Mr.
Blunt: Will the hon. Lady give
way?
Meg
Hillier: One last time, but then I really must make some
progress.
Mr.
Blunt: I am quite sure that we have enough time to bring
this matter to a satisfactory conclusion, within the limits imposed on
us. The
Minister cannot say that the United States is just one other country,
as though it is Romania or Bulgaria. The United States is roughly the
same size as the European Union. It has a slightly different attitude
to pursuing its interests abroadparticularly with regard to
financial instrumentsfrom the states of the EU. Presumably, the
Home Department has made some assessment of how this instrument will be
used by the United States authorities. If it has not, will she just
tell the
Committee?
Meg
Hillier: We have had arrangements with the US in the past
with which there were no problems, and which this order simply
transfers to the 2003 Act. It is important to recognise that although
this secondary legislation will apply the Act to one additional
countrythe USmutual legal assistance arrangements with
the US are in place already, and they operate very effectively and are
not overburdensome.
Clearly, we
will always keep an eye on the situation. If we receive information
from the banking world, or others, that there is a problem, we will
look at that, hold discussions and, if necessary, carry out further
impact assessments. However, the judgment was rightly made that one
additional country, with which we already have mutual legal
arrangements on a number of issues, did not require a further impact
assessment. It is very easy
for the Opposition to demand more assessments here, there and
everywhere; however, it is important that we make them not for poor
reasons, but when we believe that we will get a reasonable outcome. In
this case, we judged that we did not need to make one, but we are
always open to conversations with the banking industry, should any
problems arise. However, we would be very alert to any problems,
because clearly the requests must come through the Secretary of
State. Interestingly,
the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was happy to quote Liberty and
former Members of this House. I mentioned earlier that this is a
question of whether we extend the existing law. However, he did not
mention victims and those whom we are protecting. I have also mentioned
the issue of passenger name records, so I shall not go into that again.
However, it is important to remember that the Government deal with
facts, the needs of the people of this country, and victims and
criminalsnot with speculation. In many respects, I have great
respect for the Daily Mail[Interruption.] As a former
journalist, I always enjoy reading interesting newspapers. However, I
do not think that such matters are a suitable basis for a debate in
this
Committee. The
banking institutions have systems in place already to deal with such
issues, and to my knowledge they have not raised with us any problems
with them. The guidelines are published on the Home Office website, but
they do not set out the time to be spent on searches and so
onthat is a decision for individual banks. I refer the hon.
Gentleman to that
website.
Mr.
Ruffley: The Small Business Service suggested in the Home
Offices assessment that there
should be a
limit for the amount of time spent per bank per
search. That
should be in the guidelines. Does the Home Office website refer to
that, and if not, why
not?
Meg
Hillier: I just said that it does
not.
Mr.
Ruffley: But why
not?
Meg
Hillier: It is a matter for the institution to determine.
I am puzzled sometimes about where the Opposition are coming
froman Opposition who talk about rolling back state
interference, while asking for such detailed guidelines. We discuss
these matters regularly with the banking industry across government,
and if there is an issue, it will doubtless raise it with us. We are
talking about guidelines, and it is not for the Government to prescribe
every activity of private institutions. Nevertheless, it is important
that they comply with the
law.
Mr.
Ruffley: Will the Minister give
way?
Meg
Hillier: One last
time.
Mr.
Ruffley: That was not my proposal. Perhaps the Minister
would like to listen again: the Small Business Service said that
there should
be a limit for the amount of time spent per bank per
search. Why
did she not take its advice?
Meg
Hillier: It is easy to pick out one organisation asking
for one thing, but other voices offer contrary points of view. The
Government must weigh those views and opinions and come to a balanced
judgment. I repeat that, to date, there have been no requests, so I am
not sure with what the guidelines would deal. I grant it to the hon.
Gentleman that in the future, if we see this flood of requests that he
predicts, we might need to talk to the banking industry about
guidelines, but we have not yet had any requests. So I think that he is
rather over-egging the
situation.
John
Reid: Would victims of a potential terrorist attack be
deeply impressed if we told them that we had given up looking after
four days, for example, because that was the limit we had set on
investigations into the
matter?
Meg
Hillier: My right hon. Friends point speaks for
itself.
Mr.
Kilfoyle: Following on from the comments of my right hon.
Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts, does the Minister not agree
that the public will be concerned about the totally artificial time
limits proposed by the Opposition? A particular case with which I am
involved will take 12 years. It involves drugs, guns and money
laundering. It comes to court in October and it will be set down for
six weeks. There has been no artificial limit on the investigation
because when there is criminality, the public want a resolution. If
there is money laundering, does the Minister not agree that the public
expect the banks to go as far as they need to go to establish the truth
of the matter, as long as a prima facie case has been
made?
Meg
Hillier: Once again, my hon. Friend speaks more
eloquently on the issue than I could. The victims and the resolution
matter. That is what the Home Office and the Government believe, and it
is important that we respect
that. Let
me nail the numbers issue once and for all. The hon. Member for
Carshalton and Wallington raised the important issues in a calm,
measured and polite way. If we consider the total number of mutual
legal assistance requests that we currently have between the US and the
European states, we see that the larger European countries request more
from us than America currently does. On the balance of the evidence, it
is likely that we will get more requests from European states than from
the United States. I think that we can over-egg this big bad America
attitude that seems to be coming from the
Opposition. The
hon. Gentleman also asked whether any more orders were on the way. This
is the first designation under these sections. Orders for the new EU
states, which ceded after June 2006, will be dealt with but under a
slightly different procedure. There will be other European countries
coming in, but at the moment, there are no proposals for others. The
hon. Gentleman asked why we are making the change now. In the past, it
was considered that the 2003 Act, which related to overseas authorities
gaining evidence in the United Kingdom, was sufficient to meet our
treaty obligations. However, after further considerationI am
sure that
the hon. Gentleman will not want to hear details of lawyers
discussionsit was decided that it was necessary to designate
under the legislation the specific provisions of the 2003 Act to apply
to America.
On comparing
the different organisations from the US and the UK, we have
well-trodden routes with other exchanges and mutual legal assistance. I
will happily write to the hon. Gentleman if he would like details about
which organisations are involved. We are quite well practised at having
that comparability both within Europe and with other
partners. I
have covered all the points. I stress that the Government take the
matter very seriously. We need to tackle international crime, including
money laundering. It is important that we have access to information
from foreign states, and that we give such assistance to countries that
provide the relevant level of evidence and that have gone through the
safeguards that this order lays out. I commend the order to the House
and I trust that we will have cross-party
support. 3.48
pm
Mr.
Ruffley: We have had some rather interesting answers from
the Minister and we thank her for that, particularly on the number of
orders. She is right to say that if the order goes through, the
Government will monitor the number of requests that are made. When I
asked the Minister what the response would be if there were a flood of
requestsI merely suggested that there might beshe gave
us the useful answer that there would be a regulatory impact assessment
and that they would keep the situation under close scrutiny. However,
she must not feel concerned that we ask such questions. After all, that
is what parliamentary debate is about.
I conclude by
taking issue with an effort by the Minister to traduce me. There was
nothing in my remarks that could even approach being called
anti-American. The repetition of that canard by Labour Members
reinforces my feeling that we hit a raw nerve in asking some rather
difficult questions
today. On
time limits, it was wrongly implied earlier that I thought that there
would be a limit for the amount of time spent per bank per search. In
cracking down on crime and terrorism, we should not be worried about
the cost to a bank. Had the Member in question listened more carefully,
they would know that I was making a point about why that proposal was
in a Home Office document. It was not me saying that, and I am not
advocating that. I think that fighting crime and getting the villains
must come first, so I am not desperately keen on such a provision. It
was the Small Business Service in a Home Office documentin
other words, the Governmentthat
said: there
should be a limit for the amount of time spent per bank per
search. That
was Government advice, not mine. I happen to think that
wrong. I
merely asked the Minister what had happened to that advice. She gave a
straightforward answer, and I do not have any difficulty with it.
However, it is interesting when parts of government suggest something
and nothing happens. We are entitled to ask what happened to that
advice. On this occasion, I happen to think that, because there have
been no orders, it is probably a waste of time having any guidelines. I
can infer from what the Minister said that if there is a flood of
requests, those guidelines
will have to be refined, and time limits and the question of a need for
them will have to be debated at a later date. I have no difficulty with
her answer, but certainly no one on the Labour Benches should criticise
me for asking what happened to the Governments own
advice.
Mr.
Gray: Does my hon. Friend not think it odd that, in
seeking to answer his point about there possibly being a flood of
requests, the Minister went to some length to say that, in the three
years experience that we have had so far with the continent of
Europe, there have been no such requests? That raises an obvious
question about whether there are civil liberties problems, which there
may be. I do not necessarily read the Daily Mail, but it thinks
that there might be such problems. If there are, what on earth is the
point in doing this, given that there have not been any such requests
for three years
anyhow?
Mr.
Ruffley: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I have
to say that a lot of heat but not much light was generated by the
Labour Members when I suggested merely the possibility of a flood of
requests, praying in aid a report from the Daily Mail. I was
merely asking for a response. The answer was
straightforwardthere have been no orders so far, but we will
keep the matter under review. Had the Minister said that straight away,
and if the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and
Shotts, had answered in a calm and measured way, I would have had an
answer to a perfectly legitimate question. Instead, we got that
sideshow about electioneering and the rest of it. It was a
straightforward question and a relatively straightforward answer, but
we had to go around the houses to get it.
As I said when
I opened my speechI do not know if the right hon. Member for
Airdrie and Shotts was in his place at the timewe are debating
an order that reflects the fact that crime in the 21st century has no
respect for national borders, and in the case of financial or serious
organised crime, terrorist groups can now send money around the world
in an instant, in furtherance of their evil trade. My use of that
phrase clearly implied that many people sufferyes, as victims.
It is of paramount importance for those in the House passing such
legislation to make it as tough as possible. What we have been doing
today is testing the propositions and getting some questions answered
on issuesfar from clear onesraised by the order. The
Minister has done her best to answer those
questions. 3.53
pm
Meg
Hillier: I am glad that we are finishing the debate on a
calmer note than we started it on. We all agree that scrutiny is
important. I can only commend the hon. Member for Carshalton and
Wallington, and my right hon. and hon. Friends behind me, for their
calm and measured approach. I hope that we can conduct future debates
in such a way, rather than in a spirit of thunder and
lightning. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Crime (International
Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries)
(England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order
2008. Committee
rose at six minutes to Four
oclock.
|