Clause 2: Authorities to be capable of authorising criminal conduct
Amendment 63 Moved by 63: Clause 2, page 4, leave out lines 10 to
23 Member’s explanatory statement: This amendment would restrict
the authorities that can grant criminal conduct authorisations to
police forces, the National Crime Agency the Serious Fraud Office
and the intelligence services. Lord Paddick (LD): Our Amendment 63
would limit those public authorities that can grant CCAs to the
police, the National Crime...Request free trial
Clause 2: Authorities to be capable of authorising criminal
conduct
Amendment 63
Moved by
63: Clause 2, page 4, leave out lines 10 to 23
Member’s explanatory statement: This amendment would restrict the
authorities that can grant criminal conduct authorisations to
police forces, the National Crime Agency the Serious Fraud
Office and the intelligence services.
(LD):
Our Amendment 63 would limit those public authorities that
can grant CCAs to the police, the National Crime Agency the Serious
Fraud Office and the intelligence services, as it appears to us to
be self-evident why these organisations may need to grant authority
to agents or informants to commit crime. The other public
authorities require justification, hence my request that noble
Lords be able to see the business case justifying each of the other
public authorities, albeit redacted and viewed in private...
(Lab) [V]: ...Like my noble friend, I speak
as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It seems to me
that authorisation that goes beyond the police, the National Crime Agency the Serious
Fraud Office and the intelligence services is a step too far. There
has to be clear indication by the Government as to why such
authorisations are necessary; so far, that indication has not been
forthcoming. The list of agencies covered by this provision is so
wide—not just Customs and Excise, the Environment Agency, the Food
Standards Agency and many other bodies. There is no justification
for extending the provisions of the Bill to that extent...
(Con) [V]:...On reflection, as my noble friend has said, I prefer Amendment 63 but would like to speak
to the amendments I have tabled for the purposes of debate today:
Amendments 67 and 68 and to oppose the Question that Clause 2 stand
part of the Bill. I have absolutely no argument that the bodies
listed in categories A1 to E1 of new Part A1—any police force,
the National Crime Agency the Serious
Fraud Office, any of the intelligence services and any of Her
Majesty’s forces—should not automatically be considered for
preferment and allowed to fall under the provisions of this Bill. I
assume that that was primarily what was in mind when the Bill was
initially drafted...
The Minister of State, Home Office ()
(Con):...To speak to the point made by my noble
friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering on just using the
police—notwithstanding the points made by my noble friend Lord King
and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—the recently established Joint
Unit for Waste Crime, which is hosted and led by the Environment
Agency, brings together various agencies such as the
NCA, the police, HMRC and others to share
intelligence in a multiagency way, as quite often happens, and
crack down on organised crime groups using the waste sector. I am
happy to point out that it has already had a number of operational
successes...
To read the whole debate,
CLICK
HERE
|
