Mr.
Gray: What my hon. Friend is saying is fascinating. Am I
right in thinking that there is a risk that relatively low level
information or criminals may, by these means, become available to
overseas legal authorities? Is that not part of a gradual increase in
information held by the state and shared with other persons—the
sort of thing that David Davis, the candidate for Haltemprice and
Howden, is making a fuss
about?
Mr.
Ruffley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point
and I know that the Minister will want to pick up on his comment when
she answers my very specific question—why are the threshold
tests in the two orders different? One is serious criminal conduct and
the other is not. Can she furnish us with an explanation of the
rationale behind the differences in the protocol? What did the British
Government do at the time of the negotiations in
Brussels? We
are here to test propositions and to look at the detail of sensitive
issues. We all want the best possible legislation to crack down on
terror. We all want to be tough on terror, but it does the House no
good if we cannot understand or sign up to specific measures. The
orders have different threshold tests. We are entitled to an
explanation why Brussels negotiated in the way that it did and what the
British Government did at the time of those negotiations.
Section 44 of
the 2003 Act enables judicial and prosecuting authorities to make
outgoing requests—in other words, to other countries—for
account monitoring orders. Section 45 provides that those requests will
be forwarded to the participating country by our Secretary of
State.
I shall make
a general point, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire
touched upon earlier. Those people following the debate will probably
have at back the back of their minds the thought that the United States
authorities, for understandable cultural reasons, are quite hyperactive
when it come to exercising their extraterritorial reach. There is no
question but that that is a matter of public interest, as we saw in the
debate about the NatWest three. I shall not detain the Committee with
the rights and wrongs of that complicated issue or challenge the
Government’s response to it. I am making a separate point.
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wrexham
is chuntering. Does he wish to
intervene? Ian
Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman confirm
that the NatWest three pleaded guilty to criminal offences in the
United States?
Mr.
Ruffley: I will confirm that. I just said that I was not
seeking to go into the rights and wrongs of that extradition process. I
was making the separate point that in the newspapers, as the
commentariat pointed out, there was a certain amount of regrettable
anti-Americanism in the debate. It was suggested that the Americans
were trying to exercise powers that we did not have commensurately.
There was a great deal of concern, which was perhaps misplaced—I
am not making a judgment on that—about the alleged
extraterritorial reach of the United States authorities. That issue is
likely to be triggered again when people look at the order. It reached
the pages of the Daily Mail within the last week and has been
represented in a way that I will go on to describe shortly. We do not
need Ministers grimacing; we need them to listen and answer the
questions, please, because the matters are extremely serious. This is
not just a lazy Wednesday afternoon on which to nod stuff through. If
the Minister shakes her head and starts grinning, I get the impression
that she is not terribly interested in this serious
debate.
Meg
Hillier: I am concerned that the record in Hansard
will suggest that I am not taking the debate seriously, not
listening and not concentrating, and that, while taking
notes —[Interruption.] I think that
somebody dares to suggest from a sedentary position that I was
laughing. That was not the case. I want it to be clearly on record that
I take this matter very seriously. I am the Minister responsible for
mutual legal assistance. That is essential to protect the public in
this country, just as it is essential to have proper international
co-operation that is on a good legal footing and with safeguards. I
have laid that out and I will happily answer the hon.
Gentleman’s other points in my closing
remarks.
Mr.
Ruffley: I am delighted to have got the Minister’s
attention. The matter of extraterritorial reach, as raised by the case
of the NatWest three, potentially arises regarding this order. Will the
Minister tell us how many requests for customer information orders have
been received by Her Majesty’s Government? How many requests
have been received for account monitoring orders in the past three
years? How many have been granted by a judge, and how many have been
refused? Before we amend the law through this order, we should have
those basic facts.
When the 2003
Act passed through the House, the British Bankers Association
highlighted concerns that customer information and account monitoring
orders might be used for speculative inquiries. Will the Minister
confirm that the Secretary of State has taken a hard line against such
fishing expeditions from other countries so that private sector time
has not been wasted and citizens’ rights have not been affected?
Perhaps she could answer that question by giving me specific figures on
the number of orders granted and the number of requests that have been
chucked out.
The civil
liberties issues that are prompted by the order appeared on page 2 of
the Daily Mail on 30 June—I am sure that the
Minister will have read that and will be prepared. I do not necessarily
support the comments that I am about to read out, but they pose a
question for the Minister. The report said:
“American
intelligence agencies may soon be able to access the most private and
personal details of British citizens”.
Referring, we assume, to
the order, it went on to
say: “The
deal will make it easier for American law enforcement organisations to
obtain private information from banks, credit card firms and other
companies...But the deal came under attack from former shadow Home
Secretary David
Davis,” who
made a point in relation to civil liberties. On 30 June, he
said:
“Given
this Government’s disastrous failure to protect data, whether
losing 25 million child benefit records in the post or laptops
containing sensitive security information, the
public”—
The
Chairman: Order. I am not quite sure of the relevance of
that.
Mr.
Ruffley: That is a comment from the former shadow Home
Secretary about the order that we are discussing. I am happy to be
guided by you, Mr. O’Hara, but the comment is not a
general one; it is in relation to the
order.
The
Chairman: It is a quotation.
Mr.
Ruffley: It is a quotation and I hope that it will be in
order for that reason. The former shadow Home Secretary went on to
say:
“the public will
have real concern about the wholesale transfer abroad of its personal
data, under a set of diluted safeguards negotiated in
Brussels”. That
is the reference to the
order. The
report stated that the director of Liberty said:
“We
can barely trust our own authorities with sensitive personal
information. What redress will we have on the other side of the
Atlantic if our details are lost or
abused?” The
report concluded—[Interruption.] The right
hon. Member for Sheffield, Central, who is a former Minister, is
chuntering. If he has anything sensible to say, I would be grateful if
he would intervene.
Mr.
Richard Caborn (Sheffield, Central) (Lab): The hon.
Gentleman sounds like he is making a party political broadcast for
somebody who is running in an election in this country in a few
weeks’
time —[Interruption.]
The
Chairman: Order. I have ruled that the hon. Member for
Bury St. Edmunds is quoting from a reference to the order in a
newspaper. That is in order.
Mr.
Caborn: I was asked to intervene. I make the point again
very clearly: the quotation sounds like a party political broadcast,
and that is quite deliberate in my view.
Mr.
Ruffley: I think that the record will show that we are
talking about a former shadow Home Secretary in reference to this
order. The report
continues: “One
source at the department said that as a result of the deal, the U.S.
was likely to ask for full details on everyone visiting from
Europe.” That
was attributed to the US Department of Homeland Security. I wonder
whether the Minister could put all our minds at rest and tell us
whether she is aware that that is the intention, if this order goes
through. If the answer is no, as I hope that it will be, we will be
delighted to hear that. The report is out there, so she
will no doubt want to put it on record that the Department of Homeland
Security is not looking to acquire information from everyone visiting
from Europe. This is far from a party political set of questions. I am
asking for specific answers, on record, to questions that are in the
public domain and that relate to this order. The BBA
represents 251 banks in the United Kingdom, including 99 designated
small or micro-businesses, as determined by former Department of Trade
and Industry definitions that relate to numbers of employees in those
businesses. Will the Minister tell us what the impact of customer
information orders on a micro-bank might be and what assessments she
has made in relation to
micro-banks? There
will be extra costs to all British banks as a result of their
obligations to meet requests from the United States of America, subject
to that order being granted by a UK judge. Banks will have to carry
some costs because in complying with these measures, they are helping
in the fight against terror and also complying with British
law. Mr.
Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): The hon.
Gentleman has made much of medium-sized and micro-businesses. Is he
aware of those small businesses dealing in currency exchange that
manage to channel large amounts of money through their books without it
showing on the books? Is he aware of such enterprises? The nominal size
might have little or no relevance to the degree of criminal activity
that takes place within
them.
Mr.
Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. If the
order goes through, costs will be imposed on businesses, be they big,
small or medium, but we make no special pleading for businesses. They
must comply with the law. If there is a cost attached to complying with
the law, they will pay it. No one has any difficulty with that. Be they
big or small, businesses must help in the fight against serious
organised crime and terrorism. However, it would be useful if the
Minister could tell us whether she or any other Government Department
has had discussions with the BBA about what the estimated future costs
might
be. When
the original mutual legal assistance agreement was made between the
United Kingdom and the European Union, the Home Office conducted a
partial regulatory impact assessment to assess the costs to business of
implementing that agreement. Has the Minister undertaken an up-to-date
impact assessment, or does she plan to undertake a further assessment
in relation to the additional costs that will undoubtedly arise as a
result of the United States entering into the arrangements as a
participating
country? 3
pm Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House. 3.15
pm On
resuming—
Mr.
Ruffley: I was coming to regulatory impact
assessments.
Mr.
Gray: I was about to raise a point that my hon. Friend
might not have noticed. Paragraph 8.1 of the explanatory memorandum
states
that “An
Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument as it has
no impact on business, charities or voluntary
bodies.” I
shall leave aside the general point of principle, which is that, if no
impact assessment has been prepared, how it is known that the order has
no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies? I just thought
that my hon. Friend might like to know that that is the conclusion that
has been
reached.
Mr.
Ruffley: My hon. Friend has made an important point, to
which I am sure that the Minister will
respond. The
total cost of the mutual legal assistance agreement to the private
sector was placed at between £1.262 million and
£2.518 million. Does the Minister have any information about the
new figures or is that work being undertaken? The Small Business
Service suggested in the Home Office assessment that
there “should
be a limit for the amount of time spent per bank per search, and this
could be considered in more depth while guidelines are
produced”. Will
the hon. Lady confirm that the guidelines have been produced and say
whether they contain a limit, as suggested by the Small Business
Service? Tom
Levitt (High Peak) (Lab): If, during the Division, the
hon. Gentleman reflected on what he had said moments before, I am sure
he would have realised that he was scaremongering to little end. Of
course, it is possible under the order for the Americans to ask for any
information they like, but they will receive such information only if
it is within the terms of the order and approved by the British
authority. The hon. Gentleman seems to have started the second part of
our proceedings in a more sober mood. I hope he accepts that the
Orwellian rant that we heard a few minutes ago was not appropriate and
that it served only to demonstrate that the Conservatives support
anti-terrorist measures such as the order reluctantly, if at all. Will
he support the
order?
Mr.
Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman has not appreciated an
important distinction. Of course, he was correct that orders monitoring
customer information can be granted only by a United Kingdom judge. If
the four tests are not met, there will be no question of an order being
granted or a person’s details being disclosed to American
authorities. That is clear, but that was not my
point. I
was arguing about the number of requests that might come from the
United States authorities. A source was quoted. I shall repeat it
because the hon. Gentleman has clearly not understood the distinction,
so I shall refresh his memory. I am referring to the number of possible
requests that might be made by the US authorities that we will then
have to sift. There could be tens of the thousands because the source
from the Department of Homeland Security who was quoted in the Daily
Mail on 30 June said that, as a result of the order, the US
was “likely
to ask for full details on everyone visiting from
Europe.” I
hope, as the hon. Gentleman probably does, that British judges will
chuck out many such requests. To be more precise, the Secretary of
State will receive the requests and, hopefully, she will chuck them
out .
[Interruption.] Is the hon. Gentleman paying
attention? He asked a question and I am happy to give him an
answer. Do
we want the Home Secretary to be bombarded with requests? Let us
consider the circumstances if the statement from the
source—unnamed, unfortunately—at the Department of
Homeland Security in the United States is correct. Does the Minister
have any knowledge of the alleged proposal that details of everyone
visiting from Europe could be the subject of a request from the US
authorities to the United Kingdom? That is a perfectly fair
question. John
Reid (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab): I do not know the
emanation of that unattributable quote from an anonymous person in the
Daily Mail, but I am sure the quote is strong empirical evidence
for the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Is he persuaded that he is
not mixing two things? One is the new arrangements for passenger name
recognition, which have been discussed between the Department of
Homeland Security and Europe, and the other is the order before us. If
he is confusing those two things, that does not contribute to the
elucidation of the Committee. My question was
genuine.
| 
