed. Those sanctions can last up to five years—we tried to reduce that period in Committee, but we failed—but that period is not a maximum. It can be extended indefinitely, so it is within the scope of the Bill for extremely draconian restrictions to be placed on someone’s liberties, and for those restrictions to last their lifetime, without their having an opportunity to escape them, even if they are not convicted of a criminal offence. If they breach those restrictions, they could go to prison, despite their not having been convicted of a criminal offence.
Secondly, serious crime prevention orders are too easy an alternative to prosecution. The underlying assumption in the mind of Ministers is that the enforcement agencies know who the perpetrators of many crimes are, but cannot find enough evidence to prosecute them. They have therefore decided to find a different way of penalising them, and we fear that it will be regarded as alternative to prosecution, although it is often in the public interest to pursue a prosecution. Thirdly, there is no definition in the Bill of what constitutes a serious offence. There is a list of serious offences, some of which were subject to ridicule throughout our debates. I have yet to find an official who can defend the serious offences relating to salmon fishing. I still have not heard a satisfactory explanation from the Minister about why he regards salmon fishing as such an appalling offence. I do not wish to diminish
the significance of the offence for any salmon fishermen who may be following our deliberations, but most of my constituents would not put that in the same category as the other items on the list. Moreover, further items can be added, so it is not a definitive list.
Fourthly, a person need never have committed a crime in order to be subject to the punishments outlined in the Bill. Restrictions could legitimately be placed on a person who had been convicted of an offence, gone to prison, left prison and re-entered a criminal world—perhaps the same one that got them into prison in the first place—but there is a distinction between such a person and someone who is restricted but has not committed a criminal offence.
Fifthly, there is no requirement for a person even to be aware that their actions could have facilitated a crime. In this respect, there is a lack of clarity in the Bill. The Minister constantly refers to the Mr. Bigs of the criminal underworld, whose efforts will be severely restricted by the Bill, but every time we ask for individual examples, they seem to come down to taxi companies run by inoffensive, or potentially offensive, small-time middle men and women in the criminal world, who certainly are not in the category of the 30 most prominent Mr. Bigs in Britain’s underworld. A Bill that will almost certainly soon become an Act is not clear on that point.
Sixthly, restrictions can be placed on a person who is not the subject of an order. Finally, a person is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. That will offend many in the House who are concerned that the burden of proof will be on the recipient of the serious crime prevention order, rather than on those who wish to penalise that person.
We have made our views known throughout the passage of the Bill, including this evening. There is no point in our voting on Third Reading, as our views are clear to everybody who has followed the progress of our deliberations. The Government have been too cavalier with civil liberties, during the passage of the Bill and more generally. It was striking that this evening only one non-ministerial Labour MP chose to speak during the debate. Trial by jury and hundreds of years of slowly building up the liberties of the individual citizen should not be discarded lightly. The divide in British politics is less between left and right than between those of a libertarian disposition and those of an authoritarian disposition. In that debate, my party is in the former camp. I fear that the Government are far too often in the latter camp, and we will have to revisit these debates many more times in the future.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |