HC Deb 14 February 1996 vol 271 cc1060-73
Mr. Beith

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert— '(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, this Act shall come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, and different orders may appoint different days for different sections of this Act. (3) No order under subsection (2) above shall be made in respect of section 2 above unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that any power to be extended to, or obligation to be placed upon, the Security Service by that section is a power or obligation (as the case may be) which also extends to or is placed upon police forces.'. Amendment No. 1 relates to one of the two remaining problems with the Bill which I said have not yet been solved and it is causes particular anxiety to serving police officers. It is the fact that the Security Service will be able to use the warrant powers that it has under section 5 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 in relation to its new function of assisting the police in the pursuit of organised crime. Police officers do not have such powers, and more than one chief constable has told me that he is very unhappy about the Security Service being given powers in relation to organised crime that the police do not have.

The paradox is that, at least when the Security Service uses its powers to carry out its existing function, some safeguards are operative. If the police act in a similar way, as they have felt obliged to do over the years, they have neither proper legal powers nor a system to safeguard the public to ensure that the powers are not abused.

The problem arises primarily in relation to eavesdropping on, or interference with, property which officers need to enter to carry out their operation. Of course, it does not arise with the interception of telephones. Indeed, in a way, the system of telephone interception is a better model because, although the system has its critics, there is a parallel system operating for the police and the Security Service. However, the absence of a privacy law in this country means that various types of eavesdropping—those that do not involve entering a property—may not be illegal at all. In other words, anyone—not just the Security Service or the police—could eavesdrop for any purpose. That is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs which needs to be attended to some other time.

The Bill will directly affect the use of the power to enter property for the purpose of eavesdropping. Under the Bill, the Security Service could do that when working on organised crime, as it already can for other purposes under the Intelligence Services Act 1994. If the police and the Security Service were involved in a joint operation, it could happen that the police officers could not take that action whereas the Security Service could.

However, there is a further twist to the problem. The police do in fact carry out such activities and it is well known that they have done so for many years. They do it by getting authorisation from a chief constable or from a senior officer in the force acting on his behalf. It would be open to the Security Service to say that the police system is much simpler because the police do not have to go to the Home Secretary for a warrant but can proceed quietly with the agreement of a chief constable.

The Security Service might ask why it does not proceed on the police system. The safeguards included in the Bill would then not operate at all. That is one reason why the Bill is unsatisfactory, but the primary reason is that we are giving to the Security Service, for the purpose of its work on organised crime, a power that is accepted as necessary in some circumstances but that we are not giving to the police. From the police's point of view, that is profoundly unsatisfactory, for various reasons.

First, police officers engaged in such activities are on the very borders of the law and lay themselves open to charges of criminal or civil trespass. They can only hope that their chief constable will protect them because he has given them the authority to act in that way. Protecting them, however, simply means giving evidence in their defence or as to their good character. It does not alter the fact that they lay themselves open to criminal or civil proceedings while acting in a way in which the Security Service could have acted for the benefit of the public because it feared that some major organised criminal activity was taking place.

Secondly, when the police carry out such functions, the public are not safeguarded as they are by the Security Service warrants granted by the Home Secretary. It is my understanding that, in cases of telephone interception, the Home Secretary examines the warrants personally and that they are carefully scrutinised.

We must have a system that the police can use, that has legal authority and that safeguards the public. It is logical that the same system should be operated by the police and the Security Service when they are dealing with organised crime.

The root of the problem that we confront in the Bill is that we are dealing with the Security Service aspect before we have introduced important measures that are needed to help the police. While I argued, in the context of the recent bombing, that it would be possible to defer the Bill while further work was done, I was also thinking that I should have been happier had the Government introduced ahead of the Bill the measures that the police feel are needed.

I suspect that more could be achieved by ensuring that the national structure of the police was in order, that the NCIS was on a proper legal footing, that the Scottish Criminal Intelligence Office's relations with the NCIS were on a proper legal footing and that the warrant system was such that the police could use it properly and freely. If we had done that before introducing the Bill, we might have done more to support the police. Of course, it would also have then been much easier to slot the Bill into place.

The amendment seeks to solve the problem by deferring the bringing into effect of the Security Service's ability to use its new powers against organised crime until action has been taken to ensure that the police have parallel powers to deal with organised crime. If it is not accepted, we shall be doing the police and the public a disservice.

There can be no doubt that working on organised crime is liable to bring the Security Service into contact and possible conflict with an innocent member of the public to a much greater extent than hitherto. We ought therefore to ensure that the appropriate safeguards are in place. The Security Service has a system of safeguards, but trying to operate it alongside the system of dubious legality within which the police now carry out some surveillance operations is profoundly unsatisfactory.

In a spirit of support for the police, I ask the Home Secretary to recognise that he will not be helping the police if he continues to deny them a proper legal power to deal with organised crime and that he will make the situation more difficult and complicated if he sets the Security Service to work in this sphere in this way while the police do not have the same power.

Mr. Allason

Amendment No. 1 highlights an interesting loophole in the current cover given to intelligence officers and police officers. Interference with property is, of course, an extremely serious matter, because it is one of our principles that an Englishman's home is his castle. It is fair to say that interference with property is a right that was exercised with dubious legality before the Security Services Act 1989. Certainly, it happened on very few occasions.

I remember being told by a Security Service officer how he was involved in the search of John Vassall's flat in Dolphin square shortly before an arrest was made. It involved getting clearance from the permanent under-secretary, and the Director-General of the Security Service was biting his fingernails down to the quick, hoping that his personnel were in and out of the flat as quickly as possible without coming into contact with any members of the public.

That particular vignette illustrates how seriously the Security Service took its role on that occasion. It was a right that it exercised apparently under the royal prerogative—a very unsatisfactory state of affairs—but it did so rarely. Nowadays, of course, interference with property is a euphemism for planting bugs. That does not involve a warrant under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, or any other telephone warrant. Although only half of any telephone conversation is heard in this instance, it is an extremely useful tool for surveillance and is widely used. However, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, it becomes a very grey area when the police are involved.

Hitherto, the chief constable has been talked into issuing an interference order and has given the appropriate sanction. None of that has ever been challenged in law, but it is right that the procedure should be examined in more detail. Certainly, Security Service personnel were deeply unhappy prior to the 1989 Act. When asked what they would say if they were arrested and taken to a police station on a charge of burgling a house, they took the view that telling the charge sergeant that they had the protection of the royal prerogative would not get them very far.

The matter must be examined, especially given the new kinds of interception that are so common. Indeed, only a short time ago, a private telephone conversation was intercepted and no police action was taken even though it was clearly a most appalling invasion of privacy—albeit concerning a member of the royal family.

The matter cries out for legislation. The House owes the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed a debt of gratitude for highlighting such an important issue. The police are not happy about the state of affairs; technology has overtaken legislation.

While on the point of whether powers granted to the Security Service exceed those granted to the police, I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for a second time whether he can clarify Home Office guidelines on the use of informants. On Second Reading, I said that there are very strict rules on the use of informants and that special branch has been governed by them since a inquiry was conducted in the late 1970s. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, on joint police and Security Service operations, the Security Service will be subject to precisely the same Home Office guidelines as the police?

7 pm

Mr. Cohen

The amendment refers to the day the Act comes into force. I do not think that it should come into force until all those who should properly be consulted have been consulted. Has the Data Protection Registrar been consulted? Computing reported as recently as 18 January that the registrar's office had not been consulted and the article said that the magazine would press for the security services to be subject to the same data protection rules as the police. If the Data Protection Registrar has been consulted, what was the response?

Mr. Howard

The amendment relates to the arrangements for authorising intrusive surveillance operations by the police. At present, those operations must be personally authorised by the chief officer of police in accordance with Home Office guidelines. There is no evidence that the system is being abused, and I believe that it has served us well. The Government accept, however, that it needs to be brought up to date. On Second Reading, I was happy to say that a statutory system would be preferable. That was a recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee, and I do not dispute it.

To that end, we are discussing the options with the Association of Chief Police Officers and other interested parties. It is not straightforward; many complex issues must be resolved before we are in a position to present robust and workable proposals that do not inhibit the operation and effectiveness of the police. I can assure the House that the matter is being given urgent attention. We will bring forward proposals at the earliest opportunity, but we want to get it right.

The amendment does nothing to prevent chief officers from continuing to authorise such operations under the present administrative arrangements. It would merely prevent the Security Service from applying for property warrants in respect of its new serious crime function.

The amendment strikes me as being a very strange solution to a problem, which may affect police operations, since it seeks to deny the Security Service the right to a power equivalent to that possessed by the police when that power has a firm statutory basis, when it requires the personal authorisation of the Secretary of State, and when the exericise of it is scrutinised by an independent commissioner.

Mr. Beith

I hope that the Home Secretary will recognise that the narrow nature of the amendment is a direct result of the title of the Bill. If he had titled the Bill so that amendments on the police use of surveillance powers could have been tabled, the amendment would have covered the matter much more effectively.

Mr. Howard

That may be, but the fact remains that to say that we should not allow the Security Service to operate in a different way under the supervision of the holder of my office in the way I have just described is an extraordinary approach to a problem which the right hon. Gentleman has identified, which I acknowledge exists, and which affects the operations conducted by the police.

Throughout debates on the Bill, we have had cause to return to the key principles that will govern the involvement of the Security Service in work against serious crime. There has been a welcome consensus among hon. Members that those key principles represent a very sensible basis on which to proceed. I should like to return to one of those principles. The Security Service should be able to draw on its full range of skills, capabilities and expertise. The amendment is directly counter to that agreed principle, because it would deny the Security Service the ability to use all its skills and capabilities.

Property warrants are used to authorise very intrusive actions, and clearly there must be rigorous controls on their use. We have those controls in place and they have worked very effectively in other functions of the Security Service. I do not accept any insinuation that the Security Service and the police will conspire to take advantage of the temporary differences between their respective safeguards. I would not expect chief constables to authorise intrusive surveillance operations for which a ministerial warrant could be obtained; nor would I expect the Security Service to flout the safeguards that surround its work.

We will bring forward proposals on new arrangements for the police as soon as we are ready to do so. To suggest that in the meantime we should all be deprived of the full extent of the contribution of the Security Service to the fight against serious organised crime seems gratuitously damaging and entirely unnecessary.

My right hon. Friend the Minister will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) in response to the point that he raised, setting out the different guidelines that the Security Service has for its agents and those under which the police operate. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), my understanding is that consultations have taken place with the Data Protection Registrar.

It is perhaps characteristic of the Liberal Democrat party to advance half-baked solutions to a range of problems. The amendment is only quarter-baked, and I invite the House to reject it.

Mr. Straw

This important issue was raised on Second Reading, and I welcome the assurance that the Secretary of State gave that it will be examined in detail. Although I make no criticism of the way in which the matters have been dealt with up to now, the Secretary of State will be aware, and it is widely understood, that some chief constables are anxious about the new circumstances.

The amendment does not seem to be the most felicitously worded amendment that has ever been before the House. I welcome what the Secretary of State has said, so I certainly do not put on record our support for the amendment.

Mr. Beith

If anything was gratuitous, it was the Home Secretary's attempt to launch a political attack on an issue that the Intelligence and Security Committee felt should be resolved in the Bill: warranting powers for the Security Service that the police do not have. The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that the Bill was drafted in such a way as to preclude inclusion of, or a debate on, an amendment that would have conferred that proper balance of powers. The only way in which we could secure a debate on the Floor of the House on that important principle, which was made clear in the Intelligence and Security Committee's report, was to table an amendment that was in order. One of the Home Secretary's colleagues, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), pointed out that it was desirable that the House should have such a debate. The debate has focused attention on an issue that remains a problem.

I am glad that the Home Secretary acknowledged that the problem exists, indicated that he was looking for a way to resolve it in discussion with ACPO, does not wish the Security Service to be precluded from using its powers, which, as I have conceded, are the subject of useful safeguards, and recognises that the amendment does not stop chief officers continuing to act in the way they are now doing, whether or not that is legal.

It would have been open to the Home Secretary all along to resolve the problem before dealing with the rest of the Bill. If the Home Secretary's or the Prime Minister's speech at party conference had included such resounding words as, "We will give the police the powers that they need to crack down on organised crime," there would still have been the same almost automatic cheer from the delegates at the conference, and a piece of legislation designed to serve that purpose would have appeared in the legislative timetable. It would have been a simple matter for the Home Secretary to adjust his speech accordingly. I am sure that he could have secured the agreement of the Leader of the House. We are dealing with a serious problem which senior police officers also regard as serious. In that respect, the Home Secretary has let down the police.

Mr. Howard

The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. It may have been a simple matter to adjust my speech, but it would have been far from simple to adjust the legislation. The police, contrary to the impression given by the right hon. Gentleman, understand that. We are in discussion with the Association of Chief Police Officers. The police understand and recognise the importance of taking care over this matter, not rushing it, and getting it right. That is why they entirely understand the position that we have reached in relation to the timing of the legislation. Therefore, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw any suggestion that the police are thirsting for the inclusion of powers in this legislation. On the contrary, they understand the need to take care and get it right.

Mr. Beith

We should get all the legislation right, including this Bill. In Committee, I quoted a chief constable who expressed his strong reservations about powers being given to the Security Service in the context of organised crime that were not being given to the police. That is on the record of the Committee's proceedings and the Home Secretary can read it.

As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said during the passage of the Bill, in some respects the process has been taken in the wrong order. That is why we are in our present position. That underlines the urgency of dealing with the need for appropriate police powers in this area. No amendment to the Bill could achieve that, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw this one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Michael

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 24, at end add— `(3) Section 1 of the Act shall be repealed twenty four months after the Act has come into force in accordance with subsection (2) above unless the body known at the time of this Act receiving Royal Assent as the National Criminal Intelligence Service is within that period established upon a statutory basis and the person appointed as chief officer of that body is or was a chief constable who has been designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3B) of section 2 of the Security Service Act 1989.'. The amendment seeks to provide a proper legislative framework for the National Criminal Intelligence Service. It follows my earlier suggestion that a chief constable should be designated by the Home Secretary to be the guardian at the gate; to be the individual who agrees the arrangements under which the assistance of the Security Service can be given to the police in the fight against organised crime. The Home Secretary has promised to designate the chief constable who heads the NCIS as that individual and we support that.

On Second Reading, the Home Secretary promised to put the NCIS on a proper statutory basis. We welcome that announcement, too. The amendment simply seeks a time scale for it to be brought to fruition. It would be sensible for the Home Secretary to set as a target the next Parliament, if not this one.

If the Government bring forward proposals expeditiously to put the NCIS on a statutory basis, they will have the Opposition's co-operation in the same atmosphere of maturity and sensible discussion as has characterised debate on this Bill. Both sides of the House should be able to co-operate with such an arrangement, so there is no reason for a long delay.

We hope that the Minister will either accept the amendment or set a target for achieving proper incorporation of the NCIS into statute during the course of next year.

7.15 pm
Mr. Maclean

I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment, but it would be unwise to pursue it. Throughout the Bill's passage, we have stressed that the involvement of the Security Service is part of a wider co-ordinated package of measures for tackling organised crime. I confirm that putting the NCIS on a clearer statutory footing is a fundamental part of the wider package. The Government have made a clear commitment to act on this, in parallel with the creation of a national crime squad to supplement the work being done by the existing regional crime squads.

I can assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that the Government want to legislate on those matters as soon as possible. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, we hope to be in a position to introduce such legislation in the next Session, but these are complex matters, and many important questions are still to be resolved. We are currently engaged in discussions with ACPO and others on these points. It is important that the timing of that legislation should be determined by an agreement on the way forward and not by an artificially imposed deadline.

The amendment also seeks to reinforce the fact that the person to be designated by the Home Secretary for the purpose of agreeing co-ordination arrangements will be the Director-General of the NCIS. That is also something on which the Government have given a clear commitment. In Committee, I said that it is our firm intention to designate the director-general, emphasising the pivotal co-ordinating role that the NCIS is to play. I am happy to restate that commitment for the benefit of the House.

The amendment seeks to give statutory form to two clear commitments from the Government. Naturally, therefore, I would not demur from the underlying principles, but I would suggest that the amendment is unnecessary and would not enhance the Bill.

Mr. Beith

The Minister, perhaps for the purposes of shorthand, left a little unclear the situation with regard to Scotland. The Scottish Criminal Intelligence Office will continue to have a crucial role in Scotland and the NCIS will have to act as the funnel—if I may use the Minister's expression—through which co-ordination takes place, but all that needs to be part of the statutory basis on which the NCIS is set up.

The NCIS has no formal role in Northern Ireland at present, so it rests on some sort of liaison arrangement between its head and the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, unless some new arrangement is devised in statute. It is upon that somewhat shaky framework that some of the linkages in the Bill have to rest. The Minister must be aware of the concern.

Having said that, it would be churlish of me not to thank the Minister for the helpful way in which he has responded to many amendments and for the way in which he has managed to exclude partisan considerations in a way that the Home Secretary was not able to do.

Mr. Michael

The right hon. Gentleman manages to confuse rather than clarify the important issue that we have been trying to debate in the Chamber tonight.

I am pleased that the Minister has expressed the hope and intention of legislating next year, and I hope that he will keep to that. If, as has been our experience in the past few weeks, the Minister continues to listen to the Opposition as well as to ACPO, he will be able to achieve legislation in the coming Session without difficulty. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

7.18 pm
Mr. Howard

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Consideration of the Bill has been marked by overwhelming support for the principles that lie behind it. Almost without exception, everyone has recognised that it is sensible to bring the particular skills and expertise that the Security Service possesses into the battle against organised crime in support of the law enforcement agencies.

The House needs no reminding of the menace that organised crime presents, and it is essential that we deploy all the resources that are available to combat it. I am grateful for the positive attitude that has been demonstrated on the Opposition and for their constructive support for the Bill.

When I opened the Second Reading debate, I set out the principles by which the involvement of the Security Service against serious and organised crime would be governed. No one has disputed those principles, but some concern was expressed that the original form of the Bill did not make them as explicit as it might. Accordingly, the Government brought forward two important amendments in Committee—both of which enjoyed all-party support, for which I am grateful.

The first of the amendments, to clause 1(1), makes it explicit that the work of the Security Service in preventing and detecting serious crime will be carried out in support of the activities of the law enforcement agencies. There was never any doubt in our minds that primacy had to remain with the law enforcement agencies, because they have the leading role in the fight against serious crime. That has been made clear in the Bill.

The second amendment relates to the provision dealing with co-ordination arrangements. The Bill has now been amended to make it clear that the co-ordination arrangements will need to be agreed between the Director-General of the Security Service and a designated person who holds, or who has held, the office of chief officer of police. I intended to designate the Director-General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service for this purpose.

We hope to introduce legislation shortly to put the NCIS on a more clearly defined statutory footing and to enable us to enshrine in statute that the designated person should be the Director-General of the NCIS. In making this amendment, we are giving effect to one of the key principles that underlie the Bill—that the contribution of the Security Service will be co-ordinated through the NCIS and existing structures and that it will not operate independently.

This is a better Bill as a result of the amendments that were made to it in Committee. The primacy of the law enforcement agencies is now firmly enshrined in it. Beyond that, the provision relating to co-ordination arrangements, while not hampering the operational effectiveness of the Security Service, means that the director-general will not be able to settle on arrangements that do not meet the requirements of the agencies that the Security Service will support. We believe that we have substantially met the concerns that were expressed at an earlier stage by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

The Bill has enjoyed all-party support, and I hope that that will continue as it makes its way through another place. I look forward to being able to bring it into force as soon as practicable. Once enacted, the Bill will be an important tool in the fight against organised crime, which is a menace to society. It is vital that we bring all the available resources to bear against it.

The skills and experience of the Security Service have an important role to play when it comes to taking on drug traffickers, racketeers and money launderers. We must never forget that such criminals, though they may be far removed from their victims, cause human misery and suffering on a vast scale. They may be callous about the effects of their crimes but, when we see the effects in our constituencies, there can be no doubt that we must attach the highest priority to combating this evil menace.

The Bill represents the first element in a package of strong and effective measures against organised crime. By bringing it forward now, we are demonstrating that we are not prepared to delay in concentrating as much as effort as possible against those responsible for serious and organised crime.

I commend the Bill to the House.

7.22 pm
Mr. Straw

On Second Reading, I said that the Labour party supports both the purpose and the principle of the Bill, and I am glad to reiterate that support tonight. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for what he said about the constructive attitude that has been shown towards the Bill. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and to other of my hon. Friends who served on the Standing Committee for their support of the Bill.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for their approach to the two amendments that my hon. Friend moved in Committee. Their amendments related to the Security Service's support of the police, who will continue to have a lead role, and to the arrangements for the tasking of the Security Service in this new and important area of work.

The Secretary of State referred to the dangers of organised crime. Sadly, all hon. Members have constituents who are addicted to hard drugs. The people who peddle those drugs in our constituencies are often only small-time drug dealers, but behind them lie highly organised criminal gangs. We have not yet reached the situation—I pray that we never will—where organised crime is a threat to our national security, but we do not have to look to Latin America or to Africa to see what can happen if organised crime goes unchecked. We need only look to a fellow member state of the European Union—to Italy—to see what can happen if organised crime is allowed to go unchecked.

Organised crime is a cancer that threatens the stability of society as well as the security of the nation. The Bill represents an important development in the fight against organised crime. I hope that we have reflected people's anxieties about the work of the security and intelligence services. Striking the balance right between allowing their work to continue effectively and ensuring proper civil liberties is always difficult. The Bill—although not perfect—has managed to achieve that balance. The Labour party also commends the Bill to the House.

7.25 pm
Mr. Beith

On Second Reading, the Liberal Democrats expressed support for the purpose of the Bill but expressed reservations on a number of key points—echoing reservations that had been expressed by the Intelligence and Security Committee, strongly supported by chief constables and police officers. Unusually, two of the crucial reservations were met in Committee, and I agree that the Bill has been substantially improved as a result.

Of the remainder of the reservations, one rests heavily—it is a tenuous thread—on the ability of the Government to bring forward legislation in the next Session to achieve the legal status of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the provision of warranting powers for the police for interventions on property. The Government have made their intentions clear, and there appears to be no disagreement, in principle, on those points. It remains to be seen whether the Government will deliver that legislation.

I remain dissatisfied with the way in which complaints by the public are dealt with. It will be necessary for the other place to examine further that point during its consideration of the Bill. We are not talking about a major project. Although the Home Secretary got a little excited in his Third Reading speech, throughout most of the Bill, Ministers have made it clear that any transfer of resources involved at this stage is likely to be small, and that there will be no transfer if it is to the detriment of the battle against terrorism, particularly in the light of the IRA's renewed activities on the mainland.

The Bill is potentially helpful to the police in cracking down on some of the most sinister and dangerous organised crime, perpetrated by a limited number of gangs. We hope that that help can be brought to bear effectively, because it would be misleading to suggest to the public that this is a brave new world, or to create fears that the Security Service will be unleashed in a massive and intrusive involvement in every aspect of people's lives. The purpose of the debates on the Bill has been to get some of those details and safeguards right. My party is pleased that significant progress was made, although some matters remain unresolved.

7.27 pm
Mr. Allason

No one can doubt the determination of every hon. Member to fight crime. We must welcome the Bill if it does anything to decrease crime on our streets, to remove the drug dealers and to deal with the money launderers. However, I have some reservations about the proposition that 20 or 30 Security Service officers—who have probably never given evidence in court and who have no knowledge or experience of collecting evidence for presentation in court—will have the analytical skills that can be deployed against professional criminals.

It was clear from the Second Reading debate that, in some ways, the Security Service has run out of things to do—or certainly thought it had prior to the events of last week. It is unpalatable that the catalyst for this exercise has not been a long and carefully thought out strategy against organised crime, but an examination of the Security Service to see whether its surveillance techniques, personnel and other clandestine skills can be deployed against professional criminals. The truth is that, at the end of the cold war and during the Provisional IRA ceasefire, there was seen to be a capacity available for deployment elsewhere. I doubt whether the Bill will do a great deal of good in the fight against organised crime, but I am certainly aware of everybody's determination to fight crime.

Perhaps the nettle that has not been grasped is the real one—whether the other intelligence agencies that already play a role in countering international drug smuggling and money laundering should not better adopt the role. In 1945, there was a proposal and a firm intention to integrate the Secret Intelligence Service and the Security Service. That is why the building in Horseferry road, now the Department of the Environment, was originally built. There was to be a single integrated service, because it was believed that there was no geographical distinction in terms of counter-intelligence.

The Secret Intelligence Service has for many years been carrying out a great deal of extremely good work in countering international drug smugglers. Its work has been unacknowledged but it is a past master, recognized by the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency as being in command of a great deal of knowledge relating to money laundering, particularly in the Caribbean. I want to pay tribute to those officers who have risked their lives overseas by making inquiries, delving into bank accounts and liaising with local forces in order to deal with that menace.

Although I wish the Bill well, I have considerable doubts about whether 20 or 30 officers will do the slightest bit of good. I urge the Intelligence and Security Committee to take a long hard look at the role of the Secret Intelligence Service and the Security Service in the future.

7.31 pm
Mr. Mullin

Like the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), I wish to register one or two small reservations about the Bill which I have had from the outset. It is true that it has been improved in Committee, but not all the problems have been solved. The problem is—it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Torbay and others during our deliberations—that a large part of the security apparatus has run out of things to do, and search parties have had to be sent out to find something useful for it to do.

If any other Government Department had run out of things to do, redundancies would have been declared and public money would have been saved. That is not the way things appear to happen in the security services, which have always been fairly lavish with public money, anyway. Those whose services were no longer required would be free to reapply to the police or wherever it was though that their talents could be used.

I do not dispute that some of the talents of the security services may be of use in fighting organised crime and, if so, that is how they should be deployed, but the relevant personnel should be transferred to the police so that they come under the authority of the police and are subject to the rule of law and the accountability—imperfect though it is—to which the police are subject. That is what should have happened.

It has been said several times during our deliberations that only 20 or 30 personnel will be involved. That may well be the case now, but the Bill opens up the possibility that in years to come several hundred people employed by the security services may be deployed in that way. The Bill that we are about to pass will be the authority for that. Who knows what those people may get up to or what difficulties may arise in, for example, giving evidence in a court of law?

I say the same as the hon. Member for Torbay. The Intelligence and Security Committee should monitor carefully how things work out with the 20 or 30 personnel. It should also monitor whether there is scope for saving some public money. If it thinks that there is, it should not hesitate to say so. This may be a subject to which the House will have to return if things do not work out as well as we all hope.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Back to