§ Mr. BakerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidance he has given to(a) police forces and (b) MI5 in respect of the use of long-range microphones and the civil liberty implications thereof; [54193]
(2) if it is the practice that the use by (a) police and (b) MI5 of listening devices which do not require his prior authorisation, of comparable effectiveness of those which do, are used only against targets and in cases where authorisation for those listening devices which do require such authorisation might reasonably be expected to be forthcoming; and if he will make a statement; [54574]
(3) what steps he has taken to ensure that listening devices not requiring approval by warrant are not used by (a) the police and (b) MI5 to conduct exercises that would be unlikely to be approved by warrant were they conducted by listening devices that did require such authorisation; and if he will make a statement; [54573]
(4) what steps he intends to take to ensure those listening devices presently available to the police and the security services but not covered by legislation requiring specific authorisation before their use are brought within the remit of legislation to require such specific authorisation to be obtained. [54192]
§ Mr. MichaelThe deployment by the police and the Security Service of listening devices in circumstances not covered by the Intelligence Services Act 1994 or the Police Act 1977 (when implemented) is an operational matter for chief constables and the Director General respectively.
The Association of Chief Police Officers is overseeing a project to establish national standards for police and Customs activity in relation to a range of covert law enforcement activity. The Security Service operates in accordance with its statutory functions and subject to statutory oversight. In accordance with long standing policy, I do not propose to comment on matters relating to its operations, including the equipment and sensitive techniques which it employs.
Table A: Average court penalties given for offences1 of (a) causing death by dangerous driving and (b) careless driving, 1986–96 England and Wales Offence/court penalty 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Causing death by dangerous driving Immediate custody Average sentence length (months) 15.3 16.8 18.4 16.3 16.8 18.5 20.7 22.7 27.4 34.6 31.4 Careless driving Fine Average fine (£) 66 70 75 90 100 105 106 122 127 127 127 1 The data are based on instances where the offence is the principal offence Source:
Home Office Court Proceedings database
852W
§ Mr. BakerTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances warrants for interception are agreed to where the prevention or detection of serious crime is not a factor. [54575]
§ Mr. StrawThe Interception of Communications Act 1985 provides that the Secretary of State may issue an interception warrant if he considers that it is necessary in the interests of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime or for the purpose of safeguarding the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom. In deciding whether a warrant is necessary, the Secretary of State is required to consider whether the information could reasonably be acquired by other means. And, where the purpose of the warrant is to safeguard the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom, the information which is required must relate to the acts or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.