Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 94, in

clause 36, page 21, line 17, after 'into', insert 'serious'.

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 97, in

clause 41, page 23, line 12, after 'into', insert 'serious'.

Amendment No. 98, in

clause 44, page 26, line 4, at end insert 'serious'.

Amendment No. 99, in

clause 44, page 26, line 12, after 'into', insert 'serious'.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Amendments Nos. 94 and 97 go together, because amendment No. 97 would have the same effect on clause 41 for Scotland as amendment No. 94 would have on clause 36. Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 would have the same effect on clause 44.

Opposition Members suggest that the powers should apply only to investigations into serious criminal conduct. An important point is involved. A great deal of criminal conduct is low level. Although it is still crime and still important, and nothing that I say will suggest that it should not be investigated, we are talking about a quite serious erosion of customers' privacy and the banker-customer relationship of privacy and confidentiality. That should not be eroded unless the criminal conduct being investigated is serious.

We all understand that, if there is major international financial fraud, there has to be a way in which the state has power to look into customers' accounts. However, we do not want the Bill to become a state snooper's charter. That goes back to the point made by my noble Friend Viscount Bridgeman in the debate in another place to which I referred earlier. We want to ensure that there cannot be massive fishing expeditions by the forces of the state. We want to support the work of the police, but the way in which we can protect the traditional banker-customer relationship of privacy and confidentiality is by ensuring that it is eroded or impinged on by the Bill only if serious criminal conduct is being investigated. That is why we say that it would be an important protection to insert the word ''serious''.

I hope that the Minister will not resist the amendment, because it would provide clarification in the Bill to keep the balance right and a sense of

proportionality. The Minister's predecessors as Home Office Ministers were often given briefs that said, ''We need to keep a sense of proportion.'' Proportionality has been a buzzword for Ministers in this Government. Opposition Members say that if the word ''serious'' were inserted in the Bill as a restriction, so that an investigation could take place only when serious criminal conduct was being examined, a sense of proportion would be kept. As I said, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Ms Caroline Flint (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (reducing organised and international crime, anti drugs co-ordination and international and European issues), Home Office; Don Valley, Labour)

This group of amendments would impose a requirement that requests for account monitoring orders be limited to investigations into serious criminal conduct. Such conduct is defined in clause 46(3). That is included to provide a definition for the serious forms of criminality specified in article 1(3) of the protocol.

During negotiation of the protocol, it was recognised that requests to trace accounts would place significant demands on the resources of banks in countries without central registers of accounts and that there was therefore a need for proportionality between the crime in question and the measure requested. The protocol explicitly states that the obligation to assist under article 1 is limited to those cases that we have for simplicity described as those involving serious criminal conduct.

However, a parallel restriction in relation to account monitoring is not appropriate. Requests for monitoring will be targeted at an already identified account, so they will not place such a burden on banks. Also, we can already provide historical details of activity in identified accounts in response to overseas requests, even without the new legislation. The article does not oblige us to agree to all account monitoring requests and the clauses are drafted so that we can keep a degree of discretion. We are obliged only to assist in accordance with our international obligation. Therefore we can impose any restrictions upon provision of the assistance provided that they are not contrary to that obligation. Account monitoring requests will be subject to general considerations, such as proportionality, and the Secretary of State may refuse to execute the request if he does not think that monitoring of an account is appropriate. In our view the present drafting maintains sufficient discretion while still ensuring that we can meet our international obligations, and enables us to request assistance in a wide range of circumstances.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I was slightly surprised not to hear the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome speak on the amendment, not least because his noble and learned Friend Lord Goodhart initiated some of the debates in another place. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats have decided this morning that they will not contribute.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

Is it not possible that the hon. Gentleman's argument was sufficiently adequate for it not to be necessary for me to speak?

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and if that is the case, I am flattered.

The Minister has reassured us. There has been quite a lot of debate on the matter, involving not only Lord Goodhart, but a number of my noble Friends, including Viscount Bridgeman and Lord Renton. There is an important point to be made, but I hear what the Minister says about the fact that we are discussing account monitoring of an already identified account. In the light of that, I do not seek to pursue the argument again today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 37 and 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.