|
Column Number: 273
Standing Committee A
Thursday 19 June 2003
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]
Clause 82
Foreign surveillance operations
2.30 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): I beg to move amendment No. 74, in
clause 82, page 55, line 46, leave out 'for all purposes'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 73, in
clause 82, page 55, line 44, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (5A),'.
Amendment No. 75, in
Mr. Hawkins: Good afternoon, Mr. Hurst. I welcome you back to the Chair. We had an interesting debate this morning, as no doubt you will have heard from your co-Chairman, Mr. Benton. It was on the biggest issue so far between the two sides of the Committee. Given that we are still discussing clause 82, I thought that the Minister, slightly uncharacteristically, was a little churlish. I know that she has to behave in such a way on instructions, but it is not typical of her. I should have thought that the Government had had enough constitutional crises for one week, given the botched reshuffle and what I thought was an appalling music hall turn by the Prime Minister yesterday, when he did not take the dignity of Parliament at all seriously.
I am sure that, on reflection, the Minister will concentrate on the more genteel and gentle part of her speech when she offered to look at the matter, and that we shall return to the usual courtesies between the two sides of the Committee. They were perhaps better represented by the information of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), who had an interesting and serious point to make, than by other members of the Committee on the Government's side.
The Chairman: Order. We are dealing with business yet to come, rather than past business.
Mr. Hawkins: Thank you, Mr. Hurst. I turn now to amendments Nos. 73, 74 and 75. We have had such a detailed debate this morning and so much ground was covered, that I can probably speak briefly not only to this group of amendments, but subsequent groups. That will probably suit the Minister, the Whip and other members of the Committee. The three
Column Number: 274
amendments run together. They would ensure that hot surveillance in the United Kingdom was lawful only if it was lawful under the UK law if carried out not by a foreign police or Customs officer, but a British officer. We want the Bill to state explicitly that overseas police or Customs officers must at all times stick to the same rules of lawful surveillance as our police or Customs officers. I do not want to repeat all that has been said about the clause, but surely that must be the better option.
There is a danger that if the Bill was unamended, the Government could end up with a lot of egg on their face. I referred earlier to the investigations into the Brinks-Mat case and the tragic consequences of the murder of a police officer. The Minister did not seem to understand my argument this morning, so I shall briefly stress it again. I have had a personal briefing with the detective chief superintendent at Scotland Yard, who was in charge of the case. Even in the most serious criminal investigations when the greatest possible care was taken, as it was in the Brinks-Mat case, things can still go wrong.
This morning, the Minister was praying in aid, as part of her argument in defence of the Government's position, that due to the fact that only the most expert surveillance officers of the most serious crime would be involved, care would be taken. I then referred to the case of Kenneth Noye, who murdered a police officer who was acting properly while undertaking covert surveillance. That operation should not have gone wrong, but it did because the police were dealing with a serious and violent criminal.
I have had discussions with senior law enforcement officers from America whom I met during the Easter recess when I was in Greece. I was there in my capacity as a shadow Home Office Minister, meeting our ambassador and consul in Greece to discuss the serious case of the British lorry driver who had been arrested in Patras because illegal immigrants had been found in his lorry. He was put on trial within hours of his arrest. He was not given an English-speaking lawyer. A jeweller who spoke some English was pressed into service as the court interpreter. The lorry driver, David Wilson, was sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. That showed our concerns about foreign jurisdictions even within the European Union, but that is a point to which we shall return under other legislation.
While I was in Greece, by coincidence I met a couple of senior sheriffs from America, who were in Greece to try to extradite someone back to that country for the most serious offences of counterfeiting and drugs smuggling. They were from Tocoma in Washington state. They said that they were happy for me to use the international experiences that they described as examples when we debated matters of international co-operation and extradition.
The sheriffs said that we must be aware that, however careful the forces of law and order may be, things can still go wrong. I hope that, the second time around, the Minister will understand my argument. It is a response to her praying in aid in support of the Government's position that such matters are serious and will always be dealt with carefully. I accept that
Column Number: 275
they will be, but things can still go wrong. That is why additional safeguards are needed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): Thank you and welcome back to our proceedings, Mr. Hurst.
Surveillance in the United Kingdom is strictly governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—RIPA. The purpose of inserting proposed new section 76A(5) is to make lawful under both European convention on human rights and United Kingdom law cross-border surveillance operations that have originated in other Schengen states. That type of surveillance would not contravene the fundamental rights protected by ECHR and UK law.
The amendment would require the lawfulness of the surveillance to be conditional on similar surveillance being lawful if undertaken in the UK. However, under the Schengen convention, the surveillance must be automatically lawful in the UK, provided that it was lawful in the country in which it started and that it meets the conditions specified under article 40.2. The amendment goes against the concept of automatic authorisation and that is why we resist it.
It is important to remember that surveillance will be automatically authorised only in limited circumstances. First, it must be lawful in the country of origin. Foreign officers will be obliged to contact UK police as soon as the border has been crossed. Secondly, that type of urgent surveillance may carried out only if the person under surveillance is suspected of having committed one or more of a limited number of serious offences, including murder, manslaughter, rape, arson, aggravated burglary and robbery, extortion, kidnapping, trafficking in human beings, illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and so on.
Thirdly, cross-border surveillance under the Bill will be subject to strict conditions reflecting the wording of the Schengen convention. Those conditions include the ban on foreign officers conducting surveillance on private property. The phrase ''lawful for all purposes'' does not mean that foreign officers can disregard UK law. Article 40 of the Schengen convention states that officers carrying out surveillance in another member state must comply with the laws of the territory in which they are operating.
We are satisfied that the safeguards in place are sufficient and that there is nothing to be gained by foreign officers conducting unauthorised or unlawful surveillance, since that would undermine the relationships that are essential for the effective functioning of the Schengen convention.
Mr. Hawkins: I hear what the Minister says. Obviously, she has a Government brief from her officials that she has to stick to. I do not want to detain the Committee by pressing the matters further, because a lot of ground was covered by the debate that we had before lunch. However, I am sure that she understands that there are still matters, including the previous vote on which we disagreed. I do not think that any purpose would be served by taking the matter
Column Number: 276
any further today. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 77, in
clause 82, page 56, line 7, at end insert—
'(5A) Nothing in this section shall render lawful the carrying of a firearm within the United Kingdom by a foreign police or customs officer except with the permission of either—
(a) the Secretary of State acting personally, or
(b) a chief officer of police acting personally.
(5B) the permission to carry a firearm referred to in subsection (5A) may only be given in circumstances in which it would be given to a constable acting under the law of the United Kingdom.
(5C) Where the permission to carry a firearm is given to a foreign police or customs officer under this section, then that firearm may only be used reasonably and in self-defence.'.
|
