Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

I am not making a false argument. The argument that I am using is the argument used by the House of Lords in its judgment with respect to McCann. The application of that judgment to serious crime prevention orders will be particularly useful. In schedule 1, we have laid out a list of the offences that we regard as serious. As hon. Members have pointed out, the list is not exhaustive, but we think that it will be an important guide as to what we mean when we talk about serious crime. Moving on from serious crime prevention orders, a number of issues will obviously be debated in Committee. We expect there to be a full debate and, following that debate, we will have an extremely useful additional tool to combat serious crime. The data sharing and data matching proposals will make a significant difference in detecting and preventing fraud. We are involved in close discussions. As hon. Members will know, because we have set up meetings between all hon. Members and the Information Commissioner, the Information Commission is broadly satisfied with the proposals in the Bill. We will continue to consult with the Information Commissioner to make sure that that continues to be the case. Many of our constituents will be surprised that some of the data sharing that the Bill allows—to prevent and detect fraud—is not already allowed. Rather than be concerned about the implications of the measures, as some hon. Members are, they will wonder why those measures have taken so long to come about. Of course, we have to have the appropriate safeguards, but this is about using information technology and the various means at our disposal to deal with serious crime. Hon. Members have mentioned the merger of ARA and SOCA. Many of the current clients—if I can put it that way—of the Assets Recovery Agency are people who are involved with serious crime. The synthesis and merger of those two agencies will benefit law enforcement when it comes to taking assets from criminals, whether through the civil recovery route or the enhanced powers that we intend to give others through changes to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Many of our constituents would want us to continue the improvements in practice when it comes to taking ill-gotten gains from criminals. My hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter Terrorism and Police dealt with the question of the use of intercept as evidence. No doubt that will be the subject of further debate in Committee. We intend to remove from the Bill Lord Marlesford’s amendment on guns, which we regard as disproportionate. The Association of Chief Police Officers supports the Government’s position. Lord Marlesford’s amendment is unnecessary. Hon. Members who are concerned about the Government’s attitude to civil liberties should note that we believe that what Lord Marlesford’s amendment does—it allows a police constable, on his own, to designate an area, unspecified in size, in which to stop and search and/or question anybody—is disproportionate and an infringement of our civil liberties. I ask hon. Members who have talked about civil liberties to look carefully at that amendment. I have rattled through my speech, under pressure to be as succinct as possible, but I do not want to disguise the fact that this is an extremely important Bill that will make a serious and significant difference to our ability to tackle serious crime, which is something on which we can all agree. I look forward to the debate in Committee as we seek to improve the Bill still further. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.